MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: on DT Delete images over 4 years or give them away?  (Read 10567 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2013, 14:00 »
+1
So who is it that gives these images away?

People who don't know any better and people who haven't changed their default setting and their images get dumped in the free bin by default without them even really knowing.


« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2013, 14:13 »
0
So who is it that gives these images away?

People who don't know any better and people who haven't changed their default setting and their images get dumped in the free bin by default without them even really knowing.

I believe the default is "delete"

« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2013, 14:21 »
-1
fwiw - DT now offers $.10 per download for images > websized in the free section.  so there's at least some reason to consider letting 4 yr old images into the free section -- compare this with Yay & other sites that pay only $.10 or so on sales thru partner sites

jareso

  • Boris Jaroscak
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2013, 14:40 »
0
I also have some images older than 4 years and because DT announced their new paid approach to free images I decided to give my old images to free section by default just out of curiosity to see whether they will be downloaded under this new DT free/paid scheme.
Yes, I realize prices are somehow low at this new DT free/paid scheme, but I want to see what impact if ever will this new DT free/paid scheme have on my regular sales and sales of my free images.
(And than I will act accordingly. Keep them free, or delete them later, based on my observations.)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 14:46 by jareso »

« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2013, 15:34 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:16 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #30 on: April 26, 2013, 06:31 »
+3
fwiw - DT now offers $.10 per download for images > websized in the free section.  so there's at least some reason to consider letting 4 yr old images into the free section -- compare this with Yay & other sites that pay only $.10 or so on sales thru partner sites

.10 per download is still free and an insult. If it was good enough to pass the review process, it is worth more than a dime. Sub sales at .25 - .35 are bad enough. Why work for free??
-Larry

« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2013, 02:17 »
+2
I'm amazed by how badly DT do with some images that sell well elsewhere.  I don't think deleting images does them or us any good.  We would get some money from those images over the years and buyers might join DT after finding a link while searching for an image they want.  If that image has been removed, that's a buyer DT has lost and another site will probably gain.

I think that's why SS and istock don't delete old images.  They know they still have some potential to make them money, even if it isn't through direct sales.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2013, 05:49 »
+2
fwiw - DT now offers $.10 per download for images > websized in the free section.  so there's at least some reason to consider letting 4 yr old images into the free section -- compare this with Yay & other sites that pay only $.10 or so on sales thru partner sites

.10 per download is still free and an insult. If it was good enough to pass the review process, it is worth more than a dime. Sub sales at .25 - .35 are bad enough. Why work for free??
-Larry
+1
10c is basically free.
heck, 25c is basically free!


WarrenPrice

« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2013, 10:22 »
0
I'm amazed by how badly DT do with some images that sell well elsewhere.  I don't think deleting images does them or us any good.  We would get some money from those images over the years and buyers might join DT after finding a link while searching for an image they want.  If that image has been removed, that's a buyer DT has lost and another site will probably gain.

I think that's why SS and istock don't delete old images.  They know they still have some potential to make them money, even if it isn't through direct sales.

And, adding to that thought, if DT (or the photographer) moves the image to free section, doesn't it lessen the value of an image that is selling at other sites?
 ???

« Reply #34 on: April 27, 2013, 10:31 »
0
I'm amazed by how badly DT do with some images that sell well elsewhere.  I don't think deleting images does them or us any good.  We would get some money from those images over the years and buyers might join DT after finding a link while searching for an image they want.  If that image has been removed, that's a buyer DT has lost and another site will probably gain.

I think that's why SS and istock don't delete old images.  They know they still have some potential to make them money, even if it isn't through direct sales.

And, adding to that thought, if DT (or the photographer) moves the image to free section, doesn't it lessen the value of an image that is selling at other sites?
 ???

I doubt it makes much of a difference.  How many clients find the right image on one site and then search other sites for the same image just to save a few pennies or even a dollar or two?  And if they did, do they have credit packages or subscriptions on both sites, or do they have to lay out considerably more money to make that tiny saving?  Unless the price is outrageous, I expect most clients to buy the image where they first find it, assuming they decide it's just right, Goldilocks-style.

If price were all important, none of us would submit to any agency that didn't offer the highest price or at least the highest dollar value royalty.  But most of us don't, or at least I don't; I balance royalty against numbers of sales and upload anywhere the ratio is at least potentially in my favor.  I'd even consider ten cents per download if I thought there was a ton of downloads around the corner.  Might not do it, but I'd at least consider it.

tab62

« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2013, 10:33 »
+1
Delete for sure!

 Speaking for myself I have photos that I took over a year ago that really suck compared to my newer photos due to better skills and equipment- so four years from now that image is kinda embarrassing to me anyway  thus glad to remove it  ;)


T



WarrenPrice

« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2013, 10:48 »
+1
I'm amazed by how badly DT do with some images that sell well elsewhere.  I don't think deleting images does them or us any good.  We would get some money from those images over the years and buyers might join DT after finding a link while searching for an image they want.  If that image has been removed, that's a buyer DT has lost and another site will probably gain.

I think that's why SS and istock don't delete old images.  They know they still have some potential to make them money, even if it isn't through direct sales.

And, adding to that thought, if DT (or the photographer) moves the image to free section, doesn't it lessen the value of an image that is selling at other sites?
 ???

I doubt it makes much of a difference.  How many clients find the right image on one site and then search other sites for the same image just to save a few pennies or even a dollar or two?  And if they did, do they have credit packages or subscriptions on both sites, or do they have to lay out considerably more money to make that tiny saving?  Unless the price is outrageous, I expect most clients to buy the image where they first find it, assuming they decide it's just right, Goldilocks-style.

If price were all important, none of us would submit to any agency that didn't offer the highest price or at least the highest dollar value royalty.  But most of us don't, or at least I don't; I balance royalty against numbers of sales and upload anywhere the ratio is at least potentially in my favor.  I'd even consider ten cents per download if I thought there was a ton of downloads around the corner.  Might not do it, but I'd at least consider it.

I think one of the first lessons in Advertising defines FREE as the strongest word in advertising/marketing.   ;D

WarrenPrice

« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2013, 10:52 »
0
Delete for sure!

 Speaking for myself I have photos that I took over a year ago that really suck compared to my newer photos due to better skills and equipment- so four years from now that image is kinda embarrassing to me anyway  thus glad to remove it  ;)


T

FREE is one of the most upsetting characteristics of DT.  I presently have over 300 images on disabled list.  I disable at TWO years ... just to be sure mine are not moved to FREE ... which, in my opinion, is stealing.   >:(

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2013, 11:06 »
+2
So who is it that gives these images away?

I can't believe I am going to the the one lone voice of dissent in this thread, but I do occasionally give DT a free image.

Before you all grab the pitch forks and come after me, allow me to explain my thinking.  ;)

My default is set to delete, and the vast majority of images that are unsold after 4 years are deleted.  The only images I donate are the ones that haven't sold anywhere in years, if ever, and are not likely to.

Unlike the other sites that ask for freebies, DT actually does use their free section to aggressively redirect people to the better, paid content.  Also unlike the other sites, the free image page displays much better work from your own portfolio.  So I do feel it is an effective way to market myself. 

I can't prove that is why I have done well at DT, but my sales and income have remained consistently high there as they have dropped on other top sites, so I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way. 

I'm not saying I'm right, and I do see the other side of this issue.  Giving away good content which may just have been neglected in the search engine is a bad idea, which is why most of my 4+ images with no downloads get deleted.

Just thought I would add the other perspective. 

« Reply #39 on: April 27, 2013, 11:15 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:15 by Audi 5000 »

lisafx

« Reply #40 on: April 27, 2013, 11:34 »
+3
I can't prove that is why I have done well at DT, but my sales and income have remained consistently high there as they have dropped on other top sites, so I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way. 
You can't actually say that with certainty, you could be doing even better if you didn't give away any images.  I don't think anyone can know for sure if it's helped (or how much), there are no stats available on that.  You used to be able to see how many times the image was downloaded (can you still?) for free and it was usually many times more than similars that were for not free.

LOL!  Reread my post.  I didn't say it with any certainty.  In fact, I included the phrases "I can't prove that's why I have done well" and "I'm not saying I'm right".   It's called an "opinion", and I gave mine.  :)

« Reply #41 on: April 27, 2013, 11:39 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:15 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #42 on: April 27, 2013, 11:40 »
0
I can't prove that is why I have done well at DT, but my sales and income have remained consistently high there as they have dropped on other top sites, so I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way. 

I put my pitch fork down for a moment so I could type this ;). I would say that your images are as strong as they are plentiful. I imagine that your sales also remain consistently high on ss, a site which doesn't push free images, apart from their 2 free images a week.

I still believe that an abundance of free images on a site doesn't have the desired effect. In fact, having so many legal free images may be enough for many people who otherwise could have considered buying ms images, just using these free images as it covers their needs.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 12:44 by Microstock Posts »

« Reply #43 on: April 27, 2013, 11:42 »
0
So who is it that gives these images away?

People who don't know any better and people who haven't changed their default setting and their images get dumped in the free bin by default without them even really knowing.

The default was "free".  When I was doing wedding photography I didn't check DT for about 2 years (only had about 50 on there).  I was quite surprised when I did check it and found that 3 of my old ones were free, since I NEVER agreed to give away photos for any reason.  I deleted them very quickly and shot an email off to DT to complain about it.  The DT reply was the explanation about the new "donate/delete" program and they said that "donate" was the default option if you didn't reply to the email they sent.  It was partly my fault for not checking my account or reading their emails.  I still thought it was a sneaky, underhanded way to "kidnap" some freebies for their benefit, certainly not mine.

« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2013, 12:00 »
0
A few weeks ago I got the DT 'email of death' on a photo that had just sold as an EL on SS a couple of days earlier.   I'm not giving DT anything.

« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2013, 12:57 »
0
I can't prove that is why I have done well at DT, but my sales and income have remained consistently high there as they have dropped on other top sites, so I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way. 
You can't actually say that with certainty, you could be doing even better if you didn't give away any images.  I don't think anyone can know for sure if it's helped (or how much), there are no stats available on that.  You used to be able to see how many times the image was downloaded (can you still?) for free and it was usually many times more than similars that were for not free.

not directed specifically at this poster, but funny how many people are CERTAIN that putting images in the free section is bad for sales!  many seem to have the odd idea that buyers are searching all sites by artist, so having a free image on DT will affect their sales elsewhere

anyway, this new approach by DT is worth a try & i've starting experimenting with it.  DT should be commended both for reducing their inventory by deleting old non-sellers and for making an attempt to give something to the artist - how many other sites even make an effort?

steve

« Reply #46 on: April 27, 2013, 13:02 »
0
A few weeks ago I got the DT 'email of death' on a photo that had just sold as an EL on SS a couple of days earlier.   I'm not giving DT anything.

Exactly.  These sites by in large already are making big bucks off of us and I see no reason to help them further that by giving them free images even if those images don't sell well anywhere.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2013, 13:12 »
+1
DT has some silly policies (and submission process). Don't get entangled with them. As the Cybermen say: "DELETE!"

lisafx

« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2013, 13:38 »
0

"I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way." 
Synonyms of Definitely:
1. See clearly. 2. absolutely, certainly.

It sounds like you are just in a mood to nitpick.  Okay, how about "I have no evidence to suggest that donating a few old crappy freebies has hurt my sales at DT"?  Better now?  ;)

ETA:  At least at DT it was my choice, and they promote my portfolio.  CERTAINLY a better deal than the poor saps got from Getty when their best selling images were included for free unlimited download in the google deal.   8)
« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 13:52 by lisafx »

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2013, 20:21 »
0
A few weeks ago I got the DT 'email of death' on a photo that had just sold as an EL on SS a couple of days earlier.   I'm not giving DT anything.

Exactly.  These sites by in large already are making big bucks off of us and I see no reason to help them further that by giving them free images even if those images don't sell well anywhere.
sweet, so while you are helping them fill out the free section, I won't.  I don't disagree with the idea of the free section, it's that if all of us contribute we could probably make an entire stock library with our castoffs.  Agree, a somewhat low quality library... and if you look in the free section there is a lot of junk there, so i suppose it can have the added bonus of sending a buyer to make a purchase of something good. maybe. it's a risk that we take, not DT.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 20:25 by gillian »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
21699 Views
Last post October 17, 2007, 20:20
by madelaide
1 Replies
3597 Views
Last post March 30, 2011, 13:36
by johngriffin
8 Replies
2423 Views
Last post July 07, 2013, 13:28
by Anita Potter
1 Replies
1693 Views
Last post June 10, 2014, 13:27
by Shelma1
8 Replies
1763 Views
Last post February 27, 2018, 10:53
by stockastic

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results