pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The point of giving away images as 'FREE' downloads  (Read 8170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 04, 2012, 10:44 »
0
Hi,

Was just wondering if there is any point at all in letting the agencies have 'unnaccepted' images for FREE.  Aren't there ANY perks to it at all?

cheers,

Chris :)


« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2012, 10:52 »
0
None whatsoever.  And if the images are accepted on other sites, it could end up losing you some money.

« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2012, 10:56 »
0
When one artist a week was chosen to offer a free download from the collection it was effective advertising. Systems where whatever rubbish doesn't make it into the collection is pushed out for free are actually counterproductive, I would have thought.

Great artists hide their mistakes, so what does that say  about people who draw attention to their rejects?

tab62

« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2012, 11:06 »
0
There is no point! It will only cannibalize your sales. I did this one time on a fairly good xmas pic (must have been in the holiday sprite or just too drunk to think straight). Now I am getting some good sales on this particular pic one year later and to from the company that used it as free pic. I didn't one single sale from that company that gave my pic away (over 700 downloads in just two weeks). Lesson Learn- don't work for FREE! 

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2012, 14:47 »
0
Even though I have offered some images for free over the years for the purposes of promoting my portfolio (don't know if it's been effective overall, but I have seen a bump in sales if my image was free image of the week at a given site). 

But the idea of saying in advance that an image can go to the free section if it's rejected always bothered me.  I would be concerned that if they needed images for the free section, they might reject an image that they otherwise would have accepted.  Maybe that's not how it works, but I prefer my images be accepted or rejected on their merits alone.

« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2012, 17:34 »
0
Agree, they are pretty close to free at subs rates anyway. Love FT's approach  as you can get rejected for the main collection and get extra humiliation by get rejected for the free section on top of that  ;D

« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2012, 17:43 »
+1
The point is to help the agencies build huge collections of free images off of which they'll make money and you won't. 

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2012, 09:51 »
0
The point is to help the agencies build huge collections of free images off of which they'll make money and you won't.

So true.  I was browsing photoXpress the other day, for the first time.  Isn't this the site that Fotolia sends "free" images?  You have to buy a subscription to download them.  So they are making money on images donated for "free" by contributors.  And as far as I could see there was no link back to the paid Fotolia site, much less the portfolio of the donating contributor.  Struck me as obscene. 

Turns out the above is wrong^^.  Talking out my a$$ I guess.  Not the first time ;)
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 10:38 by lisafx »

« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2012, 10:32 »
0
The point is to help the agencies build huge collections of free images off of which they'll make money and you won't.


So true.  I was browsing photoXpress the other day, for the first time.  Isn't this the site that Fotolia sends "free" images?  You have to buy a subscription to download them.  So they are making money on images donated for "free" by contributors.  And as far as I could see there was no link back to the paid Fotolia site, much less the portfolio of the donating contributor.  Struck me as obscene.


I don't know much about photoxpress, but I went there out of curiosity, and I saw you have there many of your photos, some of them bestsellers. I.e.:

http://www.photoxpress.com/stock-photos/people/person/men/725133

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2012, 10:37 »
0

I don't know much about photoxpress, but I went there out of curiosity, and I saw you have there many of your photos, some of them bestsellers. I.e.:

http://www.photoxpress.com/stock-photos/people/person/men/725133


Thanks for checking that out.  It appears my understanding about what they are is mistaken.  Looks like they are another "partner" of Fotolia.  Impossible to keep up with all these partners. 

There was some free site they started, I thought, but apparently PhotoXpress isn't it. 

« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2012, 10:44 »
+1
The point is to help the agencies build huge collections of free images off of which they'll make money and you won't.

So true.  I was browsing photoXpress the other day, for the first time.  Isn't this the site that Fotolia sends "free" images?  You have to buy a subscription to download them.  So they are making money on images donated for "free" by contributors.  And as far as I could see there was no link back to the paid Fotolia site, much less the portfolio of the donating contributor.  Struck me as obscene.

Maybe they didn't intend this when they opened the free site, but I truly believe they discovered how great it is to be a distributer AND a partner at the same time.  We signed up with Fotolia.  They open up a 2nd legal independent corporation, shift our work there and sell it on behalf of Fotolia.  They take their commission, then Fotolia takes their commission of what is left, and we get our pennies. 

« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2012, 12:56 »
0

I don't know much about photoxpress, but I went there out of curiosity, and I saw you have there many of your photos, some of them bestsellers. I.e.:

http://www.photoxpress.com/stock-photos/people/person/men/725133


Thanks for checking that out.  It appears my understanding about what they are is mistaken.  Looks like they are another "partner" of Fotolia.  Impossible to keep up with all these partners. 

There was some free site they started, I thought, but apparently PhotoXpress isn't it.


Lisa, you are actually correct - PhotoXpress is the free site they started. I don't know if is was the intent from the beginning, but as it gained more traffic, the free content went away, replaced by low cost subscription plans. It's still Fotolia's site, but now it's another model.

« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2012, 13:51 »
0
The point is to help the agencies build huge collections of free images off of which they'll make money and you won't.

So true.  I was browsing photoXpress the other day, for the first time.  Isn't this the site that Fotolia sends "free" images?  You have to buy a subscription to download them.  So they are making money on images donated for "free" by contributors.  And as far as I could see there was no link back to the paid Fotolia site, much less the portfolio of the donating contributor.  Struck me as obscene.

Maybe they didn't intend this when they opened the free site, but I truly believe they discovered how great it is to be a distributer AND a partner at the same time.  We signed up with Fotolia.  They open up a 2nd legal independent corporation, shift our work there and sell it on behalf of Fotolia.  They take their commission, then Fotolia takes their commission of what is left, and we get our pennies.

Now they need to open up a 3rd and 4th site and shuttle the images through all of them so that they can skim 99% out of each sale.

« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2012, 13:59 »
0
The point is to help the agencies build huge collections of free images off of which they'll make money and you won't.

So true.  I was browsing photoXpress the other day, for the first time.  Isn't this the site that Fotolia sends "free" images?  You have to buy a subscription to download them.  So they are making money on images donated for "free" by contributors.  And as far as I could see there was no link back to the paid Fotolia site, much less the portfolio of the donating contributor.  Struck me as obscene.

Maybe they didn't intend this when they opened the free site, but I truly believe they discovered how great it is to be a distributer AND a partner at the same time.  We signed up with Fotolia.  They open up a 2nd legal independent corporation, shift our work there and sell it on behalf of Fotolia.  They take their commission, then Fotolia takes their commission of what is left, and we get our pennies. 

Have you tested it and know that that is how it works?

When there is a sale at PhotoXpress (which is owned by Fotolia) do both PhotoXpress AND Fotolia take a cut? 

lisafx

« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2012, 15:53 »
0

Lisa, you are actually correct - PhotoXpress is the free site they started. I don't know if is was the intent from the beginning, but as it gained more traffic, the free content went away, replaced by low cost subscription plans. It's still Fotolia's site, but now it's another model.

Thanks, it's a relief to know I wasn't totally off base.  I must say, with the scope of what's on there, I am relieved it wasn't free after all.  Initially, thinking it was all free, I was horrified at the good quality images on there. 

My friend who was looking for freebies eventually discovered what we all know - there is no free lunch.  She ended up paying for a very nice vector on one of the micros. 

Yay!  Another freebie hunter has been turned into a paying customer :D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5505 Views
Last post March 12, 2008, 01:45
by Peter
4 Replies
5311 Views
Last post February 05, 2012, 17:39
by cybernesco
36 Replies
17506 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
5816 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
1 Replies
1379 Views
Last post December 28, 2019, 10:58
by hellou

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle