Author Topic: DT and FT - What are they thinking??? (Read 28771 times)

stockmarketer · « **on:** June 15, 2012, 06:53 »

The biggest and most disturbing trend when I look at my numbers right now is that things are going along just great everywhere -- except at DT and FT, where sales are dramatically plunging. My sales at both are about half what they were in June 2011. Incredibly frustrating since these are my #2 and #4 agencies, and my plunging sales are NOT the result of me no longer knowing what sells or producing bad work. No, I'm being punished because my work sells too well.

It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell. DT and FT must figure they profit more when a brand new image by a newbie is bought by someone who may have otherwise bought a best seller from a top contributor.

But does this provide a better experience for the customer? By default, any given search will bring up a dearth of brand new images, mainly from newer, unproven contributors. No offense... some of the work will be good, some OK, and some garbage. A real grab-bag of quality. Before the changes, customers would have seen images that have proven to be popular... images that have served customers well in the past and would likely continue to do well if they weren't buried.

What is better for the customer? I am very curious to know how DT's and FT's overall revenue is these days. I have to think that their strategy is backfiring, and customers now think the overall quality of their stuff is very scattershot, and are leaving in droves for SS and maybe some smaller players (I'm guessing BigStock or 123RF, since both those sites have posted solid gains for me in recent months.)

drugal · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2012, 07:00 »

What makes you think that a graphic artist -and the customer he/she is workig for- would be happier with a shot / face that has already been plastered all over the place? It's contrary to what advertising, gaining attention is about. That's what they want to avoid.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2012, 07:23 »

I have to think that the average buyer's first thought is "find something good" as opposed to "find something new."

The first priority is to find an effective, powerful image that best communicates a particular message. Best sellers are best sellers because they do this very well. If a buyer does a search and sees a variety of images that have proven that they meet the immediate goal very well, isn't that going to be more compelling than a mix of unproven pictures that may or may not get a message across effectively?

I see what you're saying about the importance of something fresh, but I just don't buy that this is the #1 priority of the average customer. I'm also a customer, and when I have to quickly find something, I'm not first thinking "I must get something that hasn't been used before." I just want the best image for my needs as quickly as possible.

FT and DT are putting short term profit over the needs of its customers. I believe it is backfiring. For instance, my overall FT rank is much higher than it was one year ago, yet my earnings are about half what they were a year ago. This suggests most or all the biggest sellers are also down about 50% since last year. FT can't be coming out ahead with this strategy.

wut · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2012, 07:45 »

I think it's about time new contributors get a fair chance and not just those riding on the fact the fact they become big fast and get better search placements just because of their reputation. Lots of high ranked contributors were and still are selling garbage and that's just wrong (and I'm talking about diamond or even BD rank of contributors). They wouldn't earn even 500$ a month if they started a couple of years ago. That being said both are and always wefe pathetic for me, although I'm getting BMEs lately

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2012, 07:59 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 07:23

I see what you're saying about the importance of something fresh, but I just don't buy that this is the #1 priority of the average customer. I'm also a customer, and when I have to quickly find something, I'm not first thinking "I must get something that hasn't been used before." I just want the best image for my needs as quickly as possible.

How could any search system second-guess what your needs are? The fact that 1000 people have bought an image doesn't mean that image would match your needs.
Clearly, I'm not a buyer, though, as I'd always choose a newer image, or one with fewer downloads (if that info was available) unless there was a clear reason not to.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2012, 08:19 »

how can they profit more with a newbie/low contributor until gold ranking? they just cannot!

I am not questioning the best match around FT and DT which have certainly changed, havent affected me but I am a small corner (silver), that said emerald contributors can increase their pricing and that is making sure FT will earn more money too even with higher % royalties

SILVER (25%)
XS - 1 - 0.25$ (FT 0.75$)
S - 3 - 0.75$ (FT 2.25$)
M - 5 - 1.25$ (FT 3.75$)
L - 7 - 1.75$ (FT 5.25$)
XL - 8 - 2$ (FT 6$)
XXL - 10 - 2.5$ (FT 7.5$)
EL - 100 - 25$ (FT 75$)

EMERALD (37%)
XS - 2 - 0.74$ (FT 1.26$)
S - 6 - 2.22$ (FT 3.78$)
M - 12 - 4.44$ (FT 7.56$)
L - 16 - 5.92$ (FT 10.08$)
XL - 20 - 7.4$ (FT 12.60$)
XXL - 24 - 8.88$ (FT 15.12$)
EL - 100 - 37$ (FT 63$)

(1$ per credit)

IMO I think FT just noticed that those high priced files aren´t selling as much as they want and think that lower files will cover that lose, I don´t think they are doing it to be more fair with newbie or lower contributors, are they losing money? looks like...!

I also know that there are many top contributors having a big part of their portfolio at the lowest price so this move is kind of confusing and risky

Lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2012, 08:45 »

See, one has got to remember, there is a massive differance between running a business long-term and short-term. The old trad agencies worked on long term goals, they planed to be in business for years and years.
Micro, with all its ups and downs, this concept lends itself most superbly to a fast kill, fast buck, here today sold tomorrow and then you get 300 mil! they are not doing too bad, are they?
Wish I had stumbled on this most brillant idea some year back. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #7 on:** June 15, 2012, 09:03 »

I've just checked a couple of searches on DT and my images are appearing high up in them. That doesn't seem to be translating into many sales at the moment but I see no reason to suppose they are hiding my work.

I've no idea what FT is doing.

wut · « **Reply #8 on:** June 15, 2012, 09:04 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 15, 2012, 07:59

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 07:23

I see what you're saying about the importance of something fresh, but I just don't buy that this is the #1 priority of the average customer. I'm also a customer, and when I have to quickly find something, I'm not first thinking "I must get something that hasn't been used before." I just want the best image for my needs as quickly as possible.

How could any search system second-guess what your needs are? The fact that 1000 people have bought an image doesn't mean that image would match your needs.
Clearly, I'm not a buyer, though, as I'd always choose a newer image, or one with fewer downloads (if that info was available) unless there was a clear reason not to.

+1, why would anyone want to have a photo for his project that has been in hundreds if not thousands of other projects

drugal · « **Reply #9 on:** June 15, 2012, 09:10 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 07:23

I have to think that the average buyer's first thought is "find something good" as opposed to "find something new."

The first priority is to find an effective, powerful image that best communicates a particular message. Best sellers are best sellers because they do this very well. If a buyer does a search and sees a variety of images that have proven that they meet the immediate goal very well, isn't that going to be more compelling than a mix of unproven pictures that may or may not get a message across effectively?

I see what you're saying about the importance of something fresh, but I just don't buy that this is the #1 priority of the average customer. I'm also a customer, and when I have to quickly find something, I'm not first thinking "I must get something that hasn't been used before." I just want the best image for my needs as quickly as possible.

FT and DT are putting short term profit over the needs of its customers. I believe it is backfiring. For instance, my overall FT rank is much higher than it was one year ago, yet my earnings are about half what they were a year ago. This suggests most or all the biggest sellers are also down about 50% since last year. FT can't be coming out ahead with this strategy.

The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.

Thats why you need a real 'relevant' sorting order, otherwise real designers gonna be pissed, beleive me. I remember years ago I saw that 'relevant' was pretty much the same as download / popular on many sites, so I had to go thru 50+ 80+, 100+ pages of search results, just waaaasting my time.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #10 on:** June 15, 2012, 09:18 »

DT has problems - this week has been awful - but I think they're broader than just pushing cop contributors to the back. As BaldricksTrousers noted, I too have images that show up high in searches but aren't selling any more.

To give you an idea of how pitiful this week has been, Thursday's take was twice Wednesday's even though both were only one sale each - a 70 cent sub vs. 35. That's just pathetic

Quote from: wut on June 15, 2012, 07:45

I think it's about time new contributors get a fair chance and not just those riding on the fact the fact they become big fast and get better search placements just because of their reputation. Lots of high ranked contributors were and still are selling garbage and that's just wrong (and I'm talking about diamond or even BD rank of contributors). They wouldn't earn even 500$ a month if they started a couple of years ago. That being said both are and always wefe pathetic for me, although I'm getting BMEs lately

This is just bollocks.

It's important to have a good search algorithm that gives new work a decent chance to be seen amidst the old best sellers. This has nothing to do with new contributors vs. old. I'm a new contributor to DT, in effect, because I only came back last June after a stint as an exclusive. Things were going fine for a while until they broke search trying to improve it and started messing with prices.

And as far as people selling garbage, there's a ton of it on the micros - lots from new contributors as well as older files from an earlier era.

Can't comment on FT as they wouldn't have me back

wut · « **Reply #11 on:** June 15, 2012, 09:27 »

Quote from: jsnover on June 15, 2012, 09:18

This is just bollocks.

Why?

You can see it for yourself, that it's not that easy as it was back in the days. Compare your sales from 2005/2006 to those from 2011/12 on all sites except IS. Imagine what would have happened to your sales at IS if you had to start from scratch. No way you'd reach diamond again. And it's not because you sell garbage, like some are and sell more than you, it's about stiffer competition, everybody getting a lot less DLs and also you loosing good search positions on many files with flames, that wouldn't get nearly as much attention today as they did back then and still do today, because of that

stockmarketer · « **Reply #12 on:** June 15, 2012, 10:01 »

Quote from: drugal on June 15, 2012, 09:10

The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.

This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.

The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.

The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.

heywoody · « **Reply #13 on:** June 15, 2012, 10:03 »

DT is pretty "democratic" as it's more about high performing individual images than contributors so I think it's unlikely that the big guns are disproportionally affected by the slump which seems to be hitting most people, big and small. On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)? If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?

cthoman · « **Reply #14 on:** June 15, 2012, 10:06 »

I haven't had any problems at DT. Sales seem fairly normal. A little lower volume since they changed the prices, but the total revenue is around the same.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #15 on:** June 15, 2012, 10:12 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 15, 2012, 10:03

On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)? If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?

No, at least not in my case. When I raised my prices, my number of sales did not fall at all. My sales at FT did not fall until they messed with search results.

I guess it depends on whether your work is a "commodity"... are there dozens or hundreds more just like it? If so, then maybe a buyer would say "Why would I buy this one for $5 when I could get a virtually identical one for $3?" But if your work has a unique style and has not been duplicated effectively by copycats, then the price difference between your $5 image and the next closest image at $3 should not really sway a buyer. Imagine if you're a buyer and you see the perfect image for $5... you see others on the page at $3, but if they're not quite as effective as the $5 shot, does that extra $2 matter to you? And to the original point, do you wonder, "That one seems more popular, maybe I shouldn't use it because it may have been used elsewhere?" My buyers have kept on buying, that is, until FT and DT started burying my shots a few months ago.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** June 15, 2012, 10:45 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 10:01

Quote from: drugal on June 15, 2012, 09:10
The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.

This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.

The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.

The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.

Exactly. Dribble misses who the original micro buyers were/are. Churches, schools, mom and pop places, etc. they don't care how often something has been used.

Lagereek · « **Reply #17 on:** June 15, 2012, 10:49 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 10:01

Quote from: drugal on June 15, 2012, 09:10
The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.

This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.

The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.

The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.

Exactly! micro buyers are like fruitcakes in search of a brain. They havent got a clue of whats creative or not, you could just as well sell them a Big-Mac and they chose a Fillet-of-fish instead. If they by any chance put their trousers on back to front they would probably walk backwards the rest of the day.
Their infernal motto is, cheap, cheaper, cheapest and the cheapest must ofcourse be the best, thats why its so cheap.

cathyslife · « **Reply #18 on:** June 15, 2012, 10:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 15, 2012, 07:59

[How could any search system second-guess what your needs are? The fact that 1000 people have bought an image doesn't mean that image would match your needs.
Clearly, I'm not a buyer, though, as I'd always choose a newer image, or one with fewer downloads (if that info was available) unless there was a clear reason not to.

As a (sometime) buyer, I have 2 priorities: 1. the best photo for the job 2. a reasonably priced photo, one that fits the clients budget. However, I did always consider how many downloads an image had. I would not buy one that had sold thousands of times (too much exposure), but I would never necessarily buy the cheapest image just because it was cheap. I usually found images within the clients budget that had NOT sold thousands of times.

cthoman · « **Reply #19 on:** June 15, 2012, 11:48 »

Quote from: Lagereek on June 15, 2012, 10:49

Exactly! micro buyers are like fruitcakes in search of a brain. They havent got a clue of whats creative or not, you could just as well sell them a Big-Mac and they chose a Fillet-of-fish instead. If they by any chance put their trousers on back to front they would probably walk backwards the rest of the day.
Their infernal motto is, cheap, cheaper, cheapest and the cheapest must ofcourse be the best, thats why its so cheap.

That's a bit insulting. I don't think you can generalize what a micro buyer is. That's sort of the point of micro. You are trying to hit the widest segment of the image buying population. Some of them are seasoned professionals and others are just having fun making a family newsletter.

gbalex · « **Reply #20 on:** June 15, 2012, 13:18 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 06:53

The biggest and most disturbing trend when I look at my numbers right now is that things are going along just great everywhere -- except at DT and FT, where sales are dramatically plunging. My sales at both are about half what they were in June 2011. Incredibly frustrating since these are my #2 and #4 agencies, and my plunging sales are NOT the result of me no longer knowing what sells or producing bad work. No, I'm being punished because my work sells too well.

It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell. DT and FT must figure they profit more when a brand new image by a newbie is bought by someone who may have otherwise bought a best seller from a top contributor.

But does this provide a better experience for the customer? By default, any given search will bring up a dearth of brand new images, mainly from newer, unproven contributors. No offense... some of the work will be good, some OK, and some garbage. A real grab-bag of quality. Before the changes, customers would have seen images that have proven to be popular... images that have served customers well in the past and would likely continue to do well if they weren't buried.

What is better for the customer? I am very curious to know how DT's and FT's overall revenue is these days. I have to think that their strategy is backfiring, and customers now think the overall quality of their stuff is very scattershot, and are leaving in droves for SS and maybe some smaller players (I'm guessing BigStock or 123RF, since both those sites have posted solid gains for me in recent months.)

As a buyer I can tell you NO it does not make a better experience for the buyer. It makes it harder to find the images we need.

You forgot to mention the trend of also accepting sub par work from new submitters while rejecting superior work from members who have helped make the company successful and whose work is know to sell well. The crap we have to wade through on ALL agencies including SS is a real time killer.

drugal · « **Reply #21 on:** June 15, 2012, 15:55 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 10:01

Quote from: drugal on June 15, 2012, 09:10
The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.

This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.

The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.

The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.

You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's. I mean... isn't it kinda obvious that he wants attention for his stuff, wants ppl to remember his service offer, not somebody else... duh?

For the rest: we used to buy RM, and guess what, as micro started to take off, clients directed us there. I didn't even know about istock for years after it existed, untill a marketing manager several years ago (wizz air) started sending over thumbails and links for pictures to use in layouts. You have no idea how frugal even giant companies are. Their corporate trained marketing ppl are told to push everyone to the edge for every penny. If they could charge you for working, they would do it (actually they are doing that more and more...) + as economy collapses and budgets shrink even more.

cthoman · « **Reply #22 on:** June 15, 2012, 16:37 »

Quote from: drugal on June 15, 2012, 15:55

You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's.

A brand is a "Name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers. Branding began as a way to tell one person's cattle from another by means of a hot iron stamp. A modern example of a brand is Coca Cola which belongs to the Coca-Cola Company. - Wikipedia

By definition, RF stock art isn't exclusive or unique to a single buyer and can't really be branded because anybody and everybody can buy it and use it. That's not to say that people aren't using stock images in those capacities like Simon Oxley's original Twiiter bird. But, it isn't really designed to be branded as a logo, mascot or unique element.

grafix04 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 15, 2012, 20:48 »

We shouldn't generalize and say, 'buyers are this' or 'buyers are that'. The market is broken down into many types of buyers. Even individual buyers will make different decisions each time depending on the project they're working on. Sometimes they'll be looking for something fresh and unique and price isn't too much of a factor for them. Sometimes they'll be looking for something relevant, fast and reasonably priced, while other times they just want something that's good enough and cheap.

The problem with DT is that they seem to be slowly turning away all sorts of buyers. The two recent price rises have to have turned off a good majority of them.

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 10:12

"Why would I buy this one for $5 when I could get a virtually identical one for $3?"

Exactly, why would you, especially within the same site? The difference in price is more than double. DT buyers pay 5 credits for a brand new level 1 XS image on DT and 11 credits for a level 5 XS. If they're looking for something cheap they'll sift through the level 0 images and buy an XS for 1 credit. There are gems to found at all levels. Even Yuri has level 1 and level 0 images and none of his work is garbage. It doesn't take much work for price sensitive buyers to find lower priced decent images so DT has killed it for best sellers.

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 10:12

"Why would I buy this one for $5 when I could get a virtually identical one for $3?"

The two recent price rises at DT has been significant enough for buyers to also ask “Why should I buy this one for $5 when I can get an exact identical image for $1 on another micro site?" $4 isn't much, but saving $4 on every image is huge. So not only has DT killed it for best sellers by effecting price sensitive buyers, they've also killed it by effecting those looking for fresh, original content, since they can buy the exact same fresh original image on another site at a fraction of the cost.

I really don’t understand DT's way of thinking. Their system now favors new images which will bring down everyone's RPI. We're already working hard for little return and this discourages us to upload there. Why would I upload a high quality image there to make just a few bucks on it and watch it go stale after it goes up a level or two? The level system used to be the best thing about DT but that was back in the day when there wasn't such a vast difference in price between the levels. Unless a level 5 images is extraordinarily different and superior to anything else, it has no chance of enjoying the same success that it used to.

I foresee things becoming worse for DT. Much worse.

lisafx · « **Reply #24 on:** June 15, 2012, 21:06 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 15, 2012, 09:03

I've just checked a couple of searches on DT and my images are appearing high up in them. That doesn't seem to be translating into many sales at the moment but I see no reason to suppose they are hiding my work.

I've no idea what FT is doing.

I must agree. My sales at DT are a bit soft, but nothing particularly unusual for this time of year. They are still pretty average, and my images seem to have similar placement to what they've always had, give or take. And I am high ranked there, so I don't think there's any bias based on rank at DT. JMHO.

FT, on the other hand, continues its slide into oblivion for me. Really depressing as they were a strong #2 for me for quite a long time. Now my sales there are more like the other kind of number two.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: DT and FT - What are they thinking??? (Read 28771 times)

stockmarketer

drugal

stockmarketer

wut

ShadySue

luissantos84

Lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

wut

drugal

Jo Ann Snover

wut

stockmarketer

heywoody

cthoman

stockmarketer

Sean Locke Photography

Lagereek

cathyslife

cthoman

gbalex

drugal

cthoman

grafix04

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors