Debate: Should watermark proofs or just send low-res and save the hassle?

I had two clients last month. One I sent watermarked proofs to, another I just sent low-res files. The watermarked client took 3 weeks to pay and then asked for changes. The low-res guy paid in 2 days and bought the full set. But I know people who swear watermarks stop theft. Which approach actually works better long term? Has anyone tracked the difference in payment time or stolen work between these two methods?

3 comments

3 Comments

ross.kim5d agoMost Upvoted

Ugh watermarks are such a pain. Low res works way faster for payments honestly. Had a client ghost me for two months after a watermarked proof. Never again unless the job is huge.

robin8965d ago

honestly I used to be all about watermarks thinking I was protecting my work but last year I had a client pay me two weeks late after I sent watermarked proofs and then they dragged their feet on the final payment too. switched to low-res files for the next few jobs and noticed people paid faster and came back for more work way more often. I still watermark if the project is really big or if the client gives me sketchy vibes from the start, but for most stuff low-res works fine in my experience. your mileage may vary though cause I know some folks who swear by heavy watermarks and have zero issues.

nancyramirez5d ago

Trust is earned both ways, and low res proofs show you're willing to meet them halfway.