Website Critique . . . Specifically Targeting Publishers

<p>Hello!</p>

<p>As a new member, I wasn't sure whether to pop this in another forum, however I think the stock-related business forum is the best place to find peers with similar goals.<br /> <br /> Although I have galleries with sales at Zenfolio, Carbonmade, Facebook, Etsy, Flickr, ImageKind, etc., I needed a more professional, streamlined presence for pitching the better galleries and publications.<br /> <br /> I created a stand-alone website designed to show off only the best work with minimal editorial gibberish. There is an in-frame blog designed to draw traffic, and I've linked that to my Twitter account for added exposure. I'll send carefully crafted mailings to a small, targted group of PE's in January, and this is where they'll be directed.</p>

<p>Where do you come in? Obviously, we are blind to our own faults when we've tinkered with something to the point that we no longer have any objectivity. Any constructive criticism would be fantastic. Happy thoughts are welcome, too. I'm happy to return the favor if you post your links as well.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.andreanayphoto.com"><strong>My Web Portfolio</strong> <br /> </a></p>

<p>Cheers to an outstanding 2010,</p>

<p>Andrea</p>

editors photo buyers and art directors want to see images and want to be able to search for exactly what they want. . . not much else matters to them. . . I know as a part time editor i really need to see the images when i want them. I spend almost no time reading nice quotes. the point i would make is make your images as easy to find and search as you can. . .

<p>Thanks. It's cool. I like it and the images. I couldn't really find anything to criticize. I would only ask if you plan to update or add galleries (obviously the blog will be updated). If you want return visitors or recommendations, you need to entice them to do either. I understand the tinkering, and <a href="http://www.wsrphoto.com">Website</a> is an on-going project with my photography work (less photography of late and more research and hopefully publications) and my life. Best wishes to ya'll for 2010.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I needed a more professional, streamlined presence for pitching the better galleries and publications.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br />Andrea,</p>

<p>There are two ways to approach your question.<br>

1) Be nice & compliment your pictures, or.....<br>

2) Give you the hard truth and hope you will take some to heart and not feel offended.</p>

<p>Anything less than #2 would cause me to feel I am doing you a disservice.</p>

<p>Is that all the photos you have to attract publishers?<br>

If so, you have a problem depending on your final or interim goal.</p>

<p>Publications and Galleries are not approached in the same way.<br>

Although many galleries allow you to sell your photos, they generally seek strong portfolios with a <em><strong>thematic</strong></em> approach, often a series of 10-15 will do. So; if a gallery happens to see your website, there is nothing there to cause them to pause. Also, there are different (types) of galleries...solo, co-ops, sponsored etc.. I would suggest you research various galleries to see if you have what THEY want.</p>

<p>Publishers; who also often seek a strong body of work or a style (avant Garde) (alternative process) etc; need to see something that grabs them quickly.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'll send carefully crafted mailings to a small, targted group of PE's in January, and this is where they'll be directed.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>If the "targeted" mailing is unsolicited, it will be targeted for the trash can nine times out of ten.<br>

Who are you going to send this carefully crafted self-promo piece to? Nike? Harpers? Zolson?<br>

PE's and AD's want what they need, now and in the future.</p>

<p>It's difficult to completely answer your question w/o more definite goals from you or intent.</p>

<p>As a example: I entered the world of unsolicited submissions to various magazines years ago. Why? Because this is how we do it before anyone will offer us assignment work. We need tear sheets, and lots of 'em.<br>

My first published work was with "Referee" magazine. I think they are still around. Why did I start with them?..Because they encouraged new unpublished shooters and didn't require a resume'.<br>

Man-O-Man did I learn a lot! If you have never prepped a layout for a publisher, you will be amazed at the amount of work involved.</p>

<p>So, if you are seeking that "more professional, streamlined presence", I will suggest you look at more specific areas that you excell in. Your web site images shows you to be more of a generalist. </p>

<p>Again, depending on what you are trying to accomplish will dictate your approach to either galleries or publishers.</p>

<p>OK..Now that hard truth.<br>

If I were a publisher or a gallery curator, I would see nothing of interest in your website.<br>

Sure, you have some very nice photos, but so do thousands of other shooters out there, some not as good as yours and some far better.</p>

<p>Getting published, which I think is what you are after, requires far more than a website with a few pics.</p>

<p>The self promotion piece you are sending out is a great idea, I do the exact same thing just short of harassing some PE's and AD's I have worked with in the past. Z-Cards seem to work best for me in self promo as I can easily change them depending who I am attempting to nudge.</p>

<p>I would add to your website by actually submitting your work to pubs and then following up with them. </p>

<p>Thank you, Tony, Scott, and Kevin -<br>

Scott -- Yes, I do plan to update the blog frequently, especially when I add new work.<br>

Kevin and Tony -- this is where I'm wavering. I am sort of a generalist. I like landscapes by virtue of living in and having traveled to some gorgeous spots. Street is a unique challenge. And, I really like what I've termed editorial portraits -- not kids and babies, but more like character studies of performers, athletes, etc.<br>

In order to differentiate myself, do I create three separate websites? </p>

<ul>

<li>One for stock landscapes, searchable by city and subject? </li>

<li>One for galleries, featuring 15-20 street shots? </li>

<li>And, one for "editorial portraits", again showing 15-20 of the best?</li>

</ul>

<p>If so, do I have separate URL's for all, giving out the specific URL to the specific prospective buyer?<br>

Or, do I pick one genre and stick with it, building it and learning more about it?<br>

The answer is yes, I do have *many* more images where these came from. I've just read so many sources saying to pare it down and show a selection because editors won't want to click through dozens of galleries. My thought was always that I'd send the targeted mailing piece to publications/galleries who seem open to new work, show them I'm serious with the website, and then fill needs when they say, "I like your style. What else do you have of the Bahamas?"<br>

Thank you again for your suggestions. Keep 'em coming, as every little bit helps.</p>

 

<p>I think that what Kevin is pointing out is that there are substantial business issues to consider before you think more about website design.<br>

<br /> As Mikael Karlsson and I have pointed out in numerous posts about stock sales on this forum, stock is in the tank unless you specialize. Landscape in particular is very easy to find with Creative Commons licensing or in micro-stock. There isn't going to be much money in it unless you can build a substantial, differentiated portfolio of work around a specific area or theme that people will want. Someone I know has a huge collection of panoramic shots of Civil War battlefields. There isn't anyone else to go to for that. Mikael has a wide range of law enforcement images that require access. I have the world's largest (as far as I know) collection of quality shots of Muay Thai available. The only way to command any significant prices these days with stock is to offer something that a) isn't readily available, and b) covers a depth of subject that should satisfy any requirement for that subject.</p>

<p>Galleries are a completely different issue. It's highly unlikely that they are going to surf the web looking for photographers. Instead, if you get them interested, they will ask to see a web presentation or, sometimes, in-person. For a web presentation for a show, I create a specific gallery that matches the kind of show the venue presents. </p>

<p>For "editorial portraits," are you offering to shoot them? If so, you need a different website with a different look.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>when they say, "I like your style. What else do you have of the Bahamas?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br />Well; that would be nice if publishers actually said that after seeing our work, but alas; that is not usually how it happens unless you've been at this a while with a solid relationship with the publisher or your agent.<br>

More like <em>"Can you send 100 more shots but more with palm trees w/little children playing beneath them."</em><br>

It does happen the way you said once you get to assignment work.<br>

<em></em><br>

As Jeff correctly points out, <strong>specialty</strong> is everything. Generalists don't do well if the goal is to make some good money. The ones that do are few and far between. Very few photogs can do it all.</p>

<p>You don't necessarily need seperate URL's or domain names either.<br>

A well constructed web site can contain a nice body of work of perhaps two or three areas you excel in.<br>

(i.e) <strong>Portraits</strong>..then sub headings known as a stock list..Cowboys, babies, babies smiling, old men etc..etc...Then another heading...<strong>Lighthouses </strong>w/ sub heads as N.E Lighthouses, B&W Lighthouses, land locked lighthouses, salt water light houses etc...etc...</p>

<p>Often, publishers are less interested in looking at your photos and more interested in knowing what you have...This is known as a stock list. If they do contact you after seeing a stock list, you better have at least 100 images to show them, because you have just scored a portfolio review...and this is precisely what you want in the beginning; someone to take interest..call it a 2nd interview if you prefer.</p>

<p>Boiled down; here is my best advice for you at this point.<br>

Keep the web site but don't make reference to it with your self promotion campaign unless it specifically appeals to what the client seeks. In other words; if you mail a piece to "Field & Stream", your portfolio had best have photos of outdoor nature shots, hunting and fishing etc....NOT portraits of people.</p>

<p>Get a copy of <strong>'The Photographers Market</strong>." Most of us in this biz have at least one copy, and a new copy every year. Read it for about 4 weeks to get a feel for what is being sought. You will probably say to yourself as I did years ago<em> "Holy Cow!...What do I want to specialize in?" </em>and <em>"What market segment interests me and how do I approach it?" </em><br>

<em></em><br>

It is at this point you may just have a AH-HAA moment. AH-HAA as in "I better get organized, because right now I am not."</p>

<p>These questions are by far the hardest decisions aspiring photogs who desire to be published will face.<br>

Don't feel bad if you can't decide in a day...once you do decide, get ready to start shooting to build what you need, because believe me, unless you've done some research, you don't have what they want or need.</p>

<p><strong>Next:</strong> Submit some work to a few publishers. Getting rejected is actually a good thing at first if you handle it properly. Try to find out why they rejected your work. A simple phone call will often accomplish this. It worked for me just 2 years ago when I was asked to do some work for Fire Chief Magazine.<br>

Because they contacted me, I was sent a letter further defining what they wanted; and it was not a problem with my technical skills, just the wrong subject matter captured in a way they did NOT want..a few changes of camera angle, a little more story telling and BAM..It was accepted and published.</p>

<p>Also, but submitting some work here and there, you will begin to see it is not as easy as some may lead you to believe. Producing nice images isn't really that hard; getting along with and building relationships with PE's and AD's is a whole new skill set unrelated to imagery. Labeling, catagorizing, caption lists, archiving are just a few of the new skills you will no doubt have to hone to play in the game of getting published; at least if you wish to sustain it.</p>

<p>Above all, before you submit, read at least 2 or 3 issues of the magazine or whatever you are trying to get published in. Nothing worse than sending photos that don't fit the publication's style or feel. This is research..do it and do it heavily.</p>

<p><strong>Galleries</strong>: If you are new to this, I'd steer well clear of galleries unless all you want is peer recognition.<br>

On second thought; I'd steer clear of galleries until you have been published.<br>

Sure, sometimes people buy your work, but making any real money from it is poor odds and the amount of work you'll put in is staggering if you are asked to be part of the show.</p>

<p>If you wait until you feel everything is perfect before submitting, you will never do it...so jump in, give it a try and make it a learning experience. Mistakes are ok if we learn from them.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andrea,<br /> <br /> Obviously I agree with Jeff about specializing since, just like he points out, along with Jeff I've been saying this for forever. Both Jeff and I have good stock photography businesses licensing images based on our fields of specialization/expertise. <br /> <br /> For your site: <br /> Make it as easy as possible for photo buyers to find the images they are looking for on your site. They should be able to search and find specific images - and the images should have some sort of identifiers (like individual file numbers etc) - so that when they need to contact you, all they need to do is send you a list of the images they want to use.<br /> <br /> I work with a lot of different photo buyers from a wide variety of publishers. They all say the same. They don't have the time to go back and forth with a photographer over and over again. Making your site as automated as possible will go a long way. Obviously clients that are new to you need to negotiate fees and all that stuff. The vast majority of my repeat customers/clients negotiate usage fees for the most common situations once a year or every other year and then researchers (staff and freelance) simply send me image requests and billing requests. Makes the process easy and fast for everyone involved.<br /> <br /> I also work with consulting other stock photographers. The single most common complaint I hear from photo buyers, editors and AD's is that this or that photographer is time-consuming to deal with. The second most common complaint is that photographers bug buyers about copies of books/magazines or tear sheets of published images. The third, that the photographer's site is cumbersome to navigate making it hard or very time-consuming to find the images needed.<br /> <br /> If you check out my site (arrestingimages.com) you'll see it is very, very basic. The photo galleries though is the only important part of the site and the search works well, as well as the e-card function. For "my" photo buyers the simplicity outweighs everything else. If I was catering to a different target audience I'm sure my site might have looked differently. My galleries are there to present images along with caption info to buyers wanting to license the images. Nothing more, nothing less. What they look like really makes no difference as long as they work as far as search and caption info in relation to displayed photos go.<br /> <br /> Make it as simple and as functional as possible. Think about the businesses you purchase things from on-line. Are their sites easy to use? Can you easily track down the items you're looking for? Is the ordering process fast, easy and streamlined? Are the businesses making it easy for you, the customer/consumer, to purchase from them?<br /> <br /> Hope all that - or at least some of it - makes sense.</p>

<p>Kevin and Mikael, thank you SO much for your suggestions.<br>

<br /> I do have an updated copy of Photographer's Market and planned to use that for at least some of the PE research. I'm also familiar with the idea of reading multiple issues of a publication to determine whether my style befits their editorial focus.<br>

<br /> This is the statement which most intrigues me:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What they look like really makes no difference as long as they work as far as search and caption info in relation to displayed photos go.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I actually have a Zenfolio site with thousands of images. It's fully automated, organized by subject, and will soon be searchable with keywords. However, I didn't think the layout was streamlined enough for my tastes. I felt like I was presenting too much info for buyers. Wouldn't it be lovely if I could keep my current site and then create a stock page with the Zenfolio interface incorporated in the frame? Perchance to dream. Maybe someday Zenfolio will make that a reality.<br>

<br /> Until then, perhaps I could create a Stock List page on my primary website with a listing of subjects. Each subject name would be a hotlink to that particular gallery on Zenfolio. That way, only the people who really <em>want</em> to see stock shots of baking implements need to see them.<br>

<br /> Anyway . . . thanks again for the suggestions. I'll work on re-tooling the galleries so that they're a) searchable and b) offer the breadth of my library instead of just the highlights.<br>

<br /> Many thanks again -- your suggestions and the time and care you took with your responses are very much appreciated!</p>

<p> </p>