How to re-boost interest to Photo.net?

<p>Hi guys<br /> Long time I've not been here...<br /> Things look a bit quiet now.<br /> What do you think should be done to provide more visits to this site ?<br /> What does it need to be more visible ?</p>

<p>For me, it's obvious that direct posting to Facebook is a key success factor nowedays...<br /> Also great contests would help increase number of comments.<br>

My very first interest for this website was, back in 2000, to get comments.</p>

<p>Another obvious -never decreasing- subject of interest are questions asked by beginners... and there is obviously enough people here and far enough material to demonstrate that we all know how to produce great pictures.<br>

DPReview is probably holding the palm for that, but they are also holding the palm for the most trolled forums ever seen...<br>

<br /> So maybe again, create a "photo.net" group on facebook, dedicated to help beginners, and using this site's material for demonstration...</p>

<p>What else ?<br /> What do you think ?</p>

<p><em>Some</em> of the trolls and unpleasant contributors on this site have disappeared, along with <em>some</em> of the wittiest and best ( I leave it to you to decide who are which). This does result in a fairly bland mix.<br>

Reviving the Off Topic forum and having more nudes would probably get viewership up, but there is something to be said for bland, after all.<br>

There's a story about a farmer who won the lottery. When asked what he would do, he said that he would just go on farming until the money "was gone".<br>

Some of us, on Classic Manual Cameras at least, not a big draw in the context of the "internets" as a whole, will probably just keep on posting on P.net until it's "gone". :(</p>

<p>I've said it before, and been told I am a "prissy scold", I'll say it again - if all PNers viewed themselves as ambassadors for photography and gave newbies considered and helpful answers, the forum would be in much better shape. I can't count the number of times I've tried to do this only to have my efforts negated by condescending smart-ass responses by others which have the predictable result of ensuring that the newbie in question disappears forever.</p>

<p>If some of us needs comments badly from people in FB, he/she already posted on FB</p>

<p>No one here including myself has a clue about the how, when, what, who and where internet traffic flows and goes. We don't know where or why people leave and some new ones drop in along with those that return from years away.</p>

<p>It's all speculation. Anyone here has strong evidence they know why there's less traffic on PN speak up, but you better have real verifiable facts and graphs and charts aren't facts.</p>

<p>Tim, I stand by what I said. Try to see things from the point of view of newbies and potential PN users/subscribers. Digital imaging is the standard today, both for commercial and private work, most young people take the view that photography is just another computer/i-phone app which can be learned through trial and error without necessarily taking advice from anyone. What PN does have is a number of people, including myself, with decades of experience in wet-process photography, which can help newbies who want to experiment with film basically to find out what it's all about. If this is an enjoyable and rewarding experience, they will continue, and film photography will take on a new lease of life. If on the other hand PN presents an image to the outside world of grumpy old men arguing, the reverse will occur. </p>

<p>From my perspective the internet, photography and learning in general has evolved quite a bit since 2000, so to my mind looking at the site activity from 2000 to 2016 (almost 2017) is an interesting discussion. </p>

<p>Back in 2000, there were not countless sites dedicated to photography - now there are. Social Media existed but it was in sites like Tripod and Angelfire..commonly known as G1 of social media - those ended up being failed experiments by most accounts. In 2000 Mark Zuckerberg hadn't graduated high school yet... starting FB in 2004. </p>

<p>Search leader was Yahoo! and Google was just a babe having been started in September of 1998. </p>

<p>Video online was almost nonexistent because bandwidth was a big issue - and based on what I see these days - younger photographers tend to gravitate to learning via video demonstration over forum posts (again generally speaking). </p>

<p>Younger photographers (generally speaking) also tend to think photography is best executed through their iphone...however the good news here is I believe we have a larger group of people exposed to photography..and it sparks their interest into learning more. </p>

<p>Now, its not to say forums don't have their place - they most certainly do - but my point is learning, photography and the internet in general has evolved and photo.net has stayed largely....unchanged. </p>

<p>I tend to see people use the site differently...meaning we have a large group of people that only read/view the site, but don't post (galleries or forums) so that to my mind really represents the biggest opportunity. Then we have people that tend to use the forums (as evidenced by profiles with very few photos but thousands of forum responses), then we have people that tend to use the galleries and don't enter the forums (as evidenced by profiles that have hundreds/thousands of photos, but very few forum entries). So in an ideal world, we would see those 3 large circles overlap more. </p>

<p>But keep the ideas coming - be sure to look at the profiles of the people you admire - see how they use the site (# of forum posts vs # of gallery photos, # gallery comments, # of critique requests). We started as and will continue to be a peer to peer learning platform so that is something that photo.net will always be IMHO. </p>

<p>As for expending efforts on Facebook, we have tried that but it didn't move the needle as much as we thought it would...meaning we spend time, money & energy into posting there and it only reaches 5% of our "fans". We saw countless companies spent significant marketing budgets with the goal of increasing their fan base - then FB changed the game and predictably said..."oh you want to speak to your fans through FB - promote/boost (pay us) your post and you'll put it in front of them"- all this said, keep the ideas coming, we're listening. </p>

<p>To me photo.net is like almost anything in life - you get out of it what you put into it. </p>

<p>That's right: In 2000, PN was a pioneer.<br /> I remember a time when HP provided a cluster of huge servers to host the site for free (including support!)</p>

<p>In my opinion, what you need to have a winning site today is not very different than what we had at that time though.<br>

That is<br>

<strong>- Content</strong><br /> We have the images. I think we have the knowledge. <br /> Do we have good articles ? Reviews ? <br>

All this relies heavily on building a <strong>strong community.</strong> <br />That was where PN was strong. <br /><br />Couldn't we try to get back older users ? <br />Did you try it ? I mean not especially to have them pay, but to get back their contribution (as an example, why not to ask for their ideas about how to make PN better for THEM ? Money will come later, if they get involved again.)<br>

<br /> <strong>- Interaction</strong><br /> At first, PN was a Photo <strong>critic forum</strong>.<br /> Nowadays, look at the number of 'likes' on FB. That's exactly the same need.<br /> People want to say what they like and others want to be recognized - or receive positive critics.<br />But that's not organized on FB. While it is here.<br>

<strong>- Be visible</strong> = Allow easy sharing, with a link back to PN<br /> Today, although a lot of other sites emerge, FB remains the most used for Photo sharing<br /> Do we allow to post PN images on Facebook with a clear link back to PN ?<br />(If that works, tell me how please)<br /> Do we have a FB Group/Forum that uses and refers to PN images and articles ?<br />(If yes, tell me where please)<br /> Would we have to pay FB for that ?<br /> <br /> Can't we have a PN APP to allow photo.net photos <strong>sharing</strong> <strong>AND rating/critic</strong> of photos on Android/iPhone ?</p>

<p>- If we want to improve -and as for what I see, it is either improve, either die very soon- <br />we need to <br /> - measure the reality<br /> - decide what we want to focus on<br /> - do some effort in that direction<br /> - measure the results<br /> - improve</p>

<p>By the way, if people are doing photography today through their iPhone or other Android device -and for sure they do-, that's still photography.<br>

They nevertheless deserve respect and comments.<br>

And maybe they'll understand why there are too many limitations to that and decide to invest in more traditional photographic tools... or maybe we'll learn something.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Younger photographers (generally speaking) also tend to think photography is best executed through their iphone...however the good news here is I believe we have a larger group of people exposed to photography..and it sparks their interest into learning more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I used to think that about young folks with iPhones, Glenn, right up to last Wednesday when I visited my local park to do some shooting and counted about six or so women ranging in age of about mid 20's' to 40's all carrying long, expensive lens/DSLR rigs with dedicated battery packs, some with shoulder strap gear bags, reflectors. I couldn't tell pro wedding couple photogs from hobbyists.</p>

<p>Of course I may have just picked the right day just before Thanksgiving to see this many folks in my local park I often visit on weekdays where it's vacant in my little town of about 50K, but I can only speculate what the interest is from this many young women using expensive rigs.</p>

<p>My own take (speculation) as a 57 year native Texan is that we shouldn't rule out the cathartic nature and appeal in the craft of creating beautiful photos with decent equipment and software. Also there appears to be a lot of bored housewives in my state seeing I've checked some of their wedding photo sites and notice they are married and have kids. Photography in this case seems to be an escape and maybe a chance to earn some extra bucks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, I stand by what I said. Try to see things from the point of view of newbies and potential PN users/subscribers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't see how my asking for facts to support internet flow traffic is an argument to what you said above, David. You have no facts to back up why or why not newbies would visit and stay at Photo.net.</p>

<p>And still this thread has not produced any verifiable facts. The one thing of great value about Photo.net that Glenn briefly mentions is its years of accumulating a ton of searchable data on the subject of photography posted by those of various levels of experience both new and old, amateur and pro. That's worth something enough to draw traffic. How much? I don't have a clue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for expending efforts on Facebook, we have tried that but it didn't move the needle as much as we thought it would...meaning we spend time, money & energy into posting there and it only reaches 5% of our "fans".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow! I hope that's a fact, Glenn, because it supports what I've suspected about FB for quite some time as well as other high profile sites that seem to get an unrealistically inordinate amount of so called "real" traffic that get mentioned often by the news media.</p>

<p>When it comes to you get what you put in to any internet venture, buried by too much input makes coming up with better ways for quick and easy access more valuable IMO.</p>

<p>When I post a comment to FB about a program I liked on TV, the next day there are at least 100 additional comments in the "Visitor's Post" section added in addition to the 100's posted before me where mine and others might as well have been deleted. No one wants to scroll continuously through that mess to read that many entries. So finding which is the most compelling and worthwhile is impossible to find. And number of FB "Likes" doesn't tell me jack squat!</p>

<p>At least PN isn't a cluttered mess as FB.</p>

<p>Facebook is a very effective marketing tool but it needs to be used properly. From what I see, there are comments here from people who have never spent the time to learn how to use FB. I do it for my own music "magazine" and I used to do it for comedian Marlon Wayans in his online video venture. In both cases, over 50% of the new traffic to the sites came from Facebook. I also do social media marketing for several non-profits but that is more event-driven.</p>

<p>What works with Facebook is posting about new content, and posting regularly. The problem for PN is that the type of content that works - such as new videos or articles - isn't happening often enough to keep people clicking on it in their FB feed. Once they stop clicking on a specific page's posts, they see it less in their feed. Posting on Facebook following any new content when the content is being posted regularly will result in a lot more clickthroughs and sharing. Sharing by the right people drives more clickthroughs.</p>

<p>There are a lot of other important techniques for maximizing Facebook results including using day of week/time of day properly, driving partner posting, integrated campaigning with Twitter, automated repeat posting for different audiences, and more.</p>

<p>As an example of a photography site using Facebook effectively, PetaPixel does a good job driving traffic through their page. I see their posts regularly in my feed and some of the better ones show up three or four times through shares, so it's easy to know what is interesting. But PetaPixel has newsy and educational content posting five or six times a day so there's content that can generate clickthroughs. Forum posts and new photo posts on a commercial site don't work as magnets for clickthroughs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From what I see, there are comments here from people who have never spent the time to learn how to use FB.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you directing that comment at Glenn? Most here are not using FB for business use or to generate traffic for the "right" people whatever that means.</p>

<p>Apparently some folks just don't want to learn how to use FB. It should be made easier not difficult so the user doesn't have to "learn" how to use a site just to socialize.</p>

<p>I still don't know why FB thinks they need to give the option to those that clearly don't know how to use their site allowing the user to send a comment alert to my my email inbox that they want me to know they commented or have updated on their OWN status. What the HECK is a status and why should anyone be interested? FB is so freakin' annoying to understand just to do basic chit-chat.</p>

<p>Put me down as someone who refuses to "learn" how to use FB. Call me clueless. At this point I really don't give a crap about FB!</p>

<p>@Jeff - regarding FB, I think the answer is - as with most things in life "it depends". We had taken the time to learn FB and for a decent stretch we spent considerable time, energy and effort building fan base and posting on a consistent basis - even boosting (paying to increase exposure) posts when we thought it was appropriate - what we saw was a lift of 15%-20% of our organic Facebook traffic - which at the time only represented 5% of our traffic, which for us wasn't enough for the amount of time, energy and effort we spent on it. Now, have their targeting capabilities increased since we did this - I believe they have. Is it something we could take a look at again, sure. But when we took the time, energy and effort to learn it before we found it wasn't a fit for us. Maybe a lift of 10-15% is enough for a comedian or music site - I think "it depends" because every business model on how they convert their traffic into revenue is different. A music site sells 50 CDs generating $600 dollars in revenue that can directly attribute it to a $100 spend on FB - sure it makes sense. What we found was that we couldn't directly attribute the time, energy and money spent to the positive we needed to continue our FB efforts. I'm not saying we've given up, but we've reallocated that time, energy and effort into other areas namely the redesign. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> It should be made easier not difficult so the user doesn't have to "learn" how to use a site just to socialize.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

If you read what I said, it was in reference to using Facebook as a marketing tool. It's very easy for socializing. I know people whose pre-teen children use it.

 

 

Glenn, on the marketing side, I've done it all without spending money to boost posts. I did boost one post early on and noticed that it wasn't that much more than what I got without spending money. From what I have done and what I see when I look at other sites (PetaPixel, definitely worth seeing what they do), it's very effective without spending money.

<p>I have only three items which fit into the “Reboot Interest in PN” category. I haven’t been posting very long but have fallen upon what appears to be evidence that PN is a bit broken and repairs might be needed. <br />In two of the “No Words” forums the individual(s) posting did not adhere to the specified category due, perhaps to being uninformed ( I hate the ‘i’ word). When the post was blatantly off base no one posted there any more. In another case a modulator emailed me to suggest that I contact the “transgressor” and explain “my view). For two reasons I did not as it was not a forum and more importantly I am not a photog and have no credibility as an expert. If I had I envisioned a quite logical response of: “Who the hell are you?”. The responsibilities for this type of dialog IMHO would fall to the Senators of this community……who are capable and authorized to make any modifications.<br />In the other case my enthusiasm for being able to post images in a place for photographers but not totally reading the instructions caused me to post 3 images in a No Words listing which is a no-no. I was in that state similar to trying to hold back while running downhill. That rule could use an amendment or two by the way. In addition since the identical category shows up in several places as new would it be a monstrous project to place the likes together slowly (8 months + time base)? Another condition which really discouraged me and WILL discourage newbies with PN is if due to unfamiliarity with posting two or three issues of one post appear without any means for correction beyond the duration stated. I had started to collect some of these after my first few….there are quite a few that have not been attended to.<br />There are more things possible for improvement but for me it would be nice to see the cracks in the wall spackeled over first. Newby or not please note that answer to Dingaling or curmudgeon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you read what I said, it was in reference to using Facebook as a marketing tool. It's very easy for socializing. I know people whose pre-teen children use it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, Jeff, I did read about you were referring to both the social side and business side use of FB, but addressing your quote I now have to wonder if you read...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From what I see, there are comments here from people who have never spent the time to learn how to use FB.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which one requires learning the most? Business side or social?</p>

<p>Can you answer my question about why someone I never spoke with on FB but is linked in some way to someone else I did speak to would want me to know their FB status in an email alert? Can you tell me what an FB status is?</p>

<p>I've turned on and off FB email notifications but not sure how to turn those off and every time I have to revisit my FB profile preference to see if I missed some additional setting, FB has changed the wording, the arrangement and options which changes what they really do or mean. You say that's easy to deal with? I don't!</p>

<p>You seem too quick to assume the worst in others with blanket statements quoted above without even knowing anything about them in regards to the real world details in how folks interact with technology.</p>

<p>Jeff, I've been contributing meaningful responses in these forums for ten years where I've proven I've helped people use digital imaging technology so I hope you believe me when I say that FB is not easy to use in my experience. It's quite annoying to use.</p>

<p>There's also a pattern I've picked up noticing who gets the most attention on any internet site and it usually is associated with sites directly or indirectly connected to (big money) media giants like PBS, CBS, CNN, Sony, Viacom, etc. They always get huge traffic especially on FB with regard to any form of their content where the little guy (photographers, mom & pop entrepreneurs ) have to resort to posting videos of unusual behavior to get any attention and traffic.</p>

<p>Congratulations on getting the opportunity to do FB work for Marlon Wayans.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...I used to do it <em>(social marketing)</em> for comedian Marlon Wayans in his online video venture. In both cases, over 50% of the new traffic to the sites came from Facebook.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So when it doesn't work for others with stats like that, you automatically assume they don't know how to use Facebook? Sorry, that's not enough facts for a consensus. We all can't be that dumb.</p>

<p>And related to photography here's a bit of online social marketing mystery I discovered today about a glamour photographer Nikki Closser I saw interviewed on an episode of PBS/KLRN San Antonio, TX channel show called "Start Up" where she says she worked her way up to earning a profit making $15K gross in her second year with her photography business. The story piece and interview makes her look quite successful.</p>

<p>Never heard of her? Neither have I. She doesn't show up in a Photonet search. There's very few YouTube related videos about her. This one I found...

<p>Here's the site that features this "Start Up" program... http://createtv.com/ShowInfo/Start+Up</p>

<p>Why did she get the story piece from PBS when there are so many others that appear just as successful going by all the online photography sites?</p>

<p>Would anyone here consider Photo.net a start up? How did they last this long considering all the competition?</p>

<p>Raoul<br /> If there is a sincere interest in rebooting interest in PN, which I have not detected, a survey of the individuals who have jumped ship might provide an interesting PN report card. Surely the contact data is still available. This might suggest what actions could be taken….with the obligatory discussions of course. <br /><br /> </p>

<p>Even when Photo.net was growing rapidly, plenty of people left. Maybe the problem is inability to attract new customers as much or more than inability to control losses. Before leaping to actions, its necessary to understand the problem and identify priority tasks. I don't know who around here has reached such an understanding; if anyone has, I don't think they've shared the results of that analysis, so the process of making suggestions on recovery actions is going to be pretty random. </p>

<p>We've done interviews of new users and one of the primary themes in their feedback was our look and feel was...dated. Basic functions took time to learn and were not as intuitive as they should be. Some love the quirkiness, some don't. One thing is for sure - photo.net hasn't changed much since 2000 and an update - in terms of look and feel is our future. <br>

We will also be announcing new content alliances, so you can expect the caliber of content on photo.net will be measurably improved and will be from very notable photographers. But at its core we are a community based site - all we do behind the scenes is try to create a better stage for you all to help one another, connect and enjoy photography. Because this is a community site much of the content comes from you. You are the creator, you are the expert you are the student - we all have our roles but one thing is for sure - we will never stop learning...that is why we can support each other in this endeavor. </p>

<p>Glenn,<br>

Have there been interviewers with those who have left? What factors pushed or pulled them away? Is understanding why people leave on an equal footing with attracting new users/subscribers?</p>

<p>That was my question, indeed:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Couldn't we try to get back older users ? <br />Did you try it ? I mean not especially to have them pay, but to get back their contribution (as an example, why not to ask for their ideas about how to make PN better for THEM ? Money will come later, if they get involved again.)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see several "old PNers" like me that complain that the person they used to follow are no longer posting here.<br>

(I am in the same situation: I follow 70 and NONE of them posted recently).</p>

<p>Why don't each of us try to get their feedback ?<br>

Why not just start to add some comment on our favorite photo of them ?<br>

If they start receiving emails with interest on their work, they may just come back to have a look...<br>

And then we may have a chance to chat with them and ask why they left...</p>

<p>If we want this site to survive, we need a clear analysis, a strategy, and to try to push it.<br>

And that's not necessarily requiring big money or big effort (or if it does, I think it should be a concerted decision. After all, we all pay our contribution, so we may also decide somehow).<br>

But the first action is to discuss this.<br>

Which is what we do here, I think.</p>

<p>We'll NEVER succeed without a community of effort.<br>

And a shared -and therefore written- strategy.</p>