New Look--ADVERTISING?

[phil_jackson2]

I agree 100% with Lesa, the amazon ad is rediculous,the Critque forum is my favourite, as JMac says you don't realize there are comments below. The comments should be kept above the ad at least....Phil

[sansmeat]

1.5 programmers? Thats half a programmer for every aircraft PN owns!

[chetn]

Can someone please give a step by step method for and links for this add removal process. Being on dialup a photo page now takes twice as long to load there being basically two images to display now. I will come back to my site in a week or so when they have sorted the expected teething bugs.

Much expected chest slapping and hot air has been vented over "the add", but this impractical wait for every page to load... if it cant be fixed, surely I will just drift away. Please advise on add hacking.

[papasan]

Lesa i completely agree with you. I find the advertizement in the middle of the comment section of each of our photos disgraceful and inappropriate. I would not object so much if they were placed at the end/bottom of the section instead, but where they are now it is distracting and disturbing, when people (including ourselves) are reviewing the comments and suggestions made on our individual photos. I also agree that the new look is sleaker and nicer than the old look and i like it better (although admittedly it will require a little bit of getting used to to find the old familiar buttons...). In conclusion i want to join my voice to yours regarding the issue of advertising and i hope that Photo.net will take this into consideration.

[lesa jones]

Shawn--I agree about jumping ship. Interesting that the discussion drew the attention of Greenspun. I don't quite know how to respond to 1.5 programmers? On another thread Mr. Greenspun has written the following: "People are constantly complaining about the rating system, which we'd like to attack, but we can't do it without some revenue. So we're experimenting with different kinds of ads. The Google ads in the photo gallery pages don't produce revenue since people don't click on them. We're trying to see if people will be enticed by the Amazon ads. We'll probably update this to reduce the ads for subscribers, but we can't do anything in the next few hours" My question is doesn't it take revenue to "redo" or "remodel" a site? What costs more-- (1) addressing the ratings system and making users more satisfied? or (2) "remodeling" the look, placing big ads on individual's pics, and further dissatisfying the user? I appreciate the comment Mr. Greenspun, but I think you have forgotten who your customers are. Obviously serious consideration needs to be given to the business aspect of this site. I am for hire and would be happy to evaluate your business plan, strategy, value chain management, marketing, and finances, for a fee of course. Number one rule of business is price everything, and the value of the service is only worth what the user feels it is worth. I will give you a few days to straighten this out, but that is it. The revenue you receive from these ads in the next few days, should cover your amending the system. LJ

[david shelby]

Your blatant advertizement is your number one priority here. Photographers and photo posting take last place. I have been along time member, but know more! P Base offers a excellent sight with the same yearly dues and photographers and photos come first with NO advertizement. I hope you make plenty of money from your advertising.Because members will not take this. Good Luck, you will need it.

[mvisionphotography]

Lesa, well said... I agree honestly I would pay more to have less of this pain. I agree with the fact that they don't encourage those people who use PN on a regular basis (ie... rate lots and upload daily pictures) to get a subscription. I did not know until I looked at this forum that they were planning on getting rid of the subscription. REALLY. I have given the gift more than ONCE and would like to know if this is true as I will stop NOW! Won't let that money go down the you know where. Also I was thinking of buying something from Amazon.com and agree that always going through a place like PN or another place that uses adware helps them get some %. I would just like to get it out of the way as it looks like a HTML drop picture that someone put there as a repost and looks WAY out of the way. Besides the lines are TOTALLY wrong and has no color contrast to it! ~ micki

[petewelsh]

I paid my fee and it promised less advertising if i paid .. Seems I am now getting MORE. I hate having any form of advertising pushed down my throat especially when using MY photos as a lure to FORCE people to see them... I am in the process of building my own site at present and did not intend leaving PN .. But I am not paying for this advertising.. I am not happy about this.. I really hope it gets taken off and soon ..The easiest way not to see is, do not critique in forum it seems to come up after 2 critiques .. I will be commenting in peoples gallery from now on not on forum .. I will add though that I do like the new look and well done for that PNet :)

[Matt Laur]

Lesa: things like remodeling of the site can actually greatly reduce the bandwidth used by a given page view (and thus the site's overhead), and make the site (and all of our content) more visible to search engines, etc. When it comes to which costs more (using cascading style sheets for a better look, and under-the-hood stuff that makes the site easier to maintain, vs. making users happier with a rating system that could take hundreds+ of man-hours to alter, and still not make everyone happy) - you could have the happiest users in the world... but if they're not clicking ads or buying subscriptions, then there's still nothing but red ink.

 

It's easy to say they've forgotten who their customers are... except the vast majority of the traffic appears to be from people who are NOT subscribers, and that makes the people who are willing to pay for advertising or affiliate marketing fees the ACTUAL customers (in the sense of who's paying the bills). It is NOT an easy balance to strike - I know from experience.

 

As for "1.5 programmers"... that's as simple as having one full-time person, and one other person who can only put in a few hours a week. That's a common way to describe it. Qualified people who can do database mods, server-side programming, and who know how to do projects like this cost at least $150/hour. And someone who's new to the platform would take many hours just to get up to speed, let alone do new work. Thousands of dollars get spent very quickly, and it takes a very, very successful ad click-through rate to even come CLOSE to raising that kind of money, let alone in the week you're willing to give. Just chiming in from experience on over 10 years of these sorts of projects.

[dave holmes]

<p>Hi Lesa, I was going to send this as an e-mail but changed my mind.</p>

 

<p>It saddens me that fine photographers (Andre Easter for example) are leaving PN for other means and forums to post their work, and that others such as yourself are angered by the changes to this site. Even so I can't agree to the statement that putting an ad in with my work is 'unethical' since I don't feel particularly victimized (at least not in a significant way) and I don't believe in a victimless act as being unethical. Tacky? yes, like a billboard in the middle of a park. But <i>unethical</i>?</p>

 

<p>The libertarian in me says: if ENOUGH subscribers don't like the way Greenspun runs the site, then someone, somewhere, will create another site that's more appealing to subscribers, and the business will go elsewhere. The internet is a big place. Remember however that creating and running a new site is bloody time consuming and expensive!</p>

 

<p>Speaking as a professinal web site builder, I think I have a kick-butt PN killer website in me somewhere, if I only had about 2 years to develop it. If I was a guy who still lived in the basement of my parents house, and didnt have to work for a living, PN would be in trouble! As it stands however I would rather let Greenspun do the work and deal with all the headaches, and see if he can iron out how to place and size the Amazon ads and not infuriate too many PN subscribers.</p>

[hugh_hill]

Some of us have been here for a few years now paying for our memberships and I know that many have felt let down over these years on one issue after another and as a result some top photographers have left.

 

Lesa, you are right, no one should have the right to deface our work least of all within our own personal folders it's wrong.

I trusted P.N and have brought many people here over the time I have been here through my teaching or my work with people now I feel as though I have let them down badly and for this will never promote p.n again.

Many have suggested other photo-sites and I for one will be looking into it, maybe to 'Flicker' as there seems to be a great deal of ex P.N there and they seem quite happy with the move.

 

It's a sad day but, for some money means everything!

[aeaster]

Lesa; you wrote: "I appreciate the comment Mr. Greenspun, but I think you have forgotten who your customers are." I strongly disagree with this. Phil knows exactly who the customers are -- the advertisers. This web-based publication is no different than any print-based publication. It is a business operated to turn a profit from the sale of advertising space. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with this model; this is after all how all publications operate these days. But do not fool yourself into thinking that the readers/subscribers/members/whatever are customers or stakeholders in any way -- we are the merchandise.

 

As I stated in an earlier posting in this tread, PN is not the only game in town, although for a long time it was considered by me to be the best. Recently I decided not to renew my subscription because of the growing official hostility towards traditional film photography, not neccessarily because of the recent changes in the business operation, although I believe that the two are linked.

[lesa jones]

Well said Dave and Matt. I realize that money and revenue is the primary issue here, and thank you for clarifying the work involved in running a site like this. Dave, I respect your position, but I still say that unethical is the response of choice for me. I argue that it is unethical that because of an image, that attracts someone's attention, that I, a nonpro photographer, posts, has the potential for making this organization profit in some way, without me seeing the benefit of it personally, is in fact unethical. Take for example that I see your image of the post office lobby on your community page. I click your image to view it closer and in more detail, and during my examination of your image, I notice the big ad in the critique section. I then click that ad, and purchase a product. That company, as well as PN, has now received $ because of YOUR image, and my interest in it. At that point I believe you are a victim, because what have YOU received from it? ZILCH Others are profiting from your work, and in that point, you become the victim.

[darius.tulbure]

My little company has 10x more programmers. You can visit www.jumpeye.com<p>What? Is this advertising? SO WHAT? Everybody should do it!

[lesa jones]

OK Andre-point taken. If we as members are not the customer, and the site exists for profit to the owners, why not explore other means of income, rather than ads, which Greenspun has stated they are "experimenting with". For instance- the possibility of PN becoming a brokerage for stock photography. The library of images is huge, and the opportunity exists. I am sure there are members on this site, pros down to newbies, who would be happy with their images generating some $. PN could benefit financially too, from the commission. Is that an idea? A possibility?

[Matt Laur]

Lesa: I think there is one other way to look at it. The $30/year (isn't it? whatever) can't possibly pay for what it costs to have your "own" area on PN, especially if you have a lot of traffic looking at your pages/images. The photographer whose work is being looked at when an ad is clicked may not get a piece of the sale, directly, but she gets the facility of the entire web site (and everything that goes with it, including exposure and community) that is supported by the revenue from those ads. If there were NO ads, then the people with hundreds of images and jillions of page views ON those images every month would burn wildy more bandwidth and storage than the buck or two per month they're paying would ever cover.

<br><br>

The issue here is either way higher subscription rates (which would have to be at LEAST as high as what it would cost each user to run their own web site), or some other revenue streams. As Philp G says, the regular galleries and whatnot simply don't generate the ad clicks to cover it. So I get why they're trying things, and think that the current bit of ugliness is just some tone-deaf work that they will be changing. Hope so, anyway.

[joshroot]

Nothing this large is going to work perfectly out of the gate. I don't understand all of you who are making "I've been here for years, but now I am going to leave!" statements. You have put a couple years into photo.net, but now you are going to leave over an issue that is less than 24 hours old?

 

Give it a few days. Let the understaffed programming department get through the pile of work they have to do.

[my]

Just thinking out loud, but if the programming department is so understaffed:<br>

- why attemting this switch right now?<br>

- why are not currently recruiting for more programmers on the front page?<br>

I might be wrong but, to me, deciding where an ad displays should not be rocket science for anyone with basic programming skills.

[lesa jones]

Thank you Amilcar! Ditto to that!

[vallery]

As for the new look and typography I find it sterile and unfamiliar.

As for the advertisments I am glad to find the forum ,Lesa ,as I thought my firewall had failed me.

We all know that advertising is a monster that will not go away. Those innane (sp?) commercials on tv pay for the shows we like to watch, those ridiculous fake makeup ads in magazine pay for the press of the magazine,etc.

I am not surprised that this has happened, however, I am surprised that it was just there without knowledge that it was coming.

I keep an ad free website because it is required for some of the graphic and photography jobs I do! I was hoping to get away from paying the fees for it this year but I think i will keep it. I enjoy an ad free website for my hard work.

I am willing to pay more for ad free. Of course, who knows, that may be a tactic that is happening now - to see if we are willing to do that. I am suspicious by nature.

I am a member of several of the photo sites out there but have not paid dues (they are the same if not more than PN)!

I don't care for the look of most of them and have gotten used to PN.

PN seems to be joining the ranks of the mediocre and now the choices are "level".

Ithought that if you did not pay dues to be a member here that you were not allowed certain privileges...Am i wrong? If not, the fact that some people don't pay shouldn't be the issue for "invasion of the advertisers".

Is there a spot where I can read about PN's intentions for the future of this site?

[mvisionphotography]

You know... it's not the adware OR the fact that you use the same people that I use for my blog (which by the way does a WONDERFUL job for me picking the right items and tracking what should be used for my blog). It is the placement. I agree that we should give PN more time as it has only been 24 hours. <br><br> I am also concerned with this 1.5 staffing (for these matters). Hello, I have friends that make hundreds of thousands of dollars just doing adware for for companies NOT working for the companies. I don't understand what the deal is. Placement is important and so is what is placed. I said it before I would click on Amazon.com to buy my stuff to help PN make some profit. BUT I to am a little bit embarrased that it looks like I am avertising on my OWN picture site. I don't do that on my own BLOG as it is up at top and very inconspicuous and where I want it. NOT in the middle of my blog and bigger than a picture I would upload. I DO NOT plan on leaving PN over this because I find it the best of the best and I have looked but I would like to find that those that have been here longer than me are happy. I have found people here to be the freindliest and most encouraging people around for someone who has just started out taking photo's who had an extensive background in photo shopping and computer graphics. No other web site compares. ~ micki

[david shelby]

I disagree with Micki's comment (No other web site compares) there are web sights that offer quality postings. Check out P Base and you will see what i mean. I just checked one of my photo's posted on P.N., the ad is twice as large as the photo! Whatever works for P.N. management is right on?

David S.

[lesa jones]

Vallery--thanks for your input on this subject. I don't know where to find intention of future of PN. Maybe someone can help us out. Micki-- I have decided to give the site a few days to see what happens, before deciding on my own future use of this site. I am a little skeptical that 1.5 programmers can correct the situation, but we will see.

[dave holmes]

Lesa, technically you're correct -- someone might look at one of my pictures, click amazon, and thereby make Greenspun a few pennies (not an exaggeration) on behalf of my image. Correct. Realistically, I would be surprised if that happens 10 times a year. that means I helped Greenspun make a buck, if that, per annum.

 

So technically, youre right. Realistically, I have bigger fish to fry. You only have so much time and energy in life, you can't squander it all on chasing after a few pennies.

[philg]

For what it is worth, I think we are showing less than half the number of advertisements that we were a few months ago. http://www.photo.net/from-the-editor/200701 explains the issue and also a little something about our plans for the site. Our goal is to figure out where in the site the ads will be the most useful to readers (and therefore clicked on the most) and eliminate ads that aren't relevant or interesting.

 

We don't have the luxury of venture capital that some other folks on the Internet have. We actually have the opposite (a mountain of debt left over from the 2000/2001 team's failure). So when we want to buy a new server or hire a new programmer to improve the service we always have to ask "Where are we going to get the money to pay for this?"