Website critique and ads

[alex_hibbert]

<p>

<p >Hi everyone,<br>

I have set up a Google advertising campaign with good, specific keywords and ads which point towards my landing page, <a href="http://photo.alexhibbert.com">http://photo.alexhibbert.com</a> . However, the bounce rate (<10secs spent on site) is over 60% which clearly means the landing page is either rubbish or just not what people want to see.<br>

Could you suggest the changes that would cause you to stick around longer and read everything if you were after a photographer to commission?<br>

Or is 60% bounce normal? I got a good value commission from the page in the first week but nothing since.<br>

Thanks!<br />Alex.</p>

</p>

[rod_melotte]

<p>Well - granted my computer here at work is having problems but I spent 10 seconds on the site and saw nothing but a few links! Nope - all anybody here get's is a blank page with a few words. maybe we're blocked here. ?</p>

[alex_hibbert]

<p>Hi Rod,<br>

The landing page is just a flash slideshow, title and three links...is your flash player blocked at work?<br>

Thanks</p>

[aimpic]

<p>This is a question I'm often asked as a consultant.<br>

1 The landing page gives me no reason to stay.<br>

2 The flash drags its bum so slowly, I don't want to wait and with no reason, why should I?<br>

3 A couple of points - make it fast as hell. Give people a reason to stay - remember the radio station WIFM - Whats In It For Me, then maybe if you have a compelling reason, I will look.<br>

This is a big topic, I'll grant you that.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Unless a flash intro page knocks my socks off, I won't bother going to the main site. I don't like how slow Flash can be.</p>

[photomark]

Alex, I think a 60% bounce rate is a little high for a photo site, but not horrible. Your front page simply is not inviting

enough quickly enough. I think you would be better off just starting on your image page. The flash intro is not worth the

time it takes to load, doesn't add anything at all to my experience on your site, and pretty much tells the whole story

without asking me to click into the site.

 

You should consider renaming 'samples' to gallery. Maybe it's more meaningful where you are from, but for me I wasn't

quite sure what I was going to get when I clicked on it. 'Samples' is vague and unexciting; everyone knows what a

gallery or portfolio is.

 

Even if you do start with the gallery, the portfolio itself is not really organized in any way that makes me want to explore.

It looks like 17 photos of wildly different stuff. It is a rare person that will want to see an aerial from Greenland followed

by an old guy at a computer followed by a captive japanese deer. Who is your audience? I clicked on the Greenland

aerial hoping to see more Greenland stuff, but was disappointed. That's really a nice shot and one I haven't seen

everywhere else, I want to see more like that.

 

So here's what would normally happen if I came upon your site:

 

I probably wouldn't click through the main page. If I waited for it to load (I often don't), I would watch a few of the images,

notice that there isn't much else on the site other than samples and about, and be on my way. I'd bounce.

 

If I did click through, I'd click on the shot that most interested me (the Greenland aerial), notice that there were no more,

quickly examine the thumbnails, and then be on my way.

 

You're competing with an awful lot of content out there. If you want traffic you need to provide some really interesting

things tailored to your audience and you need to make it immediately clear what you have. Why no information about

traveling in Greenland, for instance. I'd probably read it. If it was organized like a blog and promised more interesting

stuff, I might even subscribe to the RSS feed.

 

I faced a similar problem last year. After a few revisions, I noticed my traffic was down and bounce rate was up. I

revised again last fall and saw an instant drop of 20% in my bounce rate and a few hundred percent increase in traffic.

What I did was put to big pictures that quickly communicate what I do and direct links to all the content. I work fairly

hard to keep fresh material flowing and integrate the site into all my other online activities. It's really a lot of work and I'm

still not happy with the flow and layout, but it's getting there.

[bethe_fisher]

<p>I was recently looking for a photographer as I wanted some good maternity shots of myself and couldn't do what I wanted on my own. After the first few of them, any time I hit a site that started with flash, I moved on. If I'd been leisurely looking just to see photos, I might have stayed longer. But since I was on a mission, I didn't have the patience to sit and wait for a flash page to load unless it looked like it was going to be really good. As a consumer, I want to see examples of the work to see if that's what I'm looking for. I'm not looking to see who built the coolest page using the neatest tricks.</p>

[rod_melotte]

<p>I get it ah home and it loads demon fast - not sure what people are talking about but an interesting take on Flash sites. Bethe - what are the good sites you like ?</p>

[alex_hibbert]

<p>Thanks everyone. I tend to see a lot of resistance to flash sites - yet hundreds of pro photographers use flash for their slideshows. Seems a bit odd - I try to keep it to a minimum by having just a flash slideshow.<br>

I'll change the 'Samples' title to Portfolio. Good idea.<br>

In terms of the choice of photography - I used to have a much larger, hierarchal folder system of images with many from Greenland, corporate etc etc...This was described by most as confusing and over the top. It was suggested that I have a randomised selection from across the board in a single gallery.<br>

Simplicity is the aim for my site. One page to land on. On page for contact details and pricing. One page for a gallery.<br>

Any more suggestions would be great!<br>

Thanks<br>

Alex.</p>

[rod_melotte]

<p>Alex - remember that this is a tiny sample of people. it all depends on what you want to achieve with a website. I also have a flash site but I have it because people kept asking where they can see more of my work. On average it takes a person 7 times seeing a fine art piece before he/she will purchase it. So I felt I just wanted a place to store what I've been doing lately. My goal was not to sell from the site, it's to wet people appetite so when I see them in person they have an idea what I do. Return customers is where money is made and I want to keep THEM interested. There are hundreds of thousands of photographers and if someone has a better website and gets the business, that's fine, I'm not interested in someone that picks a photographer because their website is better.<br>

.<br>

So, in a nutshell - it all depends on what you want out if the site.</p>

[alex_hibbert]

<p>Thanks Rod. The purpose is not to sell prints or licences or as a showcase for family. It is to generate commissions. It did the job very well in the first week I launched it but has gone slightly quiet since. My stock (wildlife and wilderness) is a separate part of the business and I leave the marketing of that to Getty and Alamy etc...<br>

Hope that helps!</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I see a bunch of pictures that don't have anything in common. There is nothing to unify them.</p>

<p>Even creating multiple albums (e.g. Architecture, wildlife, landscapes, etc.) would help.</p>

<p>And the Radcliffe Camera picture really needs to have the verticals corrected!</p>

 

[alex_hibbert]

<p>Thanks Greg,<br>

I'll try and subdivide the gallery. The Rad Cam photo is supposed to have dodgy verticals! Was going for the UWA effect.</p>

[serge_kakorin]

<p>Alex, in addition to all that was said, consider the following. It is hard to read white letters on black background. When your site will grow, you will probably have more text on it, then it'll get even worse. Also, you list your specialties, but do not have photos showing corporate photo shoots and events, personal portfolios and lifestyle, sports and music. Good luck!<br /> </p>

[serge_kakorin]

<p>P.S. It is generally accepted that photographers write their bios in the third person. I hate this. It is understandable for some CEO, but not for photographer. You must be closer to your clients (and prospective clients for that matter), than some faceless executive.</p>