I’ve visited 20 Flash-based photographer’s websites this week. I’ve been subjected to long load times, terrible – loud music, poor animation and a serious lack of good imagery. Unfortunately for the photographers who owned these sites, I was visiting to look at their entry into our Emerging Photographer of the Year contest. None of these folks will win because their web sites are so bad, I couldn’t find the pictures and if I could find them, the pain and agony I had to go through to look at them was simply not worth it.
Scott Bourne has this post over at Photo Focus:
Five Reasons Why Photographers Should Build A Blog Rather Than A Website
I disagree for a few reasons. I will order them as I find them to his post.
First of all, I totally agree with the Flash thing. Hate it in almost every situation. I am simply not impressed by animating a photographers name. Who cares?
1. You can build a blog at no cost.
Yes... you can. But if it doesn't look good, what is gained. Sure there are great WP themes out there, and some of the biggest names use Blogger. But that doesn't mean that it is right for everyone. Or that it isn't. It's a blog... a linearly structured set of posts that must be interesting to make any impact. And I don't necessarily think that another Blogger Minimalist is the best way to assert your photography into the minds of potential buyers. Should you spend a couple-o-G's building a new blog? HELL NO... but simply doing something because it is free may not be the best way to go.
2. Search Engines Love Blogs: Yep. Especially Blogger for Google (they own it) and on that point there is no argument. I will note that Google and other search engines also love well built and constructed websites with dynamic content... especially ones that are maintained well and the content is compelling. Websites can do that. Very well as fact.
But having a blog will not necessarily automatically get you any search engine love if you have nothing to say. Nothing to post. No desire to write long and wonderfully insightful posts. So they can become an albatross to the photographer who may want to do minimal writing while still maintaining a good web presence and SERP.
3. Websites can accomplish the same as a website and more... OK. But a website that can deliver a 'blog' or 'projects' section can do the same... maybe even more. It is all in the design and architecture, how efficient the code is, what tools are used to get the page seen and content content content. A Website can indeed be dynamic and provide a lot of SE love if it is constructed in a way that allows for dynamic content delivery and a photographer willing to do that. (Now there's the rub for both.)
4. Blogs offer RSS. Sites can do that as well, or integrate the blog within the site for even more RSS goodness. It is simply code and architecture. Can the kid down the street who makes websites make it happen? Actually, yeah... probably - it's us old farts that don't keep up.
5. Using industry standard tools to change and update the blog is a benefit. But those same tools can be used to update, change, modify and add to websites as well. I haven't built a 'webmaster' website since late 1998. CMS is simple to add, and with tools like SlideShowPRo, JQuery, MooTools and simple Javascript, any site can be totally and easily updated by the photographer who may know very little at all about code.
I am in no way saying that photographers shouldn't have blogs, on the contrary I am agreeing with Scott on the fact that they should... IF they have the right personality, drive, ambition and the love of writing that a blog necessitates.
(What about a photoblog, Don?)
Yeah, sure... those are fine. But without words the images are back into being placed on a life raft in an evergrowing sea of content, without any words to provide context... Context is the thing... words and pictures.
Don't bother sending me all those wonderful photoblogs that have a million loyal fans, I already know most of them and am a fan. But the way to that point is long and steep... and not a guarantee of anything at all. That sea is full of a lot of big boats who have been there a long time. And I wholeheartedly support anyone who wants to go that way. But keep in mind the word context...
Clients looking for photographers are looking for photographers who have websites... blogs drive them to the websites. Blogs attract them, the website formalizes the content into something THEY understand, and creates the context in which you show your work.
Scott's site is wonderful and his knowledge priceless, and I thought it was a great, thought provoking post. But I had to discuss my views as well.
Thanks.
1 comment:
In my opinion a photographer should have both, not one or the other. Now, if the photographer is not into online / social media, and maintaining a website is just another chore, then do a website, not a blog.
A website that doesn't update isn't great, but a blog whose posts are sporadic, and which hasn't been updated in weeks is even worse. It speaks volumes.
Now, I think a blog and a website have two different purposes. I go to a website if I want to see a cohesive view of a photographer's work. I go to a blog if I want to learn more about that photographer and how he thinks / who he is. A blog is chronological, it's experiments, it is detail. It would take a lot longer if at all possible to extract an overview of the style and body of work from a blog. In today's world where you may have a minute at best to convince someone that they should spend more time looking you up, a blog is the wrong thing to rely on.
That said, a website has to be well designed to be functional both as a marketing tool as well as for the reader. I'm glad you've been making this point over and over again, since there are so many dysfunctional sites out there...
Jan
Post a Comment