Social Media Marketing for Photographers // Photography + Community

A new service could have photographers asking if outsourcing their blogs is the right thing to do. GhostRighters is a new business from some photo professionals that allows a photographer to outsource some marketing efforts. Among GhostRighters’ services, you’ll find that they will write your blog. For $500 each month, you’ll get 12 articles for your website.

Is it the right choice for most solo or small studio photographers? I don’t think so.

Your blog should be your voice. It should be written by someone who not only has seen your images, but has created them. Your stories of clients should from your perspective, since a ghostwriter wasn’t there.

You might be wondering how to write a useful blog for your clients and potential clients. You might be concerned that writing your own blog posts could consume too much time. You might not know what to write about.

There are better solutions than outsourcing to a third party. Next Wednesday I’ll dive into such a solution. Be sure to come back to find out the details.

Photo by ian ransley, used under Creative Commons licensing

Tagged as:
blogging,
ghostrighters,
outsourcing

I’ve tried and used a variety of online services, software, books, and other resources as I have built my photography business using today’s social technologies and online tools. I’ve made recommendations along the way, and I just consolidated all of those into a master Resources page that lists my recommendations for blog software, WordPress themes, web hosting, books, email list management, printing services, and more.

Check out my page of Social Photography Resources.

These other posts might be of interest to you:

1. What Part of Your Photo Business is Social Media?
2. Twitter Launches Lists: Here’s a Photographer-Specific Example
3. Gift Ideas for the Social Photographer

Tagged as:
photography,
recommendations,
resources,
social media

If you photograph businesses, company events, retail openings, parties, or the like, are you keeping those photos under lock and key or are you encouraging your clients to share? Hopefully you’re encouraging some sharing. If you don’t allow (and even encourage) folks to share your work, you’re probably going to be replaced by a photographer who will… or even replaced by the amateur snapshots or cell phone photos of the business’ customers.

I’m not advocating that you give away all of your work for free; take sharing into consideration as you price a job. Will the company want to use your work on its Facebook page? The answer is yes, they should. Are they going to use the pictures on their blog? On their Flickr stream?

How about something even less traditional? What if you license the photos such that the organization not only uses the images on their social networking presences, but allows and encourages their fans to take the images and use them on their own blogs, Facebook pages, or the like?

Sharing is hot. Social media and social networking are all the rage at the moment, and a lot of businesses and other organizations are struggling with how they can “be social.” As a photographer, you can help them. When you license your work, include sharing. Help your clients to help themselves.

Photo by *Sally M*, used under Creative Commons licensing

Tagged as:
blogging,
Business,
facebook,
flickr,
licensing,
Photo Sharing,
sharing

Photographers want easy ways to show off their work in online galleries. Clients want user-friendly systems to check out photos from their event or portrait session. Everyone wants prints from professional labs delivered in a timely manner. There are variety of ways to go about reaching these goals, but one increasingly-common scenario is for a photographer (either a pro or a serious hobbyist) to use an online gallery and image delivery system such as SmugMug or Photoshelter.

Both sites offer the ability for photographers to create customized galleries that can mirror a photographer’s look/feel/branding of their existing website. Both sites partner with processing labs for print and product orders. Both sites offer some form of electronic image delivery.

And, to the benefit of all, both sites are currently going through growth periods.

SmugMug has recently added several new features for their Pro accounts, including shipping coupons, thank-you prints and stickers, and improved analytics. Photoshelter is teasing members with some news about significant upgrades coming later this week. I’ll review those changes once they happen; I’m glad to see each company is currently innovating in this space.

Do you use a hosted gallery system? What do you like? What do you wish could be improved?

Tagged as:
galleries,
photoshelter,
services,
smugmug

Today Google announced Google Places, a database/directory of location-specific information building on the existing Google Maps and Google Local Business services. The big news from a photography standpoint is that Google will send a photographer to a business location and take interior photos at no cost to the business owner.

Presumably Google will be contracting with local photographers to perform these services although I haven’t heard anything directly and there’s no real information from Google on how they are hiring photographers. What will this mean for the commercial photographers not hired by Google? I don’t know. My suspicion is that Google will use low-cost photographers and will be paying below the current market rates for their services (which, in turn, will drive down the market rates).

We’ve seen various areas of photography become devalued (stock, anyone?). Will Google’s entry into this market drive commercial photography rates in a race towards zero?

Tagged as:
business photos,
businesses,
google,
google places,
photography

Late last week, Flickr rolled out a change that widens the reach of it’s collaboration with Getty Images and allows anyone on Flickr to offer their photos for sale via the Getty program.

Previously, the Flickr+Getty partnership was essentially invitation-only, where selected photographers would be invited to have selected photos represented by Getty. Now, photographers can opt-in to allowing any of their public photos to be licensed via Getty. Photographers will see a “Want to license your photos through Getty Images?” link in the “Additional Information” section of their public photo pages. Clicking the link leads to the preferences screen (shown partially in the screenshot) where a photographer can opt-in to allowing Getty to manage licensing of their public photos.

For photographers who choose to participate, a link will be added to all of their public photos page that allows a viewer to request to license the photo. When a request is made, a Getty editor will manage the deal between the photographer and the buyer.

Will This Impede Licensing Deals?

At first this sounds like a great way for photographers to license their work, but I’ve started to think more about it and I wonder how this might over-complicate the behind-the-scenes licensing deals that already occur on Flickr. It’s not uncommon for a photographer to receive a licensing request via Flickr and work with a buyer to arrange terms and payment; will the introduction of Getty into the picture lead to less of the informal deals? Might folks be put off by the formal nature of introducing a third party?

And What About that Non-Commercial Angle?

As most Flickr users know, Flickr prohibits commercial use of the service. From their terms of service:

Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account.

We’ve seen in the past that Flickr is quick to delete accounts without warning for this reason. By rolling Getty licensing out to every user, it’s clear that Flickr is fine with commercial use as long as Flickr gets a piece of that deal. If this was about allowing users choice or flexibility, I’d be able to add a link that allows users to license photos directly through me. That’s not what it’s about. By forcing users to license through Getty, Flickr can control the terms and presumably earn a portion of Getty’s proceeds on the deals.

Are you going to offer your Flickr stream to be licensed via Getty? Does this feature excite you or do you feel limited by the lack of licensing options on Flickr?

Tagged as:
ecommerce,
flickr,
getty,
getty images,
Photo Sharing

Facebook has been in the news again over the last couple of weeks as it has made some change to its privacy settings. Once again we’re seeing some folks choose to deactivate/delete their Facebook profiles in protest. Portland news anchor Stephanie Stricklen (pictured) tweeted last night about knowing several people who are deleting their profiles, noting that the level of chatter around Facebook is greater than ever before.

Sure, Some Things About Facebook Suck

Facebook’s terms of service that, among other things

specifically give us [Facebook] the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content…

Yes, that means that Facebook is claiming a rights grab to use any photos (or other content) you post to their service. I’ll also be the first to admit that their rapidly-changing privacy and information sharing policies can be a bit confusing if one isn’t paying close attention.

On the Other Hand, Facebook is Perfect for Certain Photo Markets

While Facebook’s audience is expanding, the core group of users (especially those who use it actively) remain those who are currently in high school or whom have been in college/university over the past few years. This is the crowd for which Facebook was originally designed, and Facebook has become a core component of social interaction for the connected generation. If you’re a senior portrait photographer, well, Facebook is where your clients are at. Similarly if you shoot weddings, a good portion of your clientele (engaged folks between 18-30) are using Facebook.

Is Facebook Worth It?

Only you can decide if the terms of service and frequently-changing privacy situation are prices you’re willing to pay for exposure to Facebook’s services and users. From where I sit, a wedding or senior shooter deciding not to use Facebook seems like a damaging business decision. On the other hand, if one works mainly with corporate clients (annual reports and so forth), Facebook might not be as critical to one’s business. That said, keep in mind that everyone needs headshots, and everyone needs avatar photos on Facebook, and the two just might overlap.

Are you ditching Facebook over privacy considerations? Will you stick around since you need it for your business? Are you okay with things as they are?

Tagged as:
facebook,
privacy,
terms of service