Blake J. Discher

Last Friday, the New York Times ran an article titled, "An Ad Engine to Put ‘Mad Men’ Out of Business" which talked about an online service called PlaceLocal that automatically creates online ads. From the article:

"New software called PlaceLocal builds display ads automatically, scouring the Internet for references to a neighborhood restaurant, a grocery store or another local business. Then it combines the photographs it finds with reviews, customer comments and other text into a customized online ad for the business.

The program, developed by PaperG, an advertising technology company in New Haven, Conn., is aimed in part at small businesses just beginning to advertise on the Web sites of local newspapers or television stations, said Victor Wong, its chief executive."

I was immediately intrigued about how the service works so I went to the site and created an ad for a my favorite deli here in Detroit, The Russell Street Deli.  The ad it created in less than two minutes was fairly basic, but included moving images (using Flash) gathered online, and testimonials presumably from reviews on the internet:

OK, so it's not the sexiest ad in the world, but for someone with a limited budget that precludes hiring a photographer, it would certainly work online.  The user can select from a number of sizes including vertical and horizontal banners and the site creates the new ad instantly.  Being a photographer, I was interested in how they were selecting images and whether any respect being paid to copyrighted content. My query to them in a form on their website:

I am curious as to how you eliminate copyrighted images from ads that are created on the fly, or if you do.  If not, how are the creators being compensated for the licensing of their images?   Cheers, Blake Discher, www.groozi.com

Less than an hour later, Victor Wong himself responded. His answer:

Hi Blake:

Thank you for your interest in our product. We are definitely respectful of right holders, and make best efforts to make sure the elements used to create advertisements follow comply with copyright regulations. Specifically, we have taken the following steps to address copyright concerns:

.    We use content from our partners who have secured content rights
.    We use content from the websites of advertisers so they can reuse their existing content in their advertisements
.    We offer a library of stock photography as an alternative to customers without their own photos
.    We strictly adhere to restrictions of photographs offered under the Creative Commons or other relevant licenses
.    We require users to certify that all the elements used do not infringe intellectual property of others
I hope this is helpful.

Thanks,
Victor

A few thoughts...  It's refreshing to hear that Mr. Wong is mindful of copyright issues and has created a system in which safeguards are in place to protect rights holders. Aggregation of internet content began with news gathering sites and it's no surprise to see it move to this sort of use.  Because this model is sure to expand, it's even more imperative that before images are placed online, they be registered with the copyright office, watermarked, and contain full metadata including your contact information for licensing.

What do you think of this service?

It took less than 24 hours from "upload to illegal download" for the daily Mexican newspaper Frontera to steal an image posted to Flickr by Illinois-based photographer Mike Boatman.  The newspaper serves the conurbation of Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego, California. That's the image over to the left, but shown here small enough so as to not add salt to Mike's wound should anyone be contemplating its theft again. (This article could very well turn up at a future date in a search for "Paola Longoria".)

Posting to the Advertising Photographers of America's (APA) Yahoo group, Mike wrote: "I was reading this article in Photoshop User magazine about Flickr and how some photographers are selling images; how corporations are using Flickr as a research tool, and that Flickr has adequate usage rights protection."

He continued, "Up to now I have personally been very conservative about what I post online because the internet does not have a delete button, and anyone can steal your work, or will steal your work.  So until now I have only posted images that I use for personal marketing that I assume will be stolen. I had a little extra time while on an assignment on May 19th; my shoot was not due until late afternoon, so I set up a Flickr account.  I post two very sale-able, exclusive images from the 2009 US Open Racquetball Grand Slam of players Paola Longoria and Rhonda Rajsich, the number one and two professional players as just a test."

They were posted with proper copyright notice and "All Rights Reserved" checked. But on May 20th (the next day!), Mike's image of Paola showed up in print, in Frontera. He was not contacted for permission to run the image; it was, plain and simple, an unauthorized use of a copyrighted image. And as if to insult him even more, they failed to provide a credit line.

Mike graciously gave permission to write about his experience, saying, "Looks like I did the Flickr posting wrong and did not safeguard my work.  If you want to write about my experience as an example of what not to do that is fine. What ever is the best way to get the word out so no other photographers get their work ripped off is great. It was purely a lack of knowledge on my part. Hopefully others will not make the same mistake of posting too large a file and relying on the Restricted Usage tag on Flickr to be a substitute for a watermark in the center of the image."

Mike says he figures it's a waste of time and money to go after a Mexican newspaper. And he's probably correct. This from then United States Ambassador to Mexico Antonio O. Garza, Jr. in a 2005 report still present on the US Embassy website:

"The United States Mission in Mexico recognizes the imperative of strong intellectual property rights protection (IPR) for American business, and is working to help the Government of Mexico find ways to improve IPR enforcement in Mexico. We know that stolen, pirated, and counterfeit goods undermine investment opportunities and can significantly impact market share for U.S. companies. We are also aware of the considerable efforts Mexico has made in recent years to improve IPR protection, although a lot of work remains." (Full report.)

We've all heard that old maxim, 'First time shame on you, second time shame on me.'  Mike has made some changes to his Flickr photostream. Specifically, he's updated each of his images to include a very visible watermark:

The lesson in all of this of course, is to upload low-resolution, watermarked images to Flickr or any other photo sharing portal.  If an honorable company wants to use it, they'll contact you.  For a very thorough review of the terms and conditions of Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and MySpace, check out the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) "Best Practice Recommendations for Social Networking Sites" report.

Do you use Flickr to market images? Please share your experience in the comments. Thanks!

In the meantime, if you represent Frontera and care to fairly compensate Mike for the use of his copyrighted image, I'm sure he'd be willing to take your call.

One of the basics in Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is the content of a website’s TITLE tag which end up being displayed in the top-most bar of a browser window when someone is looking at your site. The tag is given significant weight by search engines in their effort to figure out exactly what a site is about.

Sounds super simple and you might think everyone already knows this, but as I speak to photographers around the country about SEO, I notice quite a lot of studio names (such as “XYZ Studio”) or the photographer’s own name (such as “John Smith”) in the tag.

Unless your name is nationally recognized by photo buyers, you’d be better off thinking about what keyword phrase potential clients would use to find a photographer that produces work such as you create. So for example, your TITLE tag might better consist of “Seattle Editorial Photographer John Smith.” Place the most important keywords toward the left of the sentence. About eight to ten words is good.

It is important to make certain your TITLE matches your page content, the "Description" META tag actually describes what on the page, and is unique for that specific page.

Good luck!

At one time or another we've all received this call. Usually the conversation goes something like this:

Client: "We have a project coming up, we saw your website and absolutely love your work. We're looking for a photographer we can build a relationship with."

Me: "That's great, thanks for the compliment, tell me a bit about your project."

The client gives you the details, closing with, "And as you probably know, we're a non-profit, so please give us your non-profit rate."

It's at about this time I want to blurt out in response to their, "but we're a non-profit": "WELL, I'M NOT!"

But I stay calm, not wanting to look like a jerk, and knowing that when people move from company to company, they take their address books with them and the next time this person calls, she may really have a budget.  Here's how I handle these calls and what I say next.  (By the way, I want to give credit where credit is due, but I'm not sure where I picked this up, but it may have been my photo pal Joe Pobereskin or Chicago photographer Marc Hauser.)  BJD:  Joe has indicated in the comments that it is Marc's method.

If it's a charity that I care about, here's my offer: "I'm glad you called me Mr. Client because I do indeed have a special fee set up for charities such as yours. I work for half price! And here's how it works.  We'll work together for your next six photo projects. The first time, I'm going to charge you 100-percent of my customary fee. The next time, 80-percent. The next time 60-percent. Next 40-percent. The next, 20-percent.  And the sixth time, I'm not going to bill you a penny."

I continue, "If you do the math, that works out to half price. And it works out great for both of us, you get quality photography at a below-market rate, and I have an opportunity to create great images for each of us.  How does that sound?"

You've offered the client what he wants and you're very much looking like a good guy.  But not a fool.  If he takes you up on the offer, your fee is front-loaded... in other words, you're smart enough to know that if you worked for half price right out of the box, he may use you once, then move on to another photographer. If I'm going to give up part of my fee, I'd at least like to build some sort of a relationship with both the charity and its patrons.

Its patrons? Yes, that's where the potential lies in the deal. I want to be seen more than once at the charity's events. Charity fund-raisers almost always yield more clients if you work the room; after all, everyone present at a charity function is a potential client. Introduce yourself, be personable, look professional, and hand out business cards. And the more often they see you at their functions, the more they get to know you, the more trust you're building.

I've made this presentation, and so far, two charities have taken me up on the offer.  The jobs were simple, and actually the benefits were very much worth it. I've managed to get new clients (one major!) and that's resulted in more billings for the studio. Think of the "discount" as part of your advertising budget.  Anyway, it's something to consider next time someone calls from a charity fishing for a photographer.  Don't get upset, the person on the other end of the line is just doing his or her job. Instead, make lemonade out of the lemon they are offering!

What do you think? How do you handle these types of calls? Please share your thoughts by leaving a comment.

(Check back on Monday, I'll be kicking off a simple contest for a free copy of my Web Marketing and SEO DVD.)

Photo by Photos8.com, licensed under a Creative Commons License.

When a new potential client calls on the telephone, one of the first things I do is look up the caller’s website.

What I’m looking for are two things: their level of design sophistication and how they’re currently using photography. These two bits of information can give valuable clues to what sort of budget he or she might have for photography.

Lack of pleasing design and imagery might be a good indicator that I am talking with someone who has likely not historically spent money for higher end professional design or art. It might mean they’re used to working with budgets that are small or doing the work in-house.

Ideally, the client’s website makes good use of color, makes use of an attractive font, and it’s navigation is intuitive. It will also look as if it was created specifically for them instead of being made from a template.

Most of all, I’m trying to determine to what extent they use excellent photography. Does it look as though they’ve done a lot of it in house using a point-and-shoot with no lighting? Does it look professional? Do they credit the photographer?

This analysis takes just seconds and can be done during the initial part of the conversation. If it appears they haven’t worked with a photographer of your skills, you’ll know you have to spend a lot of time talking about the value you bring to the project. Put another way, you’ll need to convince them that you’re the correct person for the job and worth the money.

Remember, if you focus the conversation of price, the price will likely go down. Instead, focus the conversation on value, what you can offer that everyone else cannot, the price will likely go up.

Good luck!

(This article originally appeared on ASMP's Strictly Business blog. Photo copyright 2010 Mary DuPrie, used with permission.)

While most everyone knows by now that Google is (in 99-percent of cases) no longer penalizing duplicate content on web pages, on April 9th Google announced it would begin measuring page load speed and use it as one factor in its search algorithm. Google's studies have shown that when a site responds (or loads) slowly, visitors spend less time there.

I recall creative consultant Leslie Burns telling an audience at ASMP's Strictly Business 2, "That loading bar or circular graphic on a website's home page is the art buyer's blood pressure gauge." In other words, the longer the site takes to show the first bit of information, the more likely the art buyer is to skip your site altogether.

If you are a site owner, webmaster or a web author, here are some free tools that you can use to evaluate the speed of your site:

• Page Speed, an open source Firefox/Firebug add-on that evaluates the performance of web pages and gives suggestions for improvement.
• YSlow, a free tool from Yahoo! that suggests ways to improve website speed.
• WebPagetest shows a waterfall view of your pages' load performance plus an optimization checklist.

I did a test on my own site's home page (Firefly Studios) using the Firefox/Firebug plug-in "Page Speed" and this is the result:

As you can see, the overall score for the page is 86/100, not bad. The plug-in placed a green check mark next to items (and there are many, many more items it checked beyond what's shown in the screen grab) that are OK. But what's best about the plug-in is that it shows you with either a yellow caution icon or a red exclamation point icon what needs to be improved. And, if you click on the arrow to the left of the icons, it gives you detailed information on what specifically needs to be improved.

If I expand the first item: "Leverage Browser Caching", I see the following information.

According to Google: "... site speed is a new signal, [but] it doesn't carry as much weight as the relevance of a page. Currently, fewer than 1% of search queries are affected by the site speed signal in our implementation and the signal for site speed only applies for visitors searching in English on Google.com at this point."

So what does all of this mean to a photographer?  It means that it probably pays to (at least on your home page) keep image size (in kilobytes) in mind as you're selecting what JPG quality to save them at, and to be mindful the overall size (again, in kilobytes) of any Flash elements on the page.  I didn't want to single out anyone's Flash-based template or non-template site, but if that loading bar is visible for any amount of time, you'll likely have page load speed issues in the eyes of Google.  And if Google is using this metric, Yahoo! Search and Bing will likely follow suit.

By the way, the page you are reading had a Page Speed score of 71/100 and when I clicked on the red exclamation point icon at the top of the report it read: "Significant improvements can be made to this page."  Ugh!

Good luck!

Photo by: Robbert van der Steeg, licensed under a Creative Commons License.

If you haven't seen this yet, I think you'll like it. I sometimes open my "I Stink at Negotiating" presentation with this clip. I'm sure everyone reading this can relate. On with the show...

Good luck!

I know a photographer here in Detroit who answers his phone, "Studio."

We get one chance to make a first impression. Don't make it sound like you're rushed and bothered to be taking a potential client's call. I remember working in a toy store back in High School and thinking it was silly how they wanted us to answer the phone, but now I get it. In this age of "good enough" be grateful that your phone is ringing and the client didn't go out and buy a Canon G10 so they could take their own photographs!

Answer the phone with a smile, the caller will "hear" it on the other end. I'd suggest something like, "Firefly Studios, this is Blake." It lets the person know they've reached your studio and who they're talking to. Then let the conversation start. Two tips: be a good listener, and if you get in over your head, you can always let the FedEx guy save you!

Photograph by Tambako licensed under a Creative Commons license.

Long-time members of ASMP (the American Society of Media Photographers) may remember Detroit-based photographer Jay Asquini.  He served many years on the National Board of ASMP and was always willing to help emerging photographers.  After suffering a fall while trimming a tree that resulted in a severe neck injury, Jay retired from photography.  Before retiring, Jay used to speak to chapters around the country on business practices.  His phrase, "the next one to speak loses", has always stuck with me.

He would go on to explain what he meant.  Jay said that photographers when presented their estimate numbers on the telephone, they rarely presented it with conviction and firmness.  Instead, after going over the line items in an estimate, a photographer would say something like, "So the total is $2,250."  And then, if they didn't hear a reply within a nano-second, they would blurt out something like, "Ahh-hhh, but we could do it for $1,900!"

He implored everyone in the room to firmly present their bottom line, and then keep quiet.  Hence, "the next one to speak loses."  Avoid the temptation to say anything, let the other person react first. I've always said, you need to be a good listener when negotiating with a client. Speak less, listen more!

Photo by SamikRC, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samikrc/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0