What the flickr should I do?
The Law of Flickr dictates that for every opinion applied to the subject, there will be an opinion of equal and opposite force. Despite this, I’m going to ask the question, “Should I be on flickr?” and hope for some kind of definitive response.
In truth, I already have an account there, but like many internet things I’ve signed up to over the years, I’ve never got around to doing anything with it.
This is due to a number of reasons. Perhaps the primary reason is I can’t see the point. The secondary reason is it probably doesn’t suit the work I do. Flickr strikes me as the kind of site where you upload a picture of a flower, kitten, sunset and wait for the heaps of praise to come in from your fellow flickrati.
Probably fine for flickr, but will it help my Google ranking?
Occasionally I’ll shoot something just because it’s fun to take pictures. My weirdly-lit, low-angle fungi shots are just that. It gets me out into the woods, gets me in the fresh air, experimenting with light, but I don’t shoot them in the expectation some large corporate organisation will licence the pictures for fantastic sums of money (if you’re a large corporate organisation, do please get in touch). They would be perfect flickr fodder though.
Before you ask, no I’m not posing this question because I’d like to sell my snaps through the flickr/Getty deal. I’d rather sell my soul to someone likely to pay a fair fee than licence any images I take for 6p a download.
If I use flickr at all, it would be with a view to attracting the corporate commissions I rely on as the mainstay of my business. I want to know if flickr adds Googlejuice to my website, if people looking to commission new work (as opposed to buying stock images) use flickr to find someone who shoots the kind of work I shoot, or if it would just be another account to maintain and feed with no real benefit beyond the fun?
Is flickr only (or best suited) to the keen snapper or professional selling prints or stock?
This week, I’m asking you, my loyal and beautiful readers, for your opinions based on the parameters I’ve set out here.
I fear I’ll end up on flickr posting endless corporate headshots and wondering why no one is telling me I’ve got nice bokeh, it’s a “cool capture” or a great use of light. It might be a lonely time there, but if it gets me more enquires for paid commissions, you won’t find me complaining.
Opinions please!
I post on Flickr for some of my more anoraky stuff that I want to share with others of like mind. It’s useful for that – I have perhaps a thousand images up there. But I’m under no illusions that anyone who actually wants to buy or commission me would be looking at those pictures. They get pointed to the “proper” website…
It’s also been handy for entering the occasional competition: some organisers use Google as their preferred means of accessing the competition, via Flickr Groups. That’s won me one international award and a handful of commendations over the past few years.
My Google ratings are entirely down to the proper site.
Hi Robert, it’s my gut feeling that it’s not the place for me. Thanks for your point of view though.
Tim,
I use Flickr, but it’s only for my personal and odd stuff that takes my fancy as it’s nice to see some stuff on the web where others may see it. I get a few nice comments (which is good), some people actually like the stuff I shoot and make a few of the images their favs (which is also very good). It’s also nice to see what flickr do when they display it with the black border (which make them look even better).
I’ve yet to make any sales, commissions or any money out of Flickr, that could be that my pictures are crap or the right people don’t big up my pictures!
The only time of when I’ve heard of people making money out of Flickr is when they get ripped off such as this http://www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/513641346/ it goes to court then it turns very ugly. The Flickrati get their backs up and it goes nuclear (which is not good)
BTW they’d love you pictures of the fungi as you’ve done something really really funky to it and it’ll be debated for days as to what you’ve done for that unique capture you’ve made and how it looks strange but captivating. For me thou the bokeh isn’t quite creamy enough for my liking.
Mark
Thanks Mark. I can see the fun side to it, and I suppose that has some value, but hey! My life is so full of fun as it is I’m not sure I deserve any more!
I quite like the idea of people picking my shots apart. That might even be informative. Not sure I can cope with the “nice capture” stuff though.
I know, my bokeh sucks 🙂
Flickr can be a waste of time. Sometime it is for me, sometimes not. But mostly it is.
Another social media site one must monitor. As for sales, don’t rely on them.
It also seems to be a popularity contest. I’ve seen very boring, not talent photos get hundreds of comments, but spectacular images may get one or two.
Not worth the effort.
Flickr is aimed at solely amateurs. But, I also know of some people that have sold images through Flickr. But not for a lot of money.
The idea behind flickr is mainly for fun and show, but a lot of business use it as a stock agency. Hence the contract with Getty.
Unfortunately, those businesses want photos for cheap, therefore, they don’t want to spend any money hiring people to do custom photography for them. Although we know it’ll make their website look original.
Don’t bother with it, it’s a waste.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, if you’re looking for honest critiques on your work, don’t bother. All you get is the “nice picture” comments. Even if you ask for the image to be shredded.
Most people don’t know how to critique.
Haha, yes, that’s the other thing. I have noticed on other sites, you’re not allowed to critique anyone’s work in a critical (ie useful) way. They get awfully offended. Good point.
They do get offended. It’s why I dumped my photo.net account.
That place was horrid. People would ask for critiques, yet they didn’t want to hear honest critique.
All they wanted was someone to stroke their ego and make them feel like a photo god. Flickr tends to be the same way at times.
Thanks, Pablo. Forewarned and all that. It’s especially interesting when people don’t want the critique from someone who earns a living from photography. Says a lot about the photographer!
Hi Pablo
Thanks for “Liking” my article (that’s a bit Flickr isn’t it! lol) Much appreciated though.
Thanks for your view, which I have to say is along the lines of what I’d been thinking – waste of valuable time and one more thing to have to monitor.
If someone presents me with a strong, watertight case for using Flickr I will consider it. Watch this space!
Cheers
Tim
Hi Tim, I’ve used flickr for a couple years, I class it as a bit of fun its more social networking for me than anything else. However I have made a few sales with images of my local town. I’ve also been approached by a company looking for FREE images but I’ve had that from my Photoshelter site as well!
I guess you pay your money and makes your choice.
Cheers Neil
Hi Neil, Thanks for your view. I think to be honest, as there are so many social things out there now it would just be one more distraction I’d probably do better to avoid.
I have had the odd freebie request through my Photoshelter site, but having to portals for people on the “ask”? Maybe not 🙂
My view of Flikr is simply that it is a waste of time that allows other people to take your pictures without paying for them. Dead simple. I had an experiment with it a few years back and my only response is “never again”, and “whats the point”. That said, I sort of feel the same way about much of the “social networking phenomenon”.
The only real exception to this has been for marketing animal portraits (that’s something else I have started doing since photography seems to be going down the drain!). What I found was that posting photographs of the portraits on a facebook page, if repeated over time, does increase the number of repeat sales, from people who I already know/have worked for before – not new customers. I don’t spend huge amounts of time on it, just add a watermarked picture to its feed every so often to keep me in the back of everyones mind. What it doesn’t do however is replace existing more tried and tested advertising methods, I’m not convinced any of the social networking techniques have enough momentum to do that.
Hi Peter, and thanks for your full and frank appraisal. I’m building quite a clear picture here. Regarding photographers and social media in general, I think it does have a problem in finding that “traction” where people stick with you and become regular clients. It tends to favour those who are constantly working it, but even then I’m not sure they ever build successful businesses from it. There are always going to be exceptions, but they are exceptions for good reason.
I still rely on printed material to raise my business because anyone can take a snap that looks OK on a computer screen, but transfered to print things can go horribly wrong.
Thanks again and all the best
Tim
Flickr is a slightly hot topic for me at the moment as I recently had to advise a someone on another forum about how to deal with someone who had lifted one of their pictures from there and put it on a blog. The ironic thing was that despite me telling her how to deal with the situation, she instead seemed to take the roll over and give it away for free approach. I ended up having to e-mail the infringer myself telling them to respond to her e mails and remove the picture or I would inform the web host they were using stolen pictures. Even then she ended up settling for a credit line. Given the content of the blog (not a large scale operation) I doubt the fee for that use would ever have been large, but none the less, it makes you seriously question the long term consequences of services like flickr on professional photography.
That aside though, about social media generally.
The way I sort of see it is that it is good for keeping in touch with existing clients, but not so good at generating new leads. The other thing is that it is better for selling “business to consumer” rather than “business to business”.
I think the trouble with the internet is that it is a pretty distracting type of medium in general. People may see your stuff on line and like it, but there will always be another link to click, and then another, and another, and they rapidly foget they saw you.
I might be wrong, but I think possibly the other problem with it is that most people know it doesn’t cost much (if anything). Subconciously, I suspect people will regard businesses that have spent time and money on physical advertising ( eg printed material) as more serious professional operations, worthy of their attention.
Hi Peter
Useful insights, and something of a pattern emerging.
It is worrying that people don’t value their own work because of the “I’m just an amateur” attitude. On the one hand, some amateurs like to pride themselves at “beating pro’s at their own game,” but at the same time they give their work away for free. The only people they’re beating are themselves.
I agree, things like Facebook really are only good for B2C business. Businesses may have a presence there, but only as a way to sell their own services. They don’t want to be spammed by suppliers there.
And cost is often misinterpreted as money. There is a HUGE time cost to promoting a business through social media, and it’s more than most photographers have the resource to meet. I’ve switched back to a printed book because its much harder to ignore than yet another link. Plus clients can see what your work is like at print res rather than web res, which can sometimes fudge the lapses in quality.
I’m pretty sure I’ve decided – Flickr loses this discussion!