| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
70 pictures in one gallery
Jonathon Bird, Photographer
 |
Port Clinton | OH | United States | Posted: 1:19 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> I was talking with some of the people I work with in the newsroom about how many photos should be included in the galleries we make on our website 10, 20, 30, etc. I thought I'd ask the opinions of the sports shooters world to see what everybody here thinks.
We recently had a stringer shoot a tour of homes in town and my boss had me include all 70 photos in a gallery online. I thought it was over kill but was told more pictures equals more page views. Sadly, It has become very apparent that they care more about quantity than quality.
I wanted to start a thread to see what others think,
Thanks,
JB |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:51 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> Jonathon,
I don't think that there is any hard number. But lets back up because within your post and question is a MUCH bigger issue.
You say...... "but was told more pictures equals more page views. Sadly, It has become very apparent that they care more about quantity than quality."
Now everyone (mostly) understands that page views and hits are how ad rates are set and billed. Given the state of the 'industry' why would you argue against one of the things that enable the paper to pay you? It's not just you so please don't take this as an attack on you or your post. Those images will do no one any good stashed on a hard drive that the public can't see. There will be no hit, page load, chance to sell a print or license usage. Assuming that we are talking about a standard gallery that a person chooses to enter and flip through pages of thumbnails I don't see any reason to limit numbers in any form.
So within this post you have voiced (a perception on my part) an undercurrent that making money shouldn't be a motivating factor in running the paper. We should look at that issue within the context of why to NOT post 1000 images in a gallery of say a house fire (yes I know no one shoots 1000 images at a house fire).
You state that quality and quantity are divergent qualities. Maybe. But lets say that you shoot 300 images of a hs football game. After an edit that culls for poor focus, exposure, composition, etc you end up with 200. Now if you wanted to put all 200 in a slide show or 30 images on the sports page I'd agree that you would be cramming images down the public's throat. Putting up a gallery that links from a slide show or the sports page with 'extended coverage' i.e. the other 198 photos that survived the edit is a GOOD thing in my opinion.
It's the photos that would have run on the page but didn't because ink is expensive that will give papers a SLIM chance at winning viewers. If all a paper does is put up a PDF of the print version the game is over. And at the same time arguing ANYTHING that doesn't cross ethical lines in favor of bolstering the balance sheets is an exercise in expediting the shift of the newspaper industry to little more than tweets. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:58 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> Thats a very tough call as it really depends on the situation but I'd always go for quality over quantity. No one wants to look through 70 pictures if 60 of them really shouldn't have made the cut. In fact no one will keep looking through that many pictures if there isn't something there to keep it interesting.
On the other hand, if there was 5-10 homes in this tour, and your putting just 7-10 photos of each, and they are all showing different rooms and are otherwise interesting and diverse enough, 70 photos could be perfectly fine.
I guess the basic rule of thumb would be just to display your best work, if thats 10, 15 or maybe 50 photos even. Don't put in filler photos just to pad the gallery but don't leave out a great shot if your already up to 15 shots or something along those lines either.
When it comes to quantity over quality, I think that a viewer probably will click through the whole gallery once, even if its large, but if its not interesting and captivating, they won't be back again.
Sure they get a ton of page views that one time, but then in future weeks the hits will fall way off because theres nothing people want to come back for. Put a quality gallery up every time and readers will keep coming back. |
|
Karsten Moran, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
New York | NY | United States of America | Posted: 2:13 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> Couple thoughts...
It might not be a lot, but as we go forward with digital media, the cost of storing all of that content online is going to add up. It will become expensive, not to mention environmentally destructive. In addition, who is going to tone all of those images and build all of those galleries. While ad sales might be based on clicks, that's a lot of cost you're looking at compensating for (though it does work if you can get your photographers to work for peanuts and tone all of their own images).
Regarding the actual content question...
Selling prints and putting a lot of content online for that purpose is one thing, but building a gallery with 198 images from one sports game is entirely--excuse me for this--daft. The only people I know who have the patience, and interest, to go through that many pictures are parents looking for pictures of their kids.
Think of any decent newspaper Web site you frequent. Do you look at the photo galleries? How many pictures do they have? A dozen per gallery? Even photo-centric sites like Boston's Big Picture stick to roughly that number.
Honestly, if the New York Times started putting out slide shows with over 20 images in them, I would probably never go back. I don't have the time to look at mediocre images all day. |
|
Bret Hartman, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 2:15 PM on 09.15.09 |
| ->> Quality photojournalism = page views!!!!! |
|
Chris Jordan, Photographer
|
Bay Area | CA | United States | Posted: 2:22 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> Eric -
I agree that page views and money making are worth thinking about here. However, I think your logic has the potential of being short-sighted. Although it's possible that more pics equals more page views, it's also possible that if you put up a ton of garbage people will start to think of your organization as a place that puts up a ton of garbage. This, of course, could cost you viewers and page views.
One of the values of a news organization is in curation and quality. There are tons of websites where you can look at bad images ad infinitum, however if you build up a reputation as a place that posts great images then you just may rise above the noise.
As far as your idea of an "extended gallery," it's not a bad one, but I often wonder if newspapers need to start getting releases from people if they are going to turn seriously towards photo sales.
Good Thread.
Chris
http://www.chrisjordanphotography.com |
|
Wesley Hitt, Photographer
|
Fayetteville | AR | USA | Posted: 3:13 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> I was shooting a fan day event and one of the local newspaper photographers told me that his photo editor told him he had to put up 100 photos in a gallery from the event. It was fans standing in line to get autographs from players and coaches. I assumed it was to make more print sales but at what point is it no longer photojournalism.
Wesley Hitt
http://pa.photoshelter.com/c/wesleyhitt |
|
Timothy J. Gonzalez, Photographer
|
Salem | OR | USA | Posted: 4:06 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> In the spring time there is a big running event for school age kids called the Awesome 3000. A huge event here in Salem. It is a all the kids get a medal run. I put up a 100 picture photo gallery. The online editor capped at 100. I probably could have put up a larger on.
In checking with the online editor, found out that the gallery got 106,649 page hits in the month it went up. |
|
Charley Starr, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Ketchikan | AK | USA | Posted: 4:19 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> It depends on the subject...at least MSNBC thinks so:
2009 PGA Championship action.......19
US Open............................13
Hurricane Havoc....................29
Remembering 9-11...................24
LA Fires...........................48
and for the important photos:
'Icy Hot' (NHL Ice Girls).........118
Dancers from around the league....123
College Cheer (basketball)........146
College Cheer (football)..........289
So it looks like College Football Cheerleaders is the most important! (who would take the time to click through 289 pictures?) |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 5:47 PM on 09.15.09 |
| ->> If in youth sports sales, it's not uncommon to have galleries of 700 images or more for a game of 14 players per team. My top gallery is 2700 from ONE little league game and you know what... it had the most sales that day. You never know. But, I do know this... I can't sell what I DON'T have. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 6:02 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> Karstan the cost of hosting and or storing data has, is, and will continue to go down not up. Consider what 1TB of space would have cost 5 years ago versus today. As drives continue to get bigger the cost per bit continues to fall. As to being daft.... if 198 is the measure of daft I am, BY FAR, the king and lord of Daft with a capital D. Then again those daft galleries have covered $25k in new computer and camera gear this year and payroll for 3 new p/t shooters. Every nickle of which has been paid for in cash. I'm not saying any of this to be mean or to brag. I just want you to know that I am talking from a first hand knowledge and success story.
Remember we're not talking about a slide show or a 90 minute video. It's a gallery of images that (in my case) users can scan through as pages of thumbs. If they see something they like great if not, I've watched kids and parents scan 50 thumb pages a minute at a time. The kids are faster :)
Karsten you also state " The only people I know who have the patience, and interest, to go through that many pictures are parents looking for pictures of their kids. "
Ya that's the point!!!! Them (parents) and the kids that will flip through those photos are the demographic that the advertisers are after!!!
Chris if they don't need a release for the front page they don't need one for page 999. (IMHO)
It it continues to be pj as long as you are still telling the story. If a camera crew pans the crowd at the finish line is it any more or less journalism? It stops being journalism when you stop telling the story and inject something totally foreign into the gallery.
Charley someone with a Wachovia IP address flipped through 868 images on my site today over the course of 4 hours. This wasn't their first visit either ;) Someone else flipped through 444 images from a Cambridge health care facility. Based on what was viewed I know that this was someone who approached me yesterday about shooting a particular event again this year. You would be amazed at the numbers when it comes to people cruising from work.
Consider what the hottest sites on the web are and that the newspaper industry is competing for the same ad dollars that are going to Flikr, Facebook, Twitter, etc. You can either help your employer keep their numbers up, or not and watch the business continue to flounder and eventually fail (or find shooters to fill those galleries)
Eric |
|
Chris Jordan, Photographer
|
Bay Area | CA | United States | Posted: 9:08 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> Eric -
I'm not talking about the picture being published on page 1 vs. page 999. I'm talking about selling photos or as you say "sell a print or license usage." I think I'll send this link to a lawyer friend of mine and get some feedback from him.
Hope all is well -
Chris |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:02 PM on 09.15.09 |
->> Chris you really needn't look any further than a site like Maxpreps. I'm somewhat confident that the legal team at CBS made sure that selling a print or download from a hs game is kosher. CBS has DEEP pockets so there is no doubt in my mind that if there was an issue with selling a print or download someone would have already gone after the biggest fish in the pond.
As for licensing images I'll point to the Maxpreps deal to license content to SI or ESPN (can't remember which one it was) again an editorial use.
What I don't understand is why if management is telling you that they need the galleries to bolster revenue why you (not YOU but u) would buck the request. |
|
Chris Jordan, Photographer
|
Bay Area | CA | United States | Posted: 1:03 AM on 09.16.09 |
->> Eric -
Just talked with my lawyer friend and his quick reply was editorial is editorial and commercial is commercial. So as long as it's just prints or editorials, then I think the monster reprint galleries are okay for newspapers.
To your larger question. I personally have done a lot at my paper to help drive traffic/boost revenues. I don't want to get into details, but I have certainly not bucked any requests. In fact, I've taken quite a bit of initiative on the issue. However, my bosses have yet to ask for something like 100 picture galleries from events.
If that request ever comes up, then I'd probably make a case for the same idea I mentioned earlier when I said.
"One of the values of a news organization is in curation and quality. There are tons of websites where you can look at bad images ad infinitum, however if you build up a reputation as a place that posts great images then you just may rise above the noise."
That's my 2 cents, but of course, ultimately I would do whatever work my employer asked of me and I would do it to the best of my ability.
Hope all is well -
Chris
http://www.chrisjordanphotography.com
http://photo.dailyrepublic.net |
|
Karsten Moran, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
New York | NY | United States of America | Posted: 8:43 AM on 09.16.09 |
->> Eric, quick apology. I was trying to make a distinction between two different types of content galleries, but realize I may not have been clear. My response wasn't directed at you, or event photography. As I mentioned, "selling prints and putting a lot of content online for that purpose is one thing..." That (what you're talking about) makes complete sense. You know how to do it better than most, and you're entirely right as far as the economic aspect of event/print sales goes, bigger is better when your product is the picture. As Paul said, you can't sell what you don't have. So you're best advised to put it online.
My comments were made in regards to Jonathan's original post: to an editorial news or feature gallery for a newspaper. My comment about the numbers being a bit insane/daft was--my opinion--with regards to what the average reader is prepared and willing to consume.
I just can't see many people willing to sift through 100+ pictures of a ballgame, political function, car crash etc. etc. they, or their loved ones, weren't personally involved in. And I'm pretty confident that building news galleries (again, i'm not talking about print sale galleries) of that magnitude would drive most of your casual readership away, not to mention damage your brand and take up countless hours of production/staff time. |
|
Tim Cowie, Photographer
|
Davidson | NC | USA | Posted: 9:23 AM on 09.16.09 |
| ->> Enough that tells the story or covers the event....but always leave them wanting more....release large galleries over a series of days (advertise it that more will be released each day)....your hit rate will look better, which helps on advertising rates. |
|
Les Stukenberg, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Prescott Valley | AZ | USA | Posted: 9:41 AM on 09.16.09 |
->> I'll chime in here and say what I do for our Reader Gallery's is try and cap them at about 40 images. For staff produced galleries we have put up one as small as 5 photos and as big 50 and that's just a number. For staff work I want to show whether in print or online our best/better work. For print I pick the 3-5 best for the City/Sports/Managing editors to use on the pages and those along with the other selects go into the online gallery.
When I do these I don't think about advertising rates or hits or anything but putting these online to be a reader service. I do know I get happy notes for our web director when we have a gallery or video that goes hit crazy.. So I do my job they do theirs and we try and come out happy. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:49 AM on 09.16.09 |
->> No apology needed :) I took the daft comment with a chuckle.
I agree that in the case of a ribbon cutting or a tree planting ceremony putting up a gallery of 300 images would be over kill. Then again SHOOTING 300 images would be questionable too. BUT for times when a paper sends someone out to cover a hs game ?? My advice is self defeating, one of the reasons that I do so well at the hs level is because people can hop on the site and flip through 800 images of the crowd, the cheer squad, most of the players (on both teams) etc. As long as the papers DON'T do it I'm golden. ;)
Those numbers that I put up yesterday were a super tiny sampling. During some of the state events that I did back when I had the contract in RI I had numbers like Tim is talking about. I think that building a separate gallery or an 'extended' coverage gallery that people who are interested can flip through is a great way for papers to boost hits.
One 'other' benefit to this type of coverage is the community 'good will' that it creates. Last year I had several family members who were overseas who would come to my site. They were stuck xx,ooo miles from home but were still able to flip through galleries and 'see' a 'complete' game. Not 5 or 10 photos but the hundreds that I would post, faces in the crowd, not just the qb but the kid on the sideline that will NEVER EVER EVER get a shot of himself in print or on a newspaper website.
I'm nothing special. I didn't go out to make some guy's day in a canvas internet tent overseas. But when I saw the IP's and then got the emails....... They totally changed the way I think at these games. There is so much more to it than putting up large galleries. To a whole bunch of people, I was able to deliver a hometown experience to them. That was and IS something that local papers are capable and in some cases better suited to doing. And it's not just family members overseas. I get 1000's of hits from all over the country as college freshman surf my site to keep up with the team.
This is the very market that could so easily be captured and if nothing else monetized if not in a print sale then in the credit for the page hits. But then again the local paper will take this advice and I'll take a 10 point hit on my numbers :0
Peace. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|