Social Networking Checkpoint: So Far – No Better Mousetrap
Since reluctantly joining the masses on various social networking services I received quite a few questions about any benefits reaped. Well, I’m hardly an expert, nor do I claim to be a typical user of those sites (far from it, in fact) but for what it’s worth – here are some initial impressions as of this point in time.
No Marketing Panacea
I just finished wrapping up two large print orders for a couple of local corporate clients. One found me through a referral from a former client, the other through a link from another photographer’s site. We negotiated bulk pricing, personalized framing options, and in-person delivery, and worked out a deal to everyone’s satisfaction. Total revenues for both orders are well into the 5 digits.
By comparison, within the same period, the social networking sites have resulted in no direct sales and no new buyer interest (private or corporate). I did get about a dozen new newsletter subscribers, and made a couple of new email friends – all of which I greatly appreciate, of course. But in terms of marketing strategy, social networking has so far provided close to zero return on time invested. My sense is that serious buyers still very much prefer the personal touch and direct interaction that is almost impossible when your marketing message is drowned out in the overwhelming volume of, shall we say – less professional, interchanges.
Still Looking For The Case Study
I spent some time trying to locate tips and strategies from artists who managed to significantly and materially increase revenue using social networking. I have so far come short. The most ardent proponents I could find to date still appear to generate the bulk of their income from traditional channels or unrelated employment.
New Risks
One thing that struck me almost immediately as I entered these sites was the legal quagmire around copyright and intellectual property. I never had any qualms about posting my work online as such, but this is a new frontier in which posting an image on a social networking site presents real danger to copyright holders. The consensus appears to be to avoid posting work of any commercial value to these sites, which greatly limits their potential for the promotion of art.
Does Spam Really Work?
As a participant on these forums I’m not only promoting my own art, I am also subject to the promotional messages of others. In all honesty, many may be quite offended to know their incessant missives are being filtered out of my mailbox. If a newcomer like me found the way to do it, I suspect the much-touted “reach” of social networks may in reality be significantly lower than most marketers would believe.
What’s Next?
Who knows? I remain skeptical but still intrigued. Someone may yet figure out how to use these tools to improve business and I’d like to be there when it happens. With limited time on my hands though, I still find traditional “real world” marketing to be infinitely more effective. The old adages still appear hold true:
- Work hard
- Distinguish yourself from the crowd through creativity and vision
- Produce a quality product
- Approach potential customers tactfully and professionally
- Word of mouth is still the best form of advertising. Repeat business is still the most lucrative and rewarding business exchange for both buyer and seller.
- Form a personal working relationship with your buyers and prospects and you’ll win the deal.
In a way I’m comforted by my experience so far. Art is thankfully still a personal and emotional business (to the extent that it is a business).
More updates to come as the journey continues.
Category: Business, Social Media, Thoughts and Musings
Some good ideas here:
http://asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-09/AugSep09_Crumlish.html
Your points about off-line networking behaviours translating to on-line are very good. On-line networking makes it much easier to make *superficial* contact, so to the extent that your business will benefit from *superficial* contact is worth doing (“hmm, I need a photographer, I think Guy does that”). Gaining deeper contacts and actual emotional investment is a much harder problem especially, as you point out, in the context of forty million others crying out for attention.
Thanks for the link, Darryl! I can certainly appreciate some of the points made.
Guy
Guy,
I’m no social networking guru, but I’ve made a few observations over the last little while. I think there might be something to the “social networking” *if* you have the right kind of business. Social networks bring together people with like interests.
If your business is fairly static, like selling photographic prints, there is really not a lot that the social network can do for you other than bring together like-minded people: photographers. That, in and of itself, does not get to the potential client. You could commiserate with these other photographers, or be a bit more proactive and help each other with marketing ideas through these social networks, but I don’t think social networking will directly reach the clients. How would a potential client know where to look? For example, get on Twitter and search using the words “purchase photography” or “purchase prints” or whatever. Click on the people who show up. Then click on who is following them. Not exactly potential clients.
If, on the other hand, you are marketing something in which you are personally more active in, such as giving seminars and workshops, or you are marketing any kind of *information*, it works great because you develop a following of people who come to your workshops and buy your books, etc. So for someone like Scott Kelby, it could work out great. (He is following 17 people, but 10, 723 are following him.) He can give a little factoid here and there and people see how knowledgeable he is and want to buy his book or go to his workshop. He can Tweet that he is going to be at such-and-such place for a seminar and people can then go sign up.
If you have something that people can immediately benefit from, social networking could be great.
Another issue is searching. If you try that Twitter search I mentioned above, how would you ever find the wheat among the chaff? There is just a bunch of useless chatter going on. Even try doing a search for “Scott Kelby” on Twitter. I clicked on the “more” button at the bottom 6 times and never found “Scott Kelby,” just a bunch of stuff about him. I actually had to go to his blog, and do a search there to find his Twitter link.
Facebook? A little better since they have groups, but same problem for a buyer. Get on Facebook and pretend you are a client. How are you going to find something you like?
For you, how would a potential buyer find you on something like Twitter/Facebook? How would they know to look for *you*? They probably wouldn’t, they just know the kind of shot they’re looking for.
I’d say something like Flickr would be the most beneficial. If I’m a client and I want a landscape that features tulips and kids, I get on Flickr and search. (I just tried “landscape tulips kids” and got 20 results, 4 of which actually showed what might be usable. Just “tulips kids” showed even more potential choices.) There might be some gratuitous comments on your photos, but those can be turned off.
Anyhow, just my $0.02 (OK, a bit long-winded, so maybe $0.03).
Thanks for the excellent analysis, Scott! A lot of it validates some of my own conclusions, but I’ll have to give the information angle a little more thought – you may be on to something.
Guy
HI Guy: interesting comments from you and your respondents. To be fair, I think any marketing plan requires much more time than you’ve given it at this stage. I, too, have my doubts about social networking’s capabilities, but it clearly can connect strangers to you who are interested in your words or work (as Scott C. points out).
There’s no question that at this point that”traditional” marketing is still more effective at making print sales, but as our society and culture shifts its behavioral and buying habits, I would prefer to be ahead of the changes instead of behind (think Kodak and their failure to embrace digital photography early on).
Facebook can be a time-stealer, but it’s up to us to manage that. Facebook can also create relationships with individuals who might become our customers. If it’s free and doesn’t cost you too much time and effort, I would say that it’s marketing that shouldn’t be ignored.
I agree with everything you say, Michael, but you’re not approaching it as a business decision, which is the argument I’m trying to make. Business decisions are about numbers (real and estimated).
Here’s a hypothetical example (and you can fill in whatever numbers make sense to you):
If I spend an hour calling up prospective clients and have a 1:50 chance of making a $1,000 sale during that hour, then the value of my time is $20/hour.
This means that an hour spent on Facebook marketing is NOT free. It costs me at least $20.
The problem is being able to quantify such loose concepts as “connecting strangers” or “relationships with individuals who might become customers”. Is it more than $20/hour?
Certainly there are any number of social and recreational benefits to these forums but strictly as a marketing tool I still don’t see a strong argument.
Like you said, it makes sense to follow the trend so you’re not caught unprepared if things do pan out, but right now I would consider it more an R&D investment rather than a marketing strategy.
Guy
Guy, I’ll have to give that “information” angle a bit more thought too–I was just writing that first comment on-the-fly. But I’ve been thinking more about it. I might be able to come up with something a bit more lucid and brief. OK, maybe not brief (not my style, sorry), but hopefully better thought out
.
I think Michael’s right about not getting caught with your pants down when it comes to technology, but I think you’re dead on about the cost/time benefits: until it equals or exceeds what you do without social networking, you don’t have the time to waste. It’s good to see you’re actually tracking this–I have a feeling many people make the assumption that it’s “working” for them but they haven’t done time/benefit analysis comparing the old to the new.
-scott c
http://blogs.photopreneur.com/twitter-photography-resources-list
The opening paragraph says this: “Twitter’s limitations mean that it might not be a great place to show off a photo gallery, but the site can still be a valuable resource for photographers, both amateur and professional. We’ve scoured Twitter and produced a categorized list of all the accounts that can help photographers improve their picture-taking, and produce and sell their images. This isn’t a list of photographers on Twitter; it’s a list of businesses, organizations and outlets on Twitter that can help photographers. We’ve provided the name, the Twitter username and, in most cases, an edited version of their bio.”
Information and consumables?
It looks like a the “Organizations” and “Stock Agencies” might have something useful, but I’m not sure what they post to twitter (just looked at a bunch of links from each of those two categories, good luck finding something that will directly increase your sales).
-scott c
Hey Guy,
I am on the same page as you. Last week I joined Twitter for no other reason than “everyone else is doing it”, I have noticed more traffic to my blog, which is a definite plus. However, I don’t see people who are following me there making that purchase, maybe in a workshop, I can only hope that this changes in the future.
I think what happens to most photographers is that they fall in love with photography and begin to forget about the bottom line-profit. It is not a successful business unless it makes a profit. And deciding on the where, when, and how the income comes from in order to make a profit at the end of the year is trick to making it. I by no means have even 1/10th of the answers. I love being a photographer and love creating new and exciting imagery, I am still running a business and that is the bottom line. My work needs to produce income.
One of my biggest worries right now is that photography is headed in a direction that will change it forever and not necessarily for the better. With the advent of digital cameras, the explosion of the computer, and the explosion of the web, photography is becoming intangible. There is no more film to hold, no more prints in a portfolio and no wondering if you got the shot. Could this trend be the death of an art form? Photography is extremely visual and hands on touchy, feely, have you ever seen an original Ansel Adams print hanging in a gallery? It defies any view of it on the web.
I feel that all of these marketing tools have great potential, we as business people just need to figure out which ones work best for our model. I personally want to put something tangible into my prospective client’s hand, even if they do nothing other than pinning it up in their cubicle. At least I know I have inspired them in some way if they did just that.
Jay
Hi Guy –
I teach nonprofit organizations how to use social media tools to enhance their ability to achieve their missions. For nonprofit organizations, the main dynamic is not how can we raise more money through social media, but instead how can we better engage with our current audience and reach new audiences through these tools. Most nonprofit organizations will not raise a lot of money through social media, but they will be able to communicate in very cost-effective ways, potentially reach new people through the viral nature of many social media tools, communicate in real time, and build stronger (in some senses!) relationships with their current constituencies.
Although I am only a hobbyist photographer and do not know the ins and outs of the photography business, I do believe that the lessons for nonprofit organizations are valid for others trying to use social media tools to their advantage. While social media tools will not necessarily bring you a lot of new business, they can help you build stronger, real-time ties with certain portions of your audience. By reminding people about your activities through something like Facebook or a blog, you help put people in the position of thinking of you first when they need something (a print, workshop, inspiration, etc). You might not sell a lot more prints or license more images, but you may be able to build stronger relationships with some of your current customers and those who admire your work through social media tools.
I think it is all about setting expectations. If you want your marketing/outreach efforts to directly result in immediate increased revenue, using social media probably is not the best strategy. With nonprofit organizations, at least, those who set their social media-related goals in terms of financial results are often disappointed. Those who set goals around things like increased engagement for current audiences or reaching new audiences often have greater success because they set realistic expectations. If a photographer does not have the time or inclination to invest his/her time in activities that will not directly generate revenue, I think you are right that social media is probably not a good investment of time and resources. However, I do think it is important to invest at least a little time in developing a basic presence with social media tools like Facebook and blogs to stay current with communication trends if your audience includes younger and tech savvy people.
Well, I will say, being younger, I had Facebook as a social tool in college, before photography was to become a business venture. As I transitioned it was great because I already had an audience. They do a great job of spreading my work.
I was hesitant on Twitter, but it has proven it may be very useful. Not for print sales, as pointed out, but spreading my name and who I am. And then that has led to interest in more workshops/instruction. It is probably one of the faster ways to build a network of fellow photographers, and actually as an information resource. Don’t forget, you can take from it too.
Just some thoughts, but it has definitely generated some leads for me in just the month or so I have been on it.
Good luck with it all, you deserve it.
Paul
Here is a question for you, Guy. Looking back at your past/repeat customers, how many of them do you believe are actively participating in these social networks (just participating mind you, not looking to purchase are via those channels). If the majority of them are doing so, then there is the possiblity that there are other like them, who might be seriously interested in purchasing your work, should they happen to hear learn about it.
I don’t really know much about these new networks, but I seriously doubt that folks there would really be willing to pay a few hundred dollars for a fine-art print. What do you think?
Thanks everyone for the great insight! Some very interesting things for me to think about.
Anil, I actually don’t know. Most of them are local small businesses whose business presence is targeted at the local community. I assume some individuals working for them may be using these sites socially but I doubt anyone is looking for business there (if anything, it’s probably what they do when they are done with business and want a break).
Guy
This is absolutely good information to know. Great stuff here! Thanks Guy and to everyone. As for me, I lost my 9yr-job this last April and have rekindled my love [and major back in college] for photography. I agree, good networking like on Facebook might [and that's a big 'might'] get you clients, but not so much art buyers. I’m thinking why not make some promotional pieces [postcard, small book, etc.] with your best work and send them out to your local and out-of-state galleries that might fit your style of photography? A bit of research involved but I think it’ll be worth it. Whether one’s a wedding, portraiture, sports, stock, landscape or fine art photographer, there should be a different approach to promote yourself depending on your expertise.
This is like my measly 1-cent compared to Cutthroat Stalker.
BTW, I found this blog through Michael.
[...] of Samantha, she recently blogged on the usefulness of social networking in photography. So did Guy Tal. So did a recent thread on Naturescapes.net. The verdict? Seems like resounding [...]
NPN – niche forums are an older form of “social networking” as well and I am assuming probably are a source of some workshop participants for you. Facebook and Twitter essentially provide the same opportunities to connect with people albeit with different techniques.
Another very nicely written article Guy. Social networking sites thrive on the content generated by the users. If you like producing or consuming that content then social networking sites will work for you. The problem is unlike commercial markets the currency of trade on the social networking sites is give and take of the content itself. So for flickr that would mean you get to see other’s images for free and they get to do the same in return. This is the reason why it bring together people with the same interests because they are the only ones who can “trade” on social networking sites.
So I agree with you that a potential buyer is less likely to be found on social networking. But a potential consumer of art is definitely out there. It is just that the money is no longer the currency of exchange… if its a good thing or not I do not know.
Hi Guy,
Excellent blog!
As far as social media goes, I’ve only started on Twitter but I know more about Flickr and it is good for connecting to photo enthusiasts but not buyers. I may be the most ‘interesting’ landscape photographer on there. Just search for big keywords like , ‘california’, ‘hawaii’ etc and my pictures are at or near the top out of millions. While I get lots of requests for freebies or photo workshops, only a few search me out for prints or other work. One photo got 200,000 views in a day a couple of weeks ago and lots of praise but not much came of it.
Some galleries have contacted me but we will see how that goes. The jury is still out on social networking as far as I’m concerned!
Patrick