In January, 2005, I surveyed art buyers (ABs) from advertising agencies across the US about their thoughts when it comes to photographers’ websites – what they liked, disliked, and if they thought it was vital for a photographer to have a good website. The results were clear: when asked “How important is it for you, as a photo buyer, for a photographer to have a website where you can see her/his work?” 87% of respondents answered the question “very” or “most important.” Not a single respondent said it was “not important.”

This importance is perhaps made more evident by the fact that the number of physical portfolios brought in by agencies for review for specific projects has dropped significantly in the very recent past. When asked how many portfolios these ABs used to bring in for a project (before website portfolios), 74% said 6-25 books (with 13% more saying 26-49), depending on the project. Now, the ABs bring in only 0-5 (52%). In almost every case, each individual respondent said that the number had dropped for him/her – for example, if they had brought in 26-49 portfolios for a project, they now only brings in 6-14 or even less.

This means that today art buyers often will select the first cut for any potential project based on website portfolios alone. They may review a large number of online portfolios, but they’ll only call in a couple of physical books. In fact, for some projects, no physical portfolios are requested – 50% of the ABs said they have awarded projects based on the website portfolio review (that is, without seeing the physical book). No website? Bad website? No chance.

Basic quality standards

However, just having a website – of any quality – is not enough. Your site needs to be of a certain quality to hold the interest of most worthwhile potential clients. As in all parts of your marketing mix, there are some basic standards to keep in mind when it comes to your site – things like your branding, good, clean design, and ease-of-use. There are a rather surprising number of photographers’ websites out there that are an affront to the eye, the ear, or are so complicated or poorly designed that they may as well have no site at all. I see them every day. And ABs see them too, and loathe them.

When asked “what’s the worst thing a photographer can do with his/her website?” many ABs mentioned things like broken links, bad programming (crash an AB’s computer, and you’ll be remembered and blacklisted), forcing users to log in, copyright agreements that need to be clicked, and just making them click too many times before they can even see the work. If an AB has to click more than three times before getting to the actual images, you’ve got too much in the way. These people are extremely busy and they want to get to the “goods” fast and easily.

So, first “rule”: unless you have a background in design and enough technical knowledge to program it well, you should hire a professional to do your site. The initial design and programming should be done by someone who specializes in this sort of work – you are a photographer, not a designer and not a programmer. Photographers have a tendency to try and do everything themselves – this is not one of the places where that is a good thing. Hire a pro and get it done right.

Clean and simple

That being said, I suggest working with your designer with this goal in mind – to create a clean, simple site that loads quickly, shows your work well, and that you can easily maintain and update. The ability to self-update your site is important and you should really learn what you need to know to do that. That way there is no easy excuse for not keeping it current.

So what works? And what doesn’t?

I’ve reviewed more websites than I could probably count. Between that experience and my talks with ABs and other creative services buyers, what works and what doesn’t becomes pretty clear. If you already have a website, this information should help you re-evaluate its effectiveness. If you don’t have one, you can start off on the right foot.

Generally speaking, forget about the fancy Flash animated intro. These are particularly disliked, as evidenced by the survey ABs responses: 17% said they “always hate them” and 70% said they “bother them but it’s not too bad as long as there is a ‘skip’ button.” When 87% of your target market is at some level bugged by a part of your marketing, dump it.

Flash and music

I used to advocate against using Flash at all, but in the past couple of months, that has changed. Clients have caught up with technology more and more, so a good Flash-based site can be a great tool. Live-books.com has some great solutions that are very popular with clients and well worth the cost, for example.
Music is also not a great idea unless there is an obvious “off” button. The ABs in the survey agree, with 22% saying music is “always annoying” and 39% saying it’s “annoying but okay as long as there is an ‘off’ button.” Remember, many of these people work in open cubicle environments so sound can be a problem in the workplace. Also, you may love Snoop Dogg but your potential client may hate rap music – why run the risk of offending? I’ve seen more than one person click off a site in disgust because of the music.

On a similar vein, the “amusing” noises like shutter sounds on mouse clicks should be reconsidered. 70% of the ABs said they might be cute the first time they visit a site, maybe, but after that they’re just annoying. Besides, just how original do you think it is to use a shutter sound in the first place?

The best sites are often very simple. Remember, you are not selling design or music or websites, you are selling imagery – representations of your vision. If the images aren’t easy to see or are overshadowed by the site design, you re shooting yourself in the foot. When asked to list some of their favourite sites (based on the quality of the site, not the images), the ABs in the survey mentioned mostly simple ones like those3reps.com and craigcutler.com . Clean, easy to use, and the images are right there for the viewing – it’s no wonder they’re liked.