Advertising experiences

[Frank Petronio]

I don't think there is any easy answer and if there was, then lots of photographers would be doing it. You always have to use a mix of techniques, have superior work, be consistent and follow through.

What most people and companies fail to do, myself included, is to create a sales cycle. Say you get 1000 people to visit your website... How do your descern the bonafide real potential customers out of all that traffic and then how do you get 1% of them to take the next step and contact you for more info or something? and then how do you get that one out of a thousand to become a real customer? That is really sticky wicket ;-)

Let me know when you figure it out... I've been in the business since 1984 and I still wonder.

I do know that if your drop $10K plus for a Showcase type book, then be prepared to repeat it for 3-4 years before you see something from it, if ever... one spot won't do jack.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

The fact that you receive so much of it should indicate to you just how very successful direct mail is...

Some people have no alternative. I mean, who's going to look inside of a magazine and see an ad that I've already been pre-approved for a $2 million creidt line with VISA? And they have more terms and conditions than...well something that has lots of terms and conditions.

[Gordon Moat]

I absolutely must disagree with this statement. Do you know how much junk mail I get every day? With a magazine, I'm paying to read that product, thus am already interested in what the editorial content has to say, most likely because I have an interest or hobby based around what the magazine's editorial content is. Direct mail may have targeted lists, but it's much, much less effective unless people are expecting your direct mail like a gallery has a book where people put their names and addresses to receive updates on the gallery.... otherwise they're quite likely to throw out your unsolicited advertising message.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it seems you are fairly clueless about the commercial photography market. Lists available from AdBase and others have a highly effective track record, and this is targeted mail . . . quite different from the average shotgun approach of junk mail. You find the art director or art buyer at a firm, and that is where (and whom) you mail your promo piece. The people listed as willing to recieve materials through AdBase know what they are getting.

Don't just take my word for it. Jump on over to PDN Forums, and post a question about AdBase. Then speak with some commercial photographers (especially in the advertising market) about return on investment with AdBase, and with similar companies.

Buying ad space in a magazine is substantially more of a crap shoot. Anyway, the only truly effective magazines for the commercial photography market are CommArts and Lürzer's, though sometimes art buyers and agencies take a glance through PDN.

The fine art market is a total crapshoot. You might as well be buying ads in Robb Report, compared to placing ads in Focus. Fine Art photography is speculation, and with very few exceptions a bigger way to spend money than bring it in. Take a glance through the most recent industry surveys on what photographers are making for income, and commercial imaging is several times the average income of fine art photography.

You want to help your magazine, then do your own survey of photographers who have placed ads, and what sort of annual income they have brought in. Then indicate the cost of placing those ads, and list any other marketing expenses. If it is as good as you state, then let's see some numbers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Ralph Barker]

Such a survey, of course, should be conducted by an independent organization. Internal surveys are always viewed as suspect.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

You are entitled to your opinion, but it seems you are fairly clueless about the commercial photography market. Lists available from AdBase and others have a highly effective track record, and this is targeted mail . . . quite different from the average shotgun approach of junk mail. You find the art director or art buyer at a firm, and that is where (and whom) you mail your promo piece. The people listed as willing to recieve materials through AdBase know what they are getting.

Don't just take my word for it. Jump on over to PDN Forums, and post a question about AdBase. Then speak with some commercial photographers (especially in the advertising market) about return on investment with AdBase, and with similar companies.

Buying ad space in a magazine is substantially more of a crap shoot. Anyway, the only truly effective magazines for the commercial photography market are CommArts and Lürzer's, though sometimes art buyers and agencies take a glance through PDN.

The fine art market is a total crapshoot. You might as well be buying ads in Robb Report, compared to placing ads in Focus. Fine Art photography is speculation, and with very few exceptions a bigger way to spend money than bring it in. Take a glance through the most recent industry surveys on what photographers are making for income, and commercial imaging is several times the average income of fine art photography.

You want to help your magazine, then do your own survey of photographers who have placed ads, and what sort of annual income they have brought in. Then indicate the cost of placing those ads, and list any other marketing expenses. If it is as good as you state, then let's see some numbers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

I assume since this was a direct challenge from two forum users on here, that the moderation team has no problem with me posting this as a direct response to the above question.

For the record: The photographer marketing package has been something available for photographers to buy since our December 2004 issue. Due to changes in the magazine, there have been changes in the way the package, a Focus Gallery, that has been offered. From December 2004 - We offered A 3-page spread for $1500 in black and white and a full page ad in the next issue. For $3500, we offered the same thing in color. From our January 2005 issue - February 2007 issue, we offered a 5-page spread with 4 images, a 250-500 word bio or artist's statement and a full page ad in the next two issues for $2500. For $3500, we offered the same thing with an additional ad in an additional issue for $3500.

From February 2007 - August 2007: We offered a 4-page spread with the same amount of information, only the re-designed FOCUS Gallery offered a photographer up to 8 images. The prices remained the same.

December 2007 - Current: We stopped offering a grayscale Focus Gallery and only sold 4C Focus Galleries. We lowered the price of a 4C Focus Gallery by $1000 and stopped offering the additional page in the additional issue for 4C Focus Gallery advertisers. Instead, all photographers are now given a permanent online 50-image gallery on www.photoconnoisseur.net.

Since our December 2005 issue:

We have had:

112 photographers advertise in the Photographer Marketing Package

Out that:

92 photographers had a means of tracking website traffic
20 photographers either had no website or had no means of tracking website traffic

Out of the 92 photographers that had a means of tracking website traffic
81 of them saw a noticeable increase in website traffic (an increase of 200% in unique visitors). Out of the 81, 43 saw a sizeable increase in website traffic of over 1000%. Out of the 43, 10 saw a large increase in website traffic of over 5000% unique visitors.

Out of them the 92 photographers mentioned above, 62 photographers were contacted via E-Mail or phone from persons interested in their photography as a result of their ad placed in FOCUS.

Out of the 20 photographers who did not either have a website or have a means of tracking their traffic, 3 had no e-mail address.

Out of the 17 photographers who did not either have a website or have a means of tracking their traffic but provided an e-mail address, 9 were contacted either via E-Mail from persons interested in their photography as a result of their ad.

Out of the 3 who had no e-mail address, 0 received a call or were contacted as a result as of their ad.

Out of the 112 photographers that have taken part in the Photographer Marketing Package

53 of them have sold between 1-4 prints
Out of the 53 mentioned above, 34 of them have sold between 5-10 prints
Out of the 34 mentioned above, 5 of them have sold more than 10 prints.

Out of the 112 photographers that have taken part in the Photographer Marketing Package, 29 photographers have picked up representation by a gallery or museum as a result of their advertising campaign in FOCUS. Out of those, 10 photographers have picked up representation from an AIPAD member gallery.

Out of the 112 photographers that have taken part in the Photographer Marketing Package, 15 photographers have gone on to either self-publish or pick up publisher representation to publish their own book.

2 of the photographers' works are now sold in calendars and stationary in Borders and B&N.

Out of the 112 photographers who have adveritised, 59 did not sell anything. Out of the 59 mentioned previously, 55 of them did not pick up representation by a museum or gallery and had no positive contact as a result of their ad. Out of the 55 mentioned previously, 12 of them had broken links or did not advertise their e-mail address or phone number on their website. Out of the 55 mentioned, 42 of them had no direct way for anyone to purchase their photography off of their website.

Out of the 53 mentioned above who wound up selling photography as a result of their ad in FOCUS Magazine, 41 of them had a direct way of someone buying photography of off their website. 0 of them had any broken links and all 53 had their e-mail address AND phone number on their website.

What information can we learn from this? Nearly 52% of photographers who advertised with FOCUS sold at least 1 print. Our numbers are skewed because of the distribution FOCUS received in the first 4 issues of 2006. As of the October 2006 issue, the numbers got a lot more positive. Why is that? Because more people picked up the magazine. It's simple logic: We offered more pages and more content than any of our competitors for less money.

Now, out of the 112 photographers, 20 photographers still have ongoing campaigns with FOCUS, so their numbers can increase.

What I found to be the most interesting is that almost no one received a spike in traffic or made a sale off of their single page ad and over 90% of the photographers who advertised sold something off of their initial 5-page or 4-page Focus Gallery spread. That completely speaks against the philosophy that I've been promoting and that is a basic Advertising 101 principle that if you advertise more than once, you increase your chances of being seen. I found this out a while ago and in my August 2007 I re-designed the single page ads to look more like the Focus Gallery pages. I don't know how they're doing yet, as the August is still on sale in Europe, Asia and Australia.

What I do know is that complaints about reproduction went down 100% ever since we switched printers and started using the higher quality paper. What's also interesting is that a photographer whose book we reviewed wound up selling 20 copies off of AMAZON.COM and didn't advertise it anywhere, nor did her publisher, but when she advertised in the Focus Gallery, she didn't sell one print.

Photographers can learn something very simple from this as well: The more advanced and streamlined your website is, the better the chances that someone who is presented with the opportunity to purchase directly off of your website, actually will. Of course, I expect someone here to say that my numbers are made up. There's absolutely no way for me to prove that they're not, so you're just going to have to take me for my word. I did not survey photographers who took out a single page ad and not a FOCUS Gallery, nor did I survey galleries or book publishers.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Such a survey, of course, should be conducted by an independent organization. Internal surveys are always viewed as suspect.

View it as much suspect as you care to. I think if I wanted to make up numbers, I would've had my numbers in the 70s or 80s as far as the number of photographers who have made money off of their ad.

[Don Hutton]

I'd be very curious to know at what point you think fine art photographers start "making money" as you put it, from print sales...

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I'd be very curious to know at what point you think fine art photographers start "making money" as you put it, from print sales...

When they receive money as a result from advertising, they are making money. If I wanted to say making profit I would have. I'd love to say that most photographers who've advertised with me have made a profit, but that's such a volatile and unstable variable in the formula as some photographers sell their prints for a couple hundred and others sell it for over $20,000 (D.R. Cowles who made unique prints with brushed gold advertised his work for that much I believe). I wish I could pinpoint some common denomenator, as in only this kind of work sells, or only black and white or only color sells... but that's not the case at all. It's completely random. I can't guarantee anything....except that your photography will be exhibited in a magazine that now pays extraordinary close attention to reproduction.

[Don Hutton]

When they receive money as a result from advertising, they are making money. If I wanted to say making profit I would have. I'd love to say that most photographers who've advertised with me have made a profit, but that's such a volatile and unstable variable in the formula as some photographers sell their prints for a couple hundred and others sell it for over $20,000 (D.R. Cowles who made unique prints with brushed gold advertised his work for that much I believe). I wish I could pinpoint some common denomenator, as in only this kind of work sells, or only black and white or only color sells... but that's not the case at all. It's completely random. I can't guarantee anything....except that your photography will be exhibited in a magazine that now pays extraordinary close attention to reproduction.

Sorry - I fail to see how spending $1500 on advertising, selling a single print with say a $400 margin in it is making money - that's losing money every day of the week... You have a very strange take on finance. Probably why you don't understand direct mail marketing - where advertisers quantify the return on expenditure all the time.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Sorry - I fail to see how spending $1500 on advertising, selling a single print with say a $400 margin in it is making money - that's losing money every day of the week... You have a very strange take on finance. Probably why you don't understand direct mail marketing - where advertisers quantify the return on expenditure all the time.

Don, this is very simple. There's making money and making profit. There have been photographers who sold their photography for less money than what you have and have made profit off of advertising and, as I mentioned, there have been photographers who have sold their photography for far more and failed to make a profit. I don't guarantee anything, but I give you a better chance than any other advertising option. Advertising isn't a sure thing, but nothing in life is.