Well, as long as I've got people complaining about ethics and advertising and greed and all (see the comments to "Ctein's Big Deal," below), and since it's Sunday (when I do my off-topic posts, theoretically at least), I figured I might as well go whole hog and hit you with yet another craven, self-serving, Peter-Lorre-like (hey, a new adjective!) post about the website.
First of all, I've decided to stop referring to TOP as a "blog." I went to an old friend's house for dinner recently, where I met some neighbors of theirs who have recently moved here from Australia. When the gentleman of the couple asked me the quintessential American question—what do you do?—I answered, "I have a blog."
My friend (who's in traditional media) took me aside later and gently pointed out that that answer sounds imbecilic, since most "blogs" consist of trivial diary-type twitting that are seen by approximately twelve people a day*. It's not quite as bad as answering, "I like M&Ms," (I'm thinking of Brian Baumgartner's Kevin Malone character on "The Office," when the new HR director mistakes him for a differently-abled affirmative-action hire), but it doesn't quite rise to the level of implying constructive endeavor. So I've decided that when someone asks me that question, I'm going to answer, "I'm the editor of a large photography website." That word "large" is a fib—we're definitely a middlin' photography website, not large, not small—but overspecifying would be too much information, and would bog everyone down mid-phrase. The new answer does two things the old one does not: it gives me a title (editor), implying that I actually do some work from time to time, and, helpfully, it names an actual field (photography). Altogether more of a conversation-starter, and hopefully one that will make me sound a little less like a moron.
So, then, here's the new line: TOP is a "vertical photography magazine providing daily content for avid enthusiasts all over the world." That's the new tagline and I'm stickin' with it. (The concept, anyway; I do love fiddling with wordings.) Even if some days I feel cranky and don't do much besides waste a bunch of time nattering at people in the comments section.
TOP as a paysite?
So anyway. A whole bunch of people have suggested, in the wake of all the talk about Ctein's experiment, that I do something similar with TOP—provide a way for people to get set up to provide small, regular donations without having to think about it. I think I will do that, too, assuming I can, although I'm generally not complaining about money. It's not like I do that much for you, that I deserve to be riding around in a Mercedes Black Series and alleviating distress in the Third World; I'm not exactly Sergey Brin or Oprah, you know? If I could have my best month every month, I promise, I'd never complain again. But the ups and downs of this site's very modest income are scary, on account of I don't currently have what is by general consensus known as "a real job." (I'm not very good at getting along in corporate environments—I have an unfortunate tendency towards candor that has not served me terribly well.) I'm thinking of asking for either seven or eight cents a month—whichever would leave me with a nickel after the online bank takes its bite. That would be less than a dollar a year for you, which I figure is less change than you lose in your couch. This should be painless.
But—and this is an important condition—TOP will still be free, and everybody and anybody will still be very welcome to keep reading it without paying a penny. It won't become a paysite. Donation-subscriptions, if I get that far, will be purely voluntary, a way for you to say "thanks for that," or "keep it up," or "attaway." It will not determine access.
Plug alert
...However, I do have to decide on a periodic basis whether to keep this up or not. When I started TOP, I wanted to see if I could keep it going for a year, and I would not have taken an even bet on the chances. I was surprised to discover that it's fun for me, and uses my skills and talents pretty well. And it still seems like it's got a fair amount of energy. Well, most days it does. For the past three years, though, the decision to keep going or not has been made for me by our key advertisers. First, and quite crucially, it was my friends at LightCrafts, makers of the LightZone image editor, a low-cost, easy-to-learn alternative to Photoshop, Lightroom, and the like. A plug, there? You betcha, Bubba. Because, y'all? If it hadn't been for Fabio and the rest of the crew at LightZone, TOP would not exist today. Pretty much for certain. I'd probably be selling cars or editing some in-house corporate newsletter right now, or, more likely, the way the economy's going, I'd be laid off from selling cars or editing an in-house corporate newsletter right now. I'd be just another disembodied statistic, instead of a friendly disembodied statistic with a voice you know.
Anyway, there's good news on that front—our current major sponsor, Michael Tapes of RawWorkflow.com, recently re-upped for another year. That means TOP won't go away for at least another 12 months. Well, ten and change it is, now, but you get the point. So that's good news.
People—even Michael himself—have said to me from time to time, "too bad your top advertiser can't be N---- or C---- or some other big player." Except I don't think it's too bad. If you think about it, RawWorkflow is the perfect sponsor. It's largely a one-man band, albeit with some able help (same here); it's got an eclectic mix of products ("eclectic" should be my middle name); Michael Tapes is a true, dyed-in-the-wool enthusiast who's both committed and passionate, sometimes probably to a degree that might not even be in his own best interests (er, check); he has a passion and an aptitude for educating (me too, not to be immodest); and he knows photography from the doin'-it side (ditto, at least partly). Not a bad first-position advertiser; quite the contrary, the perfect top-position advertiser for TOP, if you ask me. Go see him. If only to say "thanks." Yep, that there's a plug. Sue me!
Time to scrape the barnacles, mateys
It does seem like it's time for a site overhaul of some sort. I'd like to clean things up, change the graphics, take care of some annoying bugs, maybe just move the furniture around for the sake of change. More than that, I'd like to take a fresh think about what more TOP might offer to make you happier. More camera reviews? More show reviews? More regular features? More different writers, more blather from me? More links, fewer links? More about art, less about art? A more wild'n'woolly comments section, or one that's more buttoned-down? More posts, fewer posts? Eliminate the blogger's—er, the editor's more annoying idiosyncrasies? Which are—? Anything at all you'd like to see more of, or less of—or are you already seven cents' a month worth of happy?
If you've got a suggestion, now's the time to let me have it. You can leave a comment (all of which I read, by the way, without exception) or send me an email. I won't promise I'll be able reply to everyone privately, so please forgive me if I don't, but I will read every last one, for sure.
Mike
(Thanks to Max Cottrell)
*Not that there's anything wrong with that, in the immortal words of J. Seinfeld.
UPDATE: Oops, it looks like I goofed—there's no way to set up subscriptions for such a low amount. So let's just say "details to come later."
On language: people with disabilities are not "differently abled" and we prefer to be called disabled. My art creative mental process is the same as it was pre-disability. I have had to change media and adapt work methods, but I am an artist, same as before.
Euphemisms...ugh.
Posted by: sanda aronson | Tuesday, 17 March 2009 at 05:26 PM
I would gladly give you .07 cents a month... or $1 every year? or?
I enjoy reading just about everything you write... so I hope you keep on writing.
If I was to express a preference for anything in particular it would be about becoming a better photographer... whatever that means. For an amateur/hobbiest I have a decent understanding of the basics/technical side of things... so am always particularly interested in reading articles about composition.
Posted by: Clay | Tuesday, 17 March 2009 at 06:26 PM
Three suggestions:
1. Refer to TOP as an "online bulletin", meaning a special interest periodical. See http://www.thebulletin.org/ for a notable example.
2. Like photo.net, offer memberships for about $25 a year. "Members" get: 1) the satisfaction of supporting the site; and 2) the option of being listed in a membership searchable directory featuring links to their own websites. I suspect there is much interest in who regularly reads this humble photo rag--I mean online photography bulletin.
3. Encourage submission of brief articles from readers on novel photography techniques, especially for taking photos (as opposed to storing or processing them).
John Hansen-Flaschen
Posted by: John Hansen-Flaschen MD | Thursday, 19 March 2009 at 09:17 AM
Not having the time to read 100+ comments, please excuse me if what I am about to say has already been said. Well, not the first part, at least, which is that the site is excellent. More content would be better, but only if it remains of the same quality as everything else you already have.
Two notes regarding site design, though.
1–This page is about the articles, which are top posted in a blog-ish format. Great–there's nothing wrong with that. But if you can, make that the main page–the first thing you come to, the "http://www.theonlinephotographer.com/". The welcome page can remain with the same title, but should be buried. It could also be an 'about us' page. But since this site is about the great content, then it doesn't make sense to me to have to go through another page to get to the big deal, unless that page is some kind of article list. You could do that if you want to make TOP more magazine-like (think the main article list on arstechnica.com), but I don't think it's necessary unless you have a LOT more content in the future.
2–Revamp the Resources bit. You've got so much great content, but if a reader doesn't keep up every day or three, the content sinks to the bottom... ! Some kind of tagging system could fix that, with each article tagged and those tags listed in the resources column. Or you could just set up a few categories, and then add articles in each of those pages as they go up. For example, some categories could be: photographers/random excellence, photo exhibits, cameras/lenses, books, site-related, philosophy of photo, etc. Articles could appear in multiple categories, and you could have a misc. section for anything that doesn't fit.
I'd be happy to discuss these ideas further with you–feel free to send me an email.
And yes, I'd gladly pay for TOP. What about a repeating yearly bi-yearly donation?
Thanks for the site!!!
Ben
Posted by: ben kelley | Thursday, 19 March 2009 at 09:33 AM
More Jazz recommendations, please :). Seriously.
Posted by: Martin | Friday, 20 March 2009 at 09:34 PM