Photographik 2.0 & Wedding Party
- January 30th, 2008
The medium is often the only message people remember.
This is why I’m pretty picky when it comes to where I let my services be on display. Wouldn’t it be a bummer if my potential clients measured me not by the brand I’ve created but by an unattractive vehicle it is riding on?
There are a handful of online sites that I think raise the bar from your standard wedding directory. The first is Photographik. They just came out with version 2.0 and I really like their interface. I also like how they organize into intuitive categories (wedding, destination, portrait) and how they enable conversation between the brides, the photographer and the site with their blurbits.
Another directory that has an authentic and intimate feel that I like is Marcus Sark’s Wedding Party. His site feels very accessible with his no-nonsense way of communicating and both websites feel clean of clutter and give the impression that my brides can get to where they want quickly and painlessly. Sites that serve your brides while they serve your brand are partners that I think make sense.
I’m curious what you think though … Doesn’t it bug you when stores force you to go a certain way for their benefit and not necessarily yours? I think this IKEA maze-model might sell more stuff in the short term, but doesn’t it leave clients who know what they want resentful that they were forced to walk the whole store when they were only looking for one perfect fit?
Keep it about the one you’re serving.
-Dane
January 30th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Well, since you asked, I’ll tell you what I think :)
I don’t think either of the sites you mentioned offer anything new except some halfway decent styling. They both take old technology (web directory), an old business model (pay to be listed), and slap some nice CSS on it.
Photographik to me is little more than WPJA for non-PJ photographers. You must apply (for a fee), be accepted by an approval body, then pay for a listing. I honestly want to know–what is new or novel there?
Wedding Party–wasn’t this directory hyped at WPPI ‘07 and launched over 6 months ago? Yet, there are still no other vendor types on there except photographers. Why would a bride go there?
Don’t get me wrong, the old school directories like theKnot and WeDJ aren’t any better functionally. But they have traction and search engine placement simply because they’ve been around longer.
If I was going to join a group like the ones you mentioned, I’d expect them to be very transparent about their traffic and what steps they’re taking to bring brides in. If they don’t have a budget for advertising and SEO, I’d rather spend my money buying adwords and performing SEO on my own site.
I understand your concern about where your brand is displayed (and I heartily agree). But I hope you’re not going to keep paying to put your brand somewhere if it’s not resulting in bookings.
There is a better way to do this, IMO. Things still aren’t as easy for brides as they could be. They “pay to display” business model isn’t ideal for photographers–especially in a slow economy. I have a rough idea of a better way to do this (not that I’m going to try necessarily).
That’s all I got for now …
January 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I was surprised to see Wedding Party on your blog today, Dane. Thanks for the kind words. I like your IKEA analogy! This is exactly one of the reasons why I set out to create Wedding Party.
Here are a few other unique features that we’re proud of:
1.) first site to let you independently manage your listing
2.) first site to allow you to not only browse vendors, but search by business name or location (with location results ordered by proximity)
3.) first site to allow brides to put their favorite selections into a GoodieBagTM for future reference
We are taking a long-term approach at Wedding Party by investing in the tools and ideas that create enduring traffic and sustainable customer magnetism to the site. Product development continues to be a high priority for us.
We are in the process of developing the very best site, which will create attraction of brides and grooms for years to come. We structured our signup plans to be more long-term, and suitable for those looking to gain the long-term benefits. We are certain this will be much more effective than quickly depleting all of our capital by 100% allocation on adwords.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Mark,
Can you address my concern about other vendor types? What is WP’s strategy for adding DJs, Florists, Caterers, etc.?
Regarding your unique features:
2. If a bride knows the name of the photographer they want, I’m inclined to think they’ll just use Google to find them.
3. theKnot allows you to save vendors to a “notebook”. It doesn’t seem unique (other than the name).
I don’t want you to think I’m being completely negative. I like the design of your site very much. I just think you’ve entered an industry with some fairly large barriers to entry and a catch-22 to growth (brides wont come w/o vendors, and vendors wont come w/o brides). I just don’t see anything that is “disruptive” to the big players.
Also, I never suggested putting 100% of your capital into adwords. I’m suggesting you at least have some type of marketing budget.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Marcus,
I addressed you as Mark in my previous comment. My apologies.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Hey Eric,
I’ll reply to you via e-mail, since it’ll be more efficient. I don’t come back to Dane’s blog to read comments that frequently.
Marcus
January 31st, 2008 at 6:07 am
Wow dude, wow. That Paul Potts video you posted was epic. I’m loving the inspiring stuff you’re consolidating here on your blog.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:16 am
Oh wow - I TOTALLY got lost in IKEA one day. I haven’t been back. My therapist says I’m not quite ready. ha just kidding. I’ll have to check out the sites.
February 25th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Thanks for the tip - I was accepted to Photographik today and am figuring it all out right now! Just had to come here and say thank you!
Marcus, I think it would have been great if you had answered the questions here too — so the rest of us could have seen the response. I agree with Erik, transparency on the web is a great thing!