I've been looking at the ShowIt sites and playing around with the little design app, and I am really liking the flexibility of the whole thing, but I would love to hear some real world feedback from people who have been using them. Any of you out there?
Any info you have to share, good or bad, would be great. If you have a link to your site that would be stellar as well.
i played with it as well before and there is alot of flexibility as far as customizing your site. Here is from one photographer I know of that totally redid his and doesn't even look like a SIS
*raising hand*
i'm a show it user and it was such a great decision.
incredibly customizable and with drag & drop simplicity, i have many things on my site that people pay big bucks to have someone code for them. i'm still a work in progress but am doing mine from the ground up rather than using one of the style groups provided.
getting started and going live was a dream - what little customer service i've needed has been spectacular.
scott shoemake mentioned in the last day or so that he's a show it user as well. good luck with your decision!
I find them all really slow...is it just me? There are nice...but again way to slow for me and I am positive I have a faster connection and computer then 95% of my clients.
gabemc wrote:
I find them all really slow...is it just me? There are nice...but again way to slow for me and I am positive I have a faster connection and computer then 95% of my clients.
They are slow.... but that's because they're designed to be HIGH end, and highly graphical.
They are slow.... but that's because they're designed to be HIGH end, and highly graphical. The trade off perhaps? -tmiller
Just checked out the site in Conradp04's post and the graphical elements are not large enough to warrant the sluggishness of the site... especially with a preloader. As an example, my headshot site http://www.erikgrammerphotography.com takes about 6 seconds longer to preload (on my connection) but has larger graphical elements and runs more smoothly once loaded (again, on my connection). Another example of a site with large photos that is more snappy and loads almost immediately would be http://www.chapmanwoodscapecod.com
I think the issue is related to the frame rate set for the flash elements.... not sure if that is due to the restrictions of a template driven assembly but choppy is choppy and usually not good.
tmiller wrote:
They are slow.... but that's because they're designed to be HIGH end, and highly graphical.
The trade off perhaps?
-tmiller
A trade off..yes...a good trade off...I personally don't think so. If a site is slow, I can almost guarantee a potential client will just click to close. No one has patience anymore, especially for slow loading websites. Everyone wants fast, instant gratification...so a slow site is definitely a hindrance when it comes to showing your work off on the web.
Just checked out the site in Conradp04's post and the graphical elements are not large enough to warrant the sluggishness of the site... especially with a preloader. As an example, my headshot site http://www.erikgrammerphotography.com takes about 6 seconds longer to preload (on my connection) but has larger graphical elements and runs more smoothly once loaded (again, on my connection). Another example of a site with large photos that is more snappy and loads almost immediately would be http://www.chapmanwoodscapecod.com
I think the issue is related to the frame rate set for the flash elements.... not sure if that is due to the restrictions of a template driven assembly but choppy is choppy and usually not good.
What I mean is... the sites use HIGH resolution images typically. Meaning, they go big, the get crunched small if you resize your browser. I use the showitfast slideshow programs, and follow David Jay's work, and even almost go a ShowitSite.
The slowness is what turned me off. Every site I've seen, the same thing. Slugish load times. We're all in agreement. =o)
gabemc wrote:
A trade off..yes...a good trade off...I personally don't think so. If a site is slow, I can almost guarantee a potential client will just click to close. No one has patience anymore, especially for slow loading websites. Everyone wants fast, instant gratification...so a slow site is definitely a hindrance when it comes to showing your work off on the web.
Totally agree with ya buddy. I actually just picked up the new site from Bludomain (sydney) I believe... and love it. Fast, large, professional. =o) Oh and 100 bucks for a dual portal. So that's 4 Blu templates I own now, lol...
Yeah, the sluggishness was one of my biggest concerns... I've seen a couple of them that aren't as bad, but overall they are definitely slower than my current site.
I love what you can do with them, but like Gabe said, I just don't know if clients would stick around when it takes so long to load everything.
Thanks to Conrad for plugging my site as an example of what you can do with SIS. Much appreciated!
I hear your concerns about the apparent sluggishness of the sites. I do agree that these sites don't typically appear to be as snappy as a lot of other flash websites out there, but I'm not convinced that the difference is anything to be concerned about. I'll give you the following stats as an example from the last 30 days:
Bounce rate: 3.45%
Average Page Views per Visit: 12.44
Total Visits: 1,014
If page load times were an issue, I'm pretty sure that my bounce rate would be higher and my pages viewed per visit would be much, much lower. Keep in mind, too, that the bounce rate doesn't distinguish between repeat and first time visits (meaning, some repeat visitors only hit the main page and then leave, which means the bounce rate for first time visitors is likely even lower).
Anyway, just wanted to give some real world stats, since that's what the OP was originally seeking for. For me, I've been extremely pleased with what I've been able to accomplish in SIS, and the comments received from all sorts of people (both from within the industry and outside of it) has seemed to confirm my decision to go with SIS.
Thanks for the info! That is exactly the kind of info I am looking for....
Those seem like pretty decent stats, to be sure. have you compared them to your stats from your previous site? Just curious to see if you had noticed any downtown after moving.
Your site is one of the more responsive ones I have visited... I just would hate to give my potential clients any excuse to leave.
ey no porblem wayne. I saw it at OSP and thought that your site was really clean and simple a very well integrated blog which i thought is very effective (well basing on my own responses, lol).
But thanks for the stats and the low down of how it's working for you.
Thanks for the info! That is exactly the kind of info I am looking for....
Those seem like pretty decent stats, to be sure. have you compared them to your stats from your previous site? Just curious to see if you had noticed any downtown after moving.
Your site is one of the more responsive ones I have visited... I just would hate to give my potential clients any excuse to leave.
Chris
Hey Chris -
No problem!
I actually just started my business this year (well, last year since it's now '09!), so unfortunately I don't have a previous website to compare to, as this is my first flash website. Before then I only ever had a blog in those very early stages of my business.
Conradp04 wrote:
ey no porblem wayne. I saw it at OSP and thought that your site was really clean and simple a very well integrated blog which i thought is very effective (well basing on my own responses, lol).
But thanks for the stats and the low down of how it's working for you.
We just designed one that is not yet live, but you can check the link I sent to you via a pm.
The ability to control your site and have constant updated and totally custom stuff on your site is why we chose them. David Jay, Jasmine Star and Chris and Lynn Photographers also all use them and are doing better than 90% of all photographers out there. It is hard to take website advice from anyone that is not shooting or working in their league. If someone is looking for quality, then you need to show it to them with the full size images and unfortunately those take a bit longer to load. You can have a pre-determined size for all images as well and that will speed up the loading. Other things like color choices will affect the speed too. If a client is looking to spend 6, 8 or ten grand on a photographer (our price range) they will take a little more time to actually look at the images on that site.
We have proofed the site to a bunch of past clients and none of them mentioned loading time vs our old site which is super fast to load.
If it did not bring in the clients then David Jay would not use the site himself.
The Grays wrote:
We just designed one that is not yet live, but you can check the link I sent to you via a pm.
The ability to control your site and have constant updated and totally custom stuff on your site is why we chose them. David Jay, Jasmine Star and Chris and Lynn Photographers also all use them and are doing better than 90% of all photographers out there. It is hard to take website advice from anyone that is not shooting or working in their league. If someone is looking for quality, then you need to show it to them with the full size images and unfortunately those take a bit longer to load. You can have a pre-determined size for all images as well and that will speed up the loading. Other things like color choices will affect the speed too. If a client is looking to spend 6, 8 or ten grand on a photographer (our price range) they will take a little more time to actually look at the images on that site.
We have proofed the site to a bunch of past clients and none of them mentioned loading time vs our old site which is super fast to load.
If it did not bring in the clients then David Jay would not use the site himself.
Sorry Zach but Chris and Lynn use LiveBooks and I disagree with almost everything you said above. To book $6000+ weddings you do not need to show full size images. You need quality and a uniqueness to your work. But in the end, if they can't load or it takes too long to load...they will move on to the next $6000+ photographer.
gabemc wrote:
Sorry Zach but Chris and Lynn use LiveBooks and I disagree with almost everything you said above. To book $6000+ weddings you do not need to show full size images. You need quality and a uniqueness to your work. But in the end, if they can't load or it takes too long to load...they will move on to the next $6000+ photographer.
My bad on the Chris and Lynn! Got some wrong info on them and just heard about them recently. We had thought that we saw them on a demo for Showit Sites.
Our site loads faster than keonikphotography.com who is using a template site (that I have seen a lot of shooters using). So speed with Showit is not a real issue.
I agree that you do not need a site with big shots to book $6,000 + weddings because we have done that. Dennis Reggie has a not too great site with small photos on it too, but he makes millions a year shooting weddings. What I am saying is that part of your uniqueness should be that you do not have a site that looks like ever other site out there and having reall control over that is most likely going to be the future of web design. Having unique work is not enough either to stand out in the wedding business.
Like I said, David Jay uses the Showit and does not have a problem booking weddings. You can't disagree with that, it's just a fact. I know sometimes everyone wants to have a great opinion about everything, but if you want to be a great success at anything that you do, then you need to look at those who are number one in their industry and listen to what they say. That is why you don't ever hear us saying that we are It and we are right about anything or everything, but we point to those that are the best at what they do (with David Jay, it's marketing) because they are the ones to learn from, not the average Jo photographer that is doing average.
