Adam Mosseri himself admits what we all know: IG pays particular attention to teens/younger people; IG watches closely and competes with TikTok.
Also, not that this surprises me at all, he says how IG would promote content based on users' engagement. To put it bluntly, they didn't work hard on letting the user discover new creators and instead, they simply relied on the "likes".
This is the issue at the core of social media in general. What's being promoted is the result of quantity, not necessarily quality. This very basic principle is what makes social media unreliable.
All in all, it's good news. Since they're so stressed about TikTok, it means eventually IG could just become the "other" TikTok. Hopefully, this will convince photographers to move away from the platform. But for that to happen, a solid alternative needs to show up.
If you see which youtubers get the perks, you’ll see it has nothing to do w talent or quality of work but popularity/clicks. And it skews much younger. But good for them, they are doing well at being ‘famous’ - not meant in a snarky way just the fact that social media is just a popularity contest.
Where the numbers go is where the advertisers etc go and you’d do the same if you were trying to sell something.
Mitch Alland wrote:
It's not the "likes" that I'm interested in chasing, but I see that in the last few years views of photographs that people post have gone down drastically. When I post images now, I get 2-4 likes, compared to 20-40 about a year ago. I saw the following statement on RFF: "So basically, Meta increased overall engagement times with the app at the expense of individual engagement with the photographers you like. It must be true - the pictures I posted 2-3 years ago have more likes that posting them now with the same hastags. It just feels that from 2022, Instagram became a less friendly platform for photographers."
Also, rather than looking at tiny images on my iPhone, I'm looking at Instagram using a Mac app called "Grids"; but this app has become abandonware. I'm thinking of throwing in the towel on instagram, as it's not worthwhile posting images that only a handful of people look at. Has anyone else come to the same conclusion?...Show more →
I was probably there in 2022. I remember one photographer posting on here that he was up to 1,000,000 views on a photo sharing site , years ago, (maybe more like hundreds/ over 1000 views on an individual image but he'd posted enough to get there) but idk how to get that anymore. Seems much harder to get attention online.
I never got into IG much, to begin with, thought about it more recently since fb on the way down, the main reason recently is they can sell your images. Server fees on the website (granted years ago) <$15/year, so selling images and granting rights to do so is just too expensive to me, a ripoff. I quit fb as well since it's the same company not sure if they're better or not.
Desmolicious wrote:
If you see which youtubers get the perks, you’ll see it has nothing to do w talent or quality of work but popularity/clicks. And it skews much younger. But good for them, they are doing well at being ‘famous’ - not meant in a snarky way just the fact that social media is just a popularity contest.
Where the numbers go is where the advertisers etc go and you’d do the same if you were trying to sell something.
At the lake maybe 3-4 years ago some mostly 18-23 year colds yelled, "hey, take our photo!" Only a couple had fb, it's probably going to be like yahoo , stoll there but mostly older vs the 18-35 group coveted by marketers since they spend more. yeah IG probably competes mostly vs TikTok so more video until it goes the same direction
IG has been on a slipper slope since the founders got estranged and then squeezed out in 2018.
Since then it's moved away from organic discovery / real engagement / actually seeing content from people you follow.. into its final form.
You could see various step function drop offs in views/likes/comments in 2019/2020/2021/2022 as they made different changes. Stories / reals / algo feed / etc.
The final form is engagement bait / ads / sponsored content / influencers / video.. all algorithmically curated to maximize your time in app and clicks per login. Seeing photos from by the people you follow is barely even a tertiary product priority anymore.
p.3 #10 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
When even National Geographic picks a young youtuber because of the 'influence', you know the ship has sailed.
Personally I enjoy watching the kids get excited about photography - especially when it is with film! - but the reality here is when even NG picks people because of their followers, it just comes down to getting views over 'quality'. And then we go down that slippery slope of defining quality - maybe I need to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance again...
p.3 #11 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
fededuran wrote:
...if on the other hand it means to ask users/photographers to pay under a subscription model, that's a different story. I'd happily pay a reasonable fee in exchange for a truly photography-based social network.
Isn't that what Flickr was, is and is trying to be?
Be better than existing incumbents, attract members, slowly get worse until enough leave.
There was a golden age of IG when I had photographer friends all over the globe, and even made some in real life friends / met up while traveling off the back of it. Now, lol.
p.3 #13 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
Desmolicious wrote:
When even National Geographic picks a young youtuber because of the 'influence', you know the ship has sailed.
Personally I enjoy watching the kids get excited about photography - especially when it is with film! - but the reality here is when even NG picks people because of their followers, it just comes down to getting views over 'quality'. And then we go down that slippery slope of defining quality - maybe I need to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance again...
Perhaps it occurs to you that NG itself is a dying medium, and needs to do what it must to attract the next generation to stay not only relevant but interesting to the market at large.
A smallish print medium isn't lighting anyone's fires. Nat Geo has to adapt to this new videoscape just like everyone else.
Taylor is herself a small-ish creator as far as that goes...not even 70k subs on YT, downright pitiful in today's landscape
p.3 #14 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
Maybe I'm just being too optimistic. Anyway, Flickr offers you a "pro" option to avoid advertising, as far as I know, and maybe is too crowded for my taste. I know, you can't get exactly what you want, that's not life, that's literature.
rscheffler wrote:
Isn't that what Flickr was, is and is trying to be?
p.3 #15 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
Photography is simply no longer seen as artform by most (non-photographers). Cellphone photography made photo-taking common and standard. There are exceptions by some famous photographers who are reputable as artists; also wedding photographers are sometimes hired to do (semi-) professional art in such environment. Online sites simply adjust to this and go where more attention and viewers are: video.
If someone wants to stand out as amateur artist, slop photography and do painting instead. It is much more appreciated as artform, better chances to sell the work and stand out. I know this from three very good former amateur photographers who went successfully this route and never looked back.
Do photography to have fun as hobby and/or be professional with it where you can still make money from (event/wedding photography). Or collect camera gear as hobby. Print photos as books to share with family and friends, maybe do exhibits to bring your name out. But don't rely on social networks for photography. This had its high time around 2010 and has since declined further.
p.3 #16 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
RoamingScott wrote:
Perhaps it occurs to you that NG itself is a dying medium, and needs to do what it must to attract the next generation to stay not only relevant but interesting to the market at large.
Of course. I don't think they've had staff photographers for the longest time.
This is just a sign of where they are at, and others in the 'print' medium. Just trying to figure out how to survive.
"Smithers, how many times have we done a story on Machu Picchu?"
"You mean since NG started Sir?"
"Yes Smithers"
"186"
"What can do to make 187 different?"
"Er, use a youtuber who the kids like?"
"Good idea Smithers, but we need it cheap"
"Use a youtuber who only has a few followers"
"Perfect! Get me my martini"
p.3 #17 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
retrofocus wrote:
Photography is simply no longer seen as artform by most (non-photographers). Cellphone photography made photo-taking common and standard. There are exceptions by some famous photographers who are reputable as artists; also wedding photographers are sometimes hired to do (semi-) professional art in such environment. Online sites simply adjust to this and go where more attention and viewers are: video.
If someone wants to stand out as amateur artist, slop photography and do painting instead. It is much more appreciated as artform, better chances to sell the work and stand out. I know this from three very good former amateur photographers who went successfully this route and never looked back.
Do photography to have fun as hobby and/or be professional with it where you can still make money from (event/wedding photography). Or collect camera gear as hobby. Print photos as books to share with family and friends, maybe do exhibits to bring your name out. But don't rely on social networks for photography. This had its high time around 2010 and has since declined further. ...Show more →
Unless you shoot film.
Fer realz. People are way impressed by my out of focus, poorly exposed, improperly home developed junk.
Crappy stuff on film is the sign of a true artist.
p.3 #18 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
retrofocus wrote:
Photography is simply no longer seen as artform by most (non-photographers). [...]
That's nothing new, unfortunately. It's a stigma that started right after photography was born, and it continued throughout the 20th century.
The very photographers helped to spread the idea that real art is painting by insisting on comparing to it and mimicking it. Digital, with the myriads of people who embraced heavy post-processing, or worse, photo manipulation, exacerbated this already complex matter. Then we act surprised when AI photography shows up. Go figure.
p.3 #19 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
Desmolicious wrote:
Unless you shoot film.
Fer realz. People are way impressed by my out of focus, poorly exposed, improperly home developed junk.
Crappy stuff on film is the sign of a true artist.
Only that nobody is seeing the difference between digital and film if not shot with high grain film. Personal satisfaction from it - sure! But nobody else cares which medium is used when evaluating the art. Was there, done this.
p.3 #20 · Getting less and less views on Instagram
retrofocus wrote:
Only that nobody is seeing the difference between digital and film if not shot with high grain film. Personal satisfaction from it - sure! But nobody else cares which medium is used when evaluating the art. Was there, done this.
I get the "oh wow, I love film pictures!" reaction all the time and it sells for me.
Maybe art critics don't care, but they are not the ones buying.
