So, I bought the URL "oakie.photo" today. I've spent the last few months trying to decide if, and how, I'd want to monetize the 4-5 photos I've taken that seem to hold value for people besides me. Why "oakie.photo"? Well, it's simple. That's it, it's simple. Simple to remember and promote. Two words, one dot, and it makes for equally simple subdomains and links. I considered the ubiquitous, "Name Here Photography" for a split second and quickly canned it; just adding 6 more letters to type into an address bar disqualified it, along with being a flashing sign of having no creativity. Sure, you could argue my choice is equally uncreative, but it's efficient and easy to remember. Lack of pluralization may compromise elegance for efficiency but who knows?
Some hardware and software updates are coming soon in the near future. For software, I think I'm going to add a Smugmug account to my blog to make it far easier to sell prints online. Currently, I use Flickr to house the images for preview and depend on customers emailing me a request. That's a lot of friction. However, my only issue with Smugmug is their dependence on 3 printers whose quality is questionable and their products are mostly gimmicky crap. Since my gallery is quite small, as I'm extremely critical about the photos I'll include for sale, plus my desire to keep my print runs extremely limited (no more than 25 sold per image), I prefer to have full control of who and how does my printing, matting and framing.
You're familiar with how they all begin: "this video is sponsored by Squarespace." Ok, well, after that, they then feed you the next line, almost all of it verbatim, "I am not sponsored by (insert brand here). They have not paid me to do this review or told me what to say about it. This review is entirely my own and they don't know I'm making this video. I was/was not provided a sample for the purposes of this review. I am not biased in any way so you can trust what I'm about to say about this product." What they don't mention, obviously, is if they had to return that "review unit." But if you pay close attention, you may catch them using the product in later videos, especially if they were especially laudatory in their review. At least they weren't paid, right? Wrong. Payment is simply one form of compensation. That "review unit" usually comes along with an email that says, "you don't need to send this back to us." Simply put, the item itself is payment. Just because you didn't get to choose the item, the form of compensation or were given a special title associating you with their brand doesn't mean you weren't paid. They paid you with product and exclaiming otherwise is a flat out lie by Youtubers who persistently try to claim otherwise. Rarely are these items cameras and lenses; they're usually "soft goods" or accessories, like bags, lens filter kits, etc. that would likely get damaged during a thorough review period or whose cost of manufacture and/or retail price is so low that the cost of return, reconditioning and resale would consume all or more of the potential profit.
Canon is trying to sell us cameras from 2016 at 2019 prices, all up and down their lineup. Their biggest advances have been made in their entry level cameras, a market mostly ignored by both first time buyers and enthusiasts. As ILC cameras have become a luxury in the age of smartphones, the impact of entry level models will continue to shrink moving forward. The future is in models that appeal to enthusiasts while Canon has dumbed down their lineup instead. They’re still banking on entry level, mass market, low cost, high volume models while the consumer has been filtered down to primarily enthusiasts. The mass market has lost their desire or need for the ILC.