No results found for your search
I wrote this because I think it's interesting that people spend so much time writing content and headlines, but often resort to simple stock photos for the post image.
In many cases (Facebook & G+ shares, for instance) the image associated with a post has just as much of an effect on click-through as the headline.
What do you all think?
Absolutely! So many people quickly skim through an article without really reading it. Having some gripping images can be enough of a hook to get someone to share or retweet your post, even if they don't make it through the whole article.
Sometimes, the best picture is the one you take yourself. We all have cameras everywhere and the creative impulse to write is naturally complemented by the creative impulse to shoot. Combine 'em and you should get relevance, focus, originality etc. Simply choosing an image taken for a different purpose makes nailing relevance less likely.
That is true - although I think it depends on the blog and the voice. Generally, taking a good picture is much harder than it looks. At the same time, some blogs (like Penelope Trunk) have used self-generated photos quite effectively.
Here's an interesting post about using self-generated photography vs professional editing: http://charliehoehn.com/2014/01/20/how-to-make-a-professional-book-cover/
Use the feedback box below if you have a question, comment or general feedback.
Your feedback has been sent.
Sweet! The link has been copied to your clip boardy board!
Flash isn't supported. Please copy the link manually.