Grind said:
Believe it or not, I'm aware of instances of this "trade" actually going down (literally and figuratively). There are web designers everywhere, yes... and just as many shitty SP sites built by "web designers."
Its quite true, but not nearly as bad as it was a few years ago. The funny thing is (from my experience) there is a law of inverse proportion going on here, the more effort an SP puts into her website, probably the less I will enjoy the encounter. (u can read between those lines). Its a fact that most SP's do not compare in looks with the sex queens our eyeballs suck up when looking at high quality porno on the web (just as most of us gents would not fit on the cover of GQ); so were are dealing for the most part with ordinary people that do not photograph exceptionally well as compared to visuals our appetite can get used to prowling around on the web. (any disagreement so far?) No? on to my next point;
Where I think most SP's fail to grasp the visual opportunity is in their
posing. Males are very visually oriented. You can take the most average looking female and by using angles and posture, create an effect in our pea-sized-lizard brain that will invoke the urge to grab the phn and call immediately. 95% of all the SP websites, if independent, seem not to grasp this. So, what I am saying is, they should focus on the photographer, not the flash, and work the body posture as a communication's tool.
Four pics, done in a professional studio, where the lighting, the angles, and MOST importantly, the suggestive pose is all they need. The rest is superfluous. And skip the story-of-my-life stuff...who cares what kind of desert they like. Its about SEX and the male fantasy. Less is more when it comes to personal likes and dislikes.
for a good example of what I am getting at, go here. (a somewhat bad example because most of these girls are London models and photograph exceptionally well, BUT
ignore that, and refer to the posture and posing)
http://www.citybutterflies.com/galleries.php