Smugmug may be a perennial also-ran in the photo-sharing space, but the service is trying to stay ahead of the curve by offering its members more customization features. After database glitches brought the service down for several hours earlier today, smugmug unveiled a massive CSS overhaul, which lets members customize virtually every aspect of their photo galleries. Unfortunately, the service's own default style still sports a hideous day-glo-on-black look, but at least it's easier to get rid of it — if you're willing to pay a price. Smugmug limits customization to its "Power" and "Pro" users, who pay $49.95 and $99.95 a year, respectively. "Standard" customers are stuck in day-glo world for their $29.95 a year. I still like smugmug, and I think $49.95 is a reasonable price for unlimited uploads and downloads, along with full customization. But I think they really should offer a free tier — and hire a new designer — if they want to compete more aggressively in this space.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-17-2005 @ 12:01PM
Bruce said...
They really should listen to that bit about hiring a designer. I've been interested in SmugMug a few times but I find it hard to give money to company that uses Comic Sans in their "logo." Surely it's the ugliest typeface ever created.
Reply
8-18-2005 @ 5:35PM
Don MacAskill said...
Hi, I'm one of the co-founders of smugmug, and I've got a rebuttal on my blog about us and our status as an 'also-ran'.
Don
Reply
8-22-2005 @ 10:58AM
Jordan Running said...
Don,
It's nice to hear from the people whose software we post about here. Thanks for stopping by.
I think that if you had dwelt less on the first sentence of Marc's post, you may have discovered that overall, his post was a fairly positive one. He says that he likes your service and that he thinks the $50 price is a fair one, which is saying a lot. His criticisms are both constrictive and completely accurate: Smugmug, however useful and groundbreaking, is pretty ugly, and having a free tier is hardly the most outlandish suggestion.
You're right, eBay and Google were also-rans just like Smugmug, as Marc and every one of our readers is aware. We all know that you don't have to be first out of the gate in order to win the race, and I think that his post acknowledges that. I appreciate the rebuttal you posted on your site, but as I've mentioned Marc's post is a positive and constructive one. Is it really necessary to rebut your positive press?
Reply
8-27-2005 @ 9:10PM
Don MacAskill said...
Hi Jordan,
No offense, but "hideous", "hire a new designer", and, from your post, "pretty ugly" are hardly terms used in positive press.
We have an incredibly talented designer and an equally-talented branding & design firm. We happen to love the way our site looks - and our customers do too. Best of all, they *pay us* because it looks so good - unlike many of our competitors.
Adding a free account level would damage our ability to deliver the ultimate photo sharing site. Just look around at our competitors - their offerings can't compete. They either run out of money and must be sold, go under, or change their pricing plans.
You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, but if this is "positive press", I'm afraid I just don't want any. :)
Don
Reply
8-28-2005 @ 7:14AM
Dr Chris Westinghouse said...
One should only worry about the opinions of people you care about... I am still toying with the idea of going into competition with smugmug, pbase and all the others, but I'll say this : if the only criticism you have is the fact that smugmug has hideous day glo coour schemes on free accounts....they must be doing a lot of things right.
Reply
8-30-2005 @ 9:12PM
Mike said...
As a neutral third party, let me ref these last 2 comments...
It's hard to read this as positive press. Marc simply "likes" smugmug's unfortunate, hideous offering. Tepid press, at best.
I'm not completely familiar with this space, but after viewing the smugmug site, the styling for me stands head-and-shoulders above shutterfly.com, ofoto.com, et al., and unless you're eating beans out of a can, it doesn't seem necessary to separate such free services from a $30 per year service. I use (or rather used) shutterfly.com, and would pay $2 a month just so they would stop sending me those obnoxious emails.
Reply
12-01-2005 @ 12:01AM
Matt Newberry said...
I'm a smugmugger and absolutely love everything about it! Simply put, it blows all other photo sharing sites out of the water, hands down... (I've checked them all) It would be an extremely hard sell to get me to leave smugmug for anything else.
Keep up the Great work smugmug :)
Matt Newberry / Yorba Linda, CA
Reply