Wander leads to Planett, but can these apps go any further?

In December 2011 I took a look at an app called Wander (no, not that Wander; a different one) that aimed to let you explore the world through images. It was a bit like having technologically-based pen-pal. Wander allowed you to connect with people in any one of 80 countries and you could share your lunch, your journey to work, and what you do of an evening to get to know each other and where you live, through pictures. It seemed like a fairly neat idea that allowed you to explore and learn about new places while sharing yours. It didn't, however, catch on as the developers had hoped and Wander closed down on 16 August owing to financial difficulties.

Undeterred, some of Wander's original developers have gone on to launch Planett, a Wander-esque app that allows users to discover new places and people by featuring photos tagged with 'missions' from all over the world and organising them into 'city feeds'. Wander's one-to-one element has had to take a back seat for now, but the Planett team is hoping that it can be introduced soon.

I'm impressed by the Planett team's tenacity, but I'm left with some nagging doubts about the app's viability. If it failed on financial grounds the first time around, how will the revamped version fare? There are two underpinning factors here: either Wander didn't fulfil a gap in the market and wasn't popular with potential users; or the team weren't able to monetise it effectively.

Rehashing an app that people didn't want to engage with won't necessarily make it any more popular. If that's the case, then Planett is, sadly, already on a hiding-to-nothing.

Not being able to monetise the app effectively could have been because the developers simply didn't know how to do it. They couldn't see a way to make the app economically lucrative and therefore didn't. That's fine if you're able to bankroll an app as a personal project, but not if you need to transform it into a self-sustaining business. Given that Wander closed owing to financial shortcomings, it suggests that it didn't fall into the category of a developer's part-time project. Seeing the way that Wander went doesn't fill me with confidence that Planett can be maintained as a developer's toy, either. If that were the case, then Wander would still be meandering along.

I sincerely hope that the Planett team hasn't sauntered over from Wander thinking that they can monetise it 'somehow' without having thought it through. Attempting the same scheme but expecting a different outcome is somewhere between futile and fanciful. What I would like to know then is what's the plan, Planett? I have asked Planett's developers to elaborate on the app's monetisation potential, but I'm yet to receive response. Without one, I can only anticipate Planett will head towards the same pale blue yonder of Wander.

Alternatively, the Wander team did attempt to monetise their app, but it didn't raise enough revenue. That doesn't bode well for Planett, either: it casts doubt on the monetisation potential of the app. Sure, Planett might have a different vision to Wander, but there's no evidence of it yet. Planett's developers need to consider if their app is something that plugs a gap in the market and if people will be prepared to pay for it, somehow.

Planett's selling points are that it allows you to explore your world, you can follow 'cool people' who share photos from places you want to visit, you can visit cities pictorially and explore them 'at ground level', and it provides you with photo missions to inspire you and get your creative juices flowing. As you share more images of where you live, you can unlock more images uploaded by other people.

Is this enough to tempt people to join and to share their photos? After all, you can already explore the world photographically using geolocation information with Flickr, Instagram, and EyeEm, and you can follow heaps of people with varying degrees of coolness on all three of those sites. EyeEm has the photo missions element built in, too. The real kicker for Planett is that these examples are already well-established communities with billions of photos, and that they're free. Without something to set it apart, Planett is facing an uphill struggle.

Wander's unique selling point was the one-on-one relationships that it fostered. Planett is hoping to adopt this feature but it hasn't got there yet. Without it, or another appealing and original facet, Planett is trying to establish itself amongst already settled groups that might not be willing to shift (or at least join).

There are billions of photos on the Intergoogles and hundreds, if not thousands, of different ways of sharing them. But if a new kid on the block is going to survive against already well-established communities and ensure its sustainability, it has to know to whom it is appealing, and how. Does Planett?

Subscription fees set to soar at SmugMug

SmugMug's new pricing scheme

There's a bit of a ruckus going on over at the blog of online portfolio and printing service, SmugMug, right now. It's all very polite and restrained, but there are a lot of angry and confused photographers trying to make themselves heard, and I don't really blame them.

Last night, an email dropped into the inboxes of some of SmugMug's members, informing them of changes to their subscription plans. 'That's not so bad,' you say, 'businesses need to earn a profit and they need to evolve,' and you'd be right. Except that some SmugMug users might be paying 66% more on their current fee for the same service, whilst others might be paying the same fee for a reduction in features. A bit steep, no?

Until now, SmugMug had three levels of subscription: Basic, Power, and Pro. They cost $40, $60, and $150 a year respectively. All of the accounts offered unlimited photo storage; the Power account offered a customised domain and site along with unlimited HD video storage; finally the Pro account added the ability to sell your images with your own markup and offer promotional coupons if you wanted, too. There were other bits and pieces, as well, but those were the key features.

Come 15 October, Pro users' accounts will be split into two categories: Portfolio and Business. Portfolio will cost $150 a year and offer (amongst other things) domain and site customisation, watermarking, and professional print options. The Business plan will be $250 per year for existing subscribers, whilst new users will be expected to fork out $300 each year for the privilege of all that's available to Portfolio users, with the addition of the ability to sell their prints at prices they set, the provision of discount coupons, and customised packaging, along with some other bits and pieces.

Consequently, existing SmugMug Pro users who wish to continue to sell prints through the site will have to pay an extra $100 a year for the convenience. SmugMug has made a rough guess at which of its subscribers will want to renew with Portfolio subscriptions and which with the Business plan and sorted them accordingly, but they can alter their preferences come renewal time if they wish, and that's just as well. There are a lot of SmugMug subscribers expressing their dismay, disappointment, and disgust on the SmugMug blog. It isn't just that a $100 increase in fees is a significant sum in one go (hell, if my car insurance renewal were to increase $100 in one go, I'd be looking for an alternative) but that SmugMug isn't offering any tangible benefits alongside it. In fact, users claim that they've been asking for feature improvements for some time, but nothing has been forthcoming. They're not too happy about the idea of paying for something that might or might not happen.

The platitude that SmugMug hasn't increased its prices in seven years isn't having the desired effect on riled subscribers. If anything, it's a claim that smacks of bad business practice, not only because SmugMug's directors haven't reacted appropriately to the market over the last few years, but SmugMug is likely to force its low band-width users–those who can no longer justify the cost of a Portfolio account, but put the least strain on the servers and therefore provided the business with its highest margins–into self-imposed exile. They might down-grade their accounts to Power level (which doesn't offer printing options), or look elsewhere. Either way, SmugMug would lose a valuable revenue stream; one user has gone so far as to suggest its a decision that could lead to the company's demise by summer 2013.

That's possibly a little over-reactionary, because there are a great many SmugMug users who love the operation, and in particular its customer service, and appreciate the up-front manner that Chris MacAskill, SmugMug's president, set out the changes. But it doesn't change the fact that it's a lot of money to ask for without any appreciable improvements.

There's been quite a lot of talk of users switching portfolio and print providers. So what, then, are the alternatives? If you're only looking for portfolio providers then there's the cutely named (and themed) Carbonmade and the far more grown-up looking Viewbook. If you want the SmugMug Pro experience (portfolio and printing) but without the pricing, then Zenfolio is the most commonly named alternative, but I've heard very good things about Photoshelter and I've enjoyed good experiences with Photoswarm.

Any other suggestions out there?