JP Rangaswami, musing about social objects and why social objects are created by our stories, lives and shared experiences, not the content.

If you’ve ready anything I’ve written about the photography business, or marketing through experiences, or the value of context, you’ll understand why JP Rangaswami’s thoughts resonate so deeply with me.

JP, Thinking about social objects and limbo dancing:

You know what makes an object “social”? We do. Without us there is no “social”, even if we use objects to extend and enhance that socialness.

Photographs are social objects, which is why it would come as no surprise if Facebook now had more photographs than Flickr. Films are social objects. Songs are social objects. Books. Sporting events. TV programs. Concerts. They’re all social objects.

When we see lists like that, we can start believing that all social objects are “content”, which gets the “rightsholders” of content salivating up the wazoo. Perish the thought.

Content is not what makes an object social. We do.

Again, we do. Back to JP,

There was a time when “content” was created by a tiny minority of people, largely because the tools for making that content were elitist in nature. Scarce, expensive, needing specialist skills. To make matters worse, the techniques for distributing and sharing that “content” were also elitist in nature. So people who “owned” that “content” felt like kings.

Now things have changed. There’s been some limbo-dancing. The barriers to entry for creating, publishing and distributing “content” are getting lower by the minute. Which means that the content kings are all dressed up with nowhere to go. And so the only option they think they have is to try and recreate the barriers they used to enjoy, in paradigms where they are technically and economically difficult to recreate.

This is why incumbents make unbased arguments like crowdsourcing is “ripping off artists”.

Back to JP,

People who used to “own” “content” still have roles to play. While digital content will continue to trend towards free, there are many ways to make money because of that content rather than with that content, the “because effect”. Time-based premia. Analog sales. Authenticity. Merchandising. All the “better than free” ideas that Kevin Kelly tells us about.

As the cost of producing content drops, as the cost of distributing content drops, as the process of creating the content gets more and more democratised, something new happens. We start having too much content. Which means the role of curators increases in importance. Curation is about access, about trust, about relationships, about expertise, about context. So the content rightsholders of old have an opportunity to excel, since they have the inside track to providing these. We used to go to them for content they generated. Now we can go to them for content we generate. That is, if they stop their paywall tomfoolery. We pay for service, not for content.

Curation is a valuable service. The question: how will curators (individuals and companies) combine algorithms and people to curate content? How will we create layers of curation, creating different curatorial efforts for speed, efficiency, delivery methods, personalization, etc., all different and valuable ways to add contextual value to content.

Creating value through curating content and adding context isn’t new. But when the equations that have defined how we create and consume content and context change, we’re forced to create new systems, and the transition creates a lot of debate between the old and the new, between technology and business, between “laws on the books” and economic realities, between culture and tradition.

These are the debates that journalists, photographers, artists, writers et. al. all face. Choose your side of the debate wisely.

(Read JP’s full post for more thoughts, background and links to related posts by him, Hugh, and others. It’s worth it, as always.)

A short video about photography, the iPad and the value of content and context for Ellen Boughn’s talk at Blend Images’ annual meeting prior to the Palm Springs Photo Festival 2010.

Ellen Boughn:

I asked consultant, Taylor Davidson, to put together his thoughts on how photographers can exploit new publishing models such as the iPad versions of VIV, Wired and others. I included the resulting video in a presentation that I made March 25 at the Blend Images photographers’ creative meeting. Since then, the iPad has landed in the hands of somewhere between 600,000 and 700,000 users. The early consensus is that the product is living up to the hype. The reviews have been terrific. But will the iPad save still photography? Here’s Taylor’s opinion.

My remarks, on video:

Taylor Davidson on photography, the iPad, content and context from Taylor Davidson on Vimeo.

Thoughts? Comments?

Recent and relevant:

• Alan Patrick, iPad will save Print Media and other modern myths.
• Jim Goldstein, 5 Reasons Photographers Should Take Note of the iPad

Liked this post? Subscribe to this blog by RSS or email, check out more about my consulting services for photographers at NARRATIVELY, and follow me at @tdavidson and @narratively on Twitter.

Retracing an old discussion about the impact of the deluge of the amateur, linking together yesterday’s fair take by the NY Times with a post of mine from September 2007.

Yesterday in the NY Times, For Photographers, the Image of a Shrinking Path by Stephanie Clifford:

Mr. Eich and Ms. Pruitt illustrate the huge shake-up in photography during the last decade. Amateurs, happy to accept small checks for snapshots of children and sunsets, have increasing opportunities to make money on photos but are underpricing professional photographers and leaving them with limited career options. Professionals are also being hurt because magazines and newspapers are cutting pages or shutting altogether.

.. That meant a flood of pretty decent photographs, and that changed the stock-photography industry. In the last few years, stock agencies have created or acquired so-called microstock divisions. They charge $1 to $100, in most cases, for publishers or others to rerun a photo, often supplied by an amateur. And Getty made a deal with Flickr in 2008, permitting Getty’s photo editors to comb through customers’ images and strike license agreements with the amateur photographers.

“The quality of licensed imagery is virtually indistinguishable now from the quality of images they might commission,” Mr. Klein said. Yet “the price point that the client, or customer, is charged is a fraction of the price point which they would pay for a professional image.”

For reference, Me, Sept 2007, Everyone is a photographer:

The cheap availability, the sheer ease of use and accessibility of cameras and the acceptance of people in society taking photographs has made photographs ubiquitous in life.

… The great work is still great, and is still rare – but there is more good work, and even more marginal work, out there than before cameras became widespread.

… Where does this leave the economics of the stock business? Shot, dead, gone. Debate what you want about the economics of microstock, or Getty’s change to $49 images, or the value of RF and RM, or whether Flickr or Zoomr can create stock agencies from user generated content, but long-term, the economics for individual photographers will continue to degrade. While the demand for photographs for traditional media is flat or growing slowly at best, the supply is drastically increased. Say what you want about the quality of the work (marginal, uninspired, even dumbing down the art form), but most buyers do not need the best, they just need what is good enough for the decreasing expectations of the public.

Back to the NY Times:

… “Can an amateur take a picture as good as a professional? Sure,” Ms. Eismann said. “Can they do it on demand? Can they do it again? Can they do it over and over? Can they do it when a scene isn’t that interesting?”

But amateurs like Ms. Pruitt do not particularly care.

“I never followed any traditional photography rules only because I didn’t know of any — I never went to photography school, never took any classes,” she said. “People don’t know the rules, so they just shoot what they like — and other people like it, too.”

Back to me:

So while traditional photographers may be stuck in the debate over whether sites like Flickr et. al. contribute anything meaningful to the art of photography, the point is completely missed – most people don’t care. Photos are just a way to share their lives, they do not do it for the art, the idea doesn’t even enter their mind. It’s just a way to communicate.

The abundant supply of images is obvious: the shift in demand is less obvious but just as important. If people don’t value great photography then they won’t pay for it. Go ahead and mock, but anybody can be a professional photographer: not for all buyers, and surely not for big-budget commercial shoots, but for most buyers, great photographers and classic, outstanding images simply aren’t needed.

What’s the best strategy for a photographer in this world? Me, October 2008: “The way to make money in photography is to sell stuff to photographers.”

Tracing back to one last point: me, Sept 2007:

What does mean to professional photographers? Learn the lessons from the music business and musicians – the future is less about owning the end product, more about the process and the experience of creating. More on this later.

Well, later is now: Instead of focusing on the image, focus on everything around the image.

Context, not content, right?

Liked this post? Subscribe to this blog by RSS or email, check out more about my consulting services for photographers at NARRATIVELY, and follow me at @tdavidson and @narratively on Twitter.

Creating rich, immersive and scalable experiences is the biggest opportunity in marketing today, and “experience artists” are going to play a large, rich role in marketing going forward.

The evolution of a thought is a funny thing. I’ve long obsessed over the idea of context, inspired and shaped by Umair Haque’s line of thinking about user generated context, markets, networks and communities and many of his other principles.

Later, I picked up the idea of culturematics from Grant McCracken, a concept I’ve applied in thinking about communities, the power of “doing cool (meaningful) stuff”", and creating relevant, shareable events and experiences as participatory “marketing” campaigns.

About “doing cool (meaningful) stuff”:

“Cool stuff” grows only if it resonates, if it’s meaningful, if people care. “Cool stuff” are the small-scale, human examples of the power of focusing on creating rather than capturing, of focusing on product instead of marketing. Demonstrations of the power of living a life too cool to ignore.

“Doing cool (meaningful) stuff” is powerful because it’s the foundation behind turning relevant, shareable events and experiences into participatory “marketing” campaigns:

I believe there is a huge opportunity for people to follow their passion and evil plans to create relatable experiences and culturematics as “marketing campaigns.” Because these experiences are inherently human, they can invade niches and propagate through communities cheaper, better and faster than traditional marketing efforts.

… What are the keys? Passion, meaningfully directed. Transparency. Authority. A unique point of view. An ability to connect discrete actions to a meaningful cause. Resonance with a community. An obvious, transparent business model that “fits” the product, service, experience and community.

In my recent post, “Instead of focusing on the image, focus on everything around the image”, I applied the continuation of these thoughts to the photography industry.

But it’s a concept that applies to all forms of marketing.

Creating rich, immersive and scalable experiences is the biggest opportunity in marketing today, and “experience artists” are going to play a large, rich role in marketing going forward.

Why? To repeat (and add to) my recent post,

• Content is far easier to copy than context.
• Content is cheap to create and distribute, but context is (still) expensive.
• Content creation is an evolutionary process. The evolution builds valuable, immersive, rich context for leaders and shapers to create and guide the markets, networks and communities behind the evolution.

  How? The path taken to create content impacts the final product, but the path to create context is *part of the final product*. Remember, paths are more valuable than destinations.

• The economics of the web have increased the competition between content creators, flattened the experience advantage and upended supply and demand for content. But at the same time, it’s expanded the opportunity to create context, made context easier, cheaper and more accessible to create than ever before. People that recognize how context is created, what type of context they can create, and why context is important will create economically meaningful, valuable and sustainable products, services and experiences. And more than anything, that’s what we need.
• Marketers and business strategists today are fond of giving the advice “join the conversation.” While I agree, it’s only a step towards the larger goal: “create shared experiences”. First: join, listen, learn and understand the best practices, cores and edges in your markets, communities and networks, because it’s step one towards building the knowledge and confidence to take the next step: “create shared experiences”.
• Experiences are more powerful than conversations in creating the rich, immersive context, social objects and shareable, participatory media necessary for marketing campaigns. David Cushman and Jamie Burke asked “Can you buy space in conversations?” in their recent presentation about The Death of Advertising; to extend the thought, my question is “can you buy space in experiences?” Conversations, no; but experiences, yes.

Lest one think of this as idle thought, the examples are being created by bleeding edge practitioners today.

If you’d like to discuss examples and see how you can apply these concepts to your business, drop me a line at tdavidson@taylordavidson.com or @tdavidson; hire me to consult and I’ll help you devise strategies and execute campaigns applying these principles.

Liked this post? Subscribe to this blog by RSS or email and follow me at @tdavidson on Twitter.