Digital challenges from the photographer’s perspective


My friend Michael Yamashita is one of the most interesting people I’ve ever met and his 21st century intellectual property challenge is to challenges what he is to people. He’s a photographer who has shot enormous projects, mostly for the National Geographic, over the past 35 years. He has shot the US-Canadian border end-to-end, the Mekong River from the source to the mouth, the path of Marco Polo’s journey from Venice to China on the Silk Road (which runs through Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan), the entire length of the Great Wall of China, and countless other places that are documented by very few people. (Note: because Mike’s site is built in Flash, I can’t deeplink to each of these topics. You can navigate your way there through “images” on the home page.) And a camera in Yamashita’s hands is like a guitar in Clapton’s or a bat in Ted Williams’s.

What makes Mike so interesting personally is that he’s been to all these places armed with a curiosity and an engaging personality that means that he brings back lots of very personal stories and a real understanding of the mentality of the place. Thinking about what makes his intellectual property challenge so interesting could be throwing off some lessons.

The National Geographic has always purchased specific uses of the photojournalism it underwrites, leaving the copyright with the photographers. Over the first 20 or 25 years that Mike shot, the revenue from stock — pictures he had taken for a purpose he’d been paid for but which he could now sell again — just rose steadily. Every year he added the images from another major project or two.

And even in the early part of the this century, when the photo stock business began to soften pretty obviously, Mike’s sales were slower than most to take the hit. He had many pictures that couldn’t be replaced by “the crowd”. And some can never be replaced at all. When you’ve shot the Buddhas in the wilds of Afghanistan that were destroyed by the Taliban shortly thereafter, you have pictures nobody else can go get.

So Mike’s instinct was to protect the copyright and price of his pictures, not  to follow the increasingly conventional wisdom of making them viral. When you know the crowd can’t duplicate your work, it means it can continue to command high prices.

But not forever. Mike’s stock sales have now found the level everybody else’s has found: much lower. Yet there are still very rare pictures…

We were discussing all of this yesterday at a barbeque on Mike’s deck in a sylvan spot in northern New Jersey. Mike is smart and not hidebound; he recognizes that the world is changing. And even as he continues planning and working on three major assignments in Asia that will keep him busy for the next 18-24 months, he sees that his stock business is cratering, the funding for major assignments such as he has done for several decades is disappearing, and his future employment will be about exploiting his “brand”: teaching, lecturing, and producing and hosting documentary films about the places he knows that almost nobody else does (a career which he has already begun.)

What we realized through conversation was that only a small percentage of Mike’s pictures have the characteristics that make them (theoretically) worth “protecting.” On Saturday, Mike shot his local town’s annual Fourth of July parade (which featured Martha and the Vandellas) and got lots of great pictures that have no real commercial market. But lots of them would great on your 4th of July party invitation next year.

We further realized that the value of the brand Mike is nurturing, his name, is directly proportional to the number of people who know it and, even more important, to the number of people who own it and treasure it. That argues for free and viral distribution of his images (as long as they are prominently “branded”.) Mike saw quickly that the opportunities for teaching and lecturing revenues would be enhanced by free and viral distribution of IP.

The other thing we realized is that even as specialist a photographer as Mike can employ further verticalization to enhance his interaction with his audiences. Mike’s web site shows you his archive and allows you to buy prints. The archive is set up for the professional user (registration required) with search enabled and story ideas organized. But it is not set up for the Google searcher who wants to find Great Wall or Angkor Wat photos. He is not search-engine optimized to show up for those searches, and his site doesn’t pull that kind of material together. Yet those search terms should be his best friends, leading to unparallelled collections of images.

So as carefully- and cleverly-constructed as Mike’s branding site is, we recognized that there are two elements that need to be added to his strategy.

One is that he has to operate on two tracks. He has to separate out the relative handful of his hundreds of thousands of stock images that really do have scarcity supporting their price and protect those, but the best strategy for everything else is to push it out there. Brand it with a signature or stamp of some kind but make it possible for everybody to use it and spread it.

The other is that he needs to “niche” himself: organize and present his oeuvre by the subjects he’s covered, which is the way people can most readily find him. He has to enable people to discover  the brand “Yamashita” when they are looking for a famous place or person he has shot.

The business Mike has always been in: shooting assignments nobody, or almost nobody, else can do and putting together books and selling images that are stunning and, literally, rise above the crowd, will continue to diminish but, for a while at least, continue to pay. But building the new one, which is about Mike himself and not just the images, depends on his willingness to give away what he always used to sell.


  Back to blog

  • myaggie2
    Thank you, Mike & Michael. Your conversation and musing have enlightened me further about my own brand and a track to follow in these financial times. Something clicked while reading this that I've only touched on before (the rarity of my photos), in your words, they are unreproducable for the most part. You've shown me that I need to protect these to make my brand, and use the reproducible shots to sell for less money so the many can afford them. Though it may not have been your intent, you've deepened the brand I've already started. Thank you again.
  • Sorry to be so slow in saying "thanks" for the comment. And it really was my intent to help photographers think about brand. I'm glad the thoughts provoked by working through it with Mike Yamashita were also of value to you.
  • myaggie2
    You are certainly welcome. Thank YOU. I *DID* send you the link to my post,
    didn't I? Well, just to make sure, here it is.
    http://www.visualartsjunction.com/?p=2787 Thankx again.
  • Thanks. Very flattering. Again: I'm glad it was useful for you.
    Mike
  • myaggie2
    You're very welcome. I'm so sorry I failed to get that to you earlier.
  • gregor_wolf
    Mike, maybe we sometimes talked about it: In my "other life", I scuba dive and I shoot underwater videos. I have never tried to make this a business, but I am surely well connected with professional photographers and video makers, and many of your thoughts sound very familiar to me. In my view, there are many commonalities between the publishing industry and the situation of photographers. No surprise, it’s all about content and digitization.

    Stolen content: When I talk to photographers, many begin to experience what it really means, if content can be copied digitally. Photographers, welcome to the experiences of the music industry! In the good old days, an analog photo could hardly be copied, you needed a negative in the beginning, every copy made it worse, and there was little interest, since the more or less only reason to reuse a photo was print. Since print was (and still is) the domain of professionals, not many reasons to leave the photographers unpaid. In a digital Soho world, this changes. Today, kids build websites. Kids produce u-tube videos. Kids need content for their projects. They don’t pay. And since the photo is now digital, they just paste it into their website. If it would only be non-profit projects, it would not be a big problem, since no real money gets lost. But since badly paid semiprofessional webdesigners do the same, it is becoming a problem for the photographers. Now, the good news is that watermarking on a photo is easy, visible (which is a big advantage compared to music!), and it is not easy to bypass it.

    Agencies go Internet: This is the good side. Today, a good photographer can be visible. You need a really amazing picture of a Marlin? Go to www.seapics.com. Find a photo of a Marlin hunted by Sea Lions. I would say that only a handful of people ever saw this in the water, but the picture is there. How did a magazine find this 20 years ago? This drives business for photographers and it opens endless opportunities for talented people, even if you are yet unknown.

    Massive availability of content: The bad side of the digital availability and the digital catalogs is that extraordinary people like Michael Yamashita begin to disappear in the mass. It is getting more difficult to stay visible. There is so much bad and so much good photo content out there. A good name is still a good name, but no longer the only way to get an extraordinary photo. When I look at dive magazines (which is a very vertical niche market!), I still see that most photos are still from the same few known photographers. But I see also scaring trends: Photo competitions for semiprofessional amateurs, in which you are forced to give your rights away if you want to participate. One dive magazine recently asked amateurs to send articles and photos from their vacations. They offer 100 €, if they print it. These are examples of price destroying trends. And more, at the end this may destroy professional journalism at all.

    New business models and direct sales: This is the chance for photographers, and it is my true believe that photographers have not even considered new business ideas. It is time for photographers to become innovative. Your business model is not restricted. Why is selling to magazines the only business model? Why is being asked for a photo the only sales channel? Join digital agencies. Be part of seapics or gettyimages. Be part of communities. If you are Michael Yamashita, you may consider your own side, but even Michael may sell better on the aggregator’s sites. Have you considered creative commons? Be Flickr. Be freephotobank .There is a good chance that a decent webdesigner buys your photo! Buy vs. Steel has a lot to do with convenience. Try to make your content available. Make downloads easy. Make payment easy. Make pricing reasonable: Accept lower prices, but sell more. Why only selling photos? Recently, a dive magazine printed a double page photo from my friend Andi Voeltz, a recognized underwater photographer. Andi wrote an article on digital post editing, which was printed with the photo. They combined it with a free high resolution download for non-commercial use, and they offered a high resolution POD poster print for a reasonable price. This is a good example of creative business in a new and digital photo world.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Go Back | Top