How can people define their brands in physical spaces using digital content?

Puddle, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Puddle | Quebec City, Quebec, Canada | Sep 2008

Print’s Advantage Over Digital (Really — It Has One) … and it’s not just form factor:

… there is a powerful snob appeal to being identified with a brand, and popular print publications are beautiful brands that, by association, say things we like about us. …

It isn’t enough (or sometimes even necessary) that I like what I am reading: I want people to know what I am reading because it is an easy way to strut. I want to keep all those books — even the ones I have already read and will never crack open again — on my bookshelves, the bindings like rows of military ribbons describing my many campaigns. …

I’m not suggesting that cultivating the brand is a substitute for quality workmanship, even though plenty of crap gets written and read. But having customers who are willing brand marketing systems is an advantage over digital that print media can press, and it should.

Personally, I disagree. Why can’t an object that plays digital content (music, videos, writing) be a medium of personal branding? What about the white iPod headphones? Or stickers of companies, events and causes on laptops? Why won’t the Amazon Kindle eventually be subjected to stickers of books, or magazines, or “media sources”? Why won’t a smart author who sells ebooks and e-content also create other physical objects like stickers?

Or thinking about photography: how do people display photographs today, and how will they tomorrow? What digital technologies exist or will emerge to augment (or heaven forbid, replace) physical, framed prints? Why don’t photographers start selling wallpapers for computer screens?* Or packages of photos for display on the digital picture frames? Perhaps as subscriptions to constantly updated content? Or as packages of photos according to places of the world, or types of activities, or celebrities? **

Better yet, why don’t people start buying that from me?

How else do people display objects to create their image or “brand”, and how can the content you create help them build their image?

People will always want to brand themselves, and shifting from physical printed to digital content will not change that; what will change is the form, medium, choice of “brandable objects” and the flexibility, multiplicity, and increased “personalization” of people’s brands throughout their physical and virtual environments.

—

* Vlad Gerasimov does…
** We’ll dig into this more soon, soon…

Posted September 15th, 2008 in Perspective, Photography. Tags: business model, Photography, photography business.

Hello, I'm Taylor Davidson.

I'm an early-stage VC and a photographer. If you liked this post, please subscribe to this blog. For more like this, check out the archives, and follow me on Twitter @tdavidson.

http://foxnomad.com foxnomad

I wouldn't be surprised to see digital photo frames being embedded in more places as the costs come down. You could have (car/building/etc.) windows displaying rotating ads, for example.

I could also see cameras becoming ingrained with digital certificates or something similar to prevent fraud, protect copyrights, and discourage unauthentic or modified photos. Such a technology could help protect photographers trying to make a living.
http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing Taylor Davidson

We'll see more digital, rotating screens soon. But once they start becoming advertisements, displayed on billboards and other public spaces, then suddenly that's back to the advertising / commercial photographer's work. I'm more interested to see “embedded screens” in private spaces and to see how people chose to use them to display their identity, their brand, their ideas.

Digital certificates are not far off. Tineye can already identify images by looking at the image itself, and many photographers already use watermarking or other methods to control use by degrading the image.

I'm more interested not in protecting photographers by protecting images, but using images as the “razor” to get people interested in the wider opportunities photographers can provide outside of images.

(btw “razor” refers to the “razor-and-blade” business model, whereby the business gives away a platform (e.g. a razor) that requires consumables to operate (i.e. blades), creating a business model based on the recurring revenues from the consumables… printers and ink is another example)
http://www.electrocinema.com JY

I picked up the Esquire e-Ink special edition cover at Grand Central. While primitive in theory, it's still pretty neat to imagine motion graphic magazine covers. How about the new Canon 5D with full HD capabilities. Knutz!
http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing Taylor Davidson

I had forgotten about the Esquire E-Ink “proof of concept”.

How many people are good at shooting stills and videos?

Separate note: the answer to “nobody's buying photographer's images” is not “photographers should take more video and more multimedia”; contrary to some thoughts I've heard. I'll explain my view another day…
http://www.club-penguin.org/ Club Penguin Cheats

I can see cameras becoming ingrained with digital certificates or something similar to prevent fraud, protect copyrights, and discourage unauthentic or modified photos. Such a technology could help protect photographers trying to make a living.

Subscribe to the blog

Recent Posts