The iPad does have more to offer than become the saving grace the book and magazine publishing industries are hoping for. My initial impression, and what held me back from picking one up at first, was that it is just a bigger version of my iPhone. A lot of what I use a computer for can’t be done on the iPad (it runs on a slimmed-down OS like the iPhone). No Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator, Word, Excel, etc. But there are a lot of handy apps for achieving utilitarian tasks. Taking notes, creating contacts, managing time, checking the weather, blogging, social networking etc., etc. Again, you can do those on your iPhone. If I didn’t have a computer, it would fill in some gaps, however to get most of the functionality from the iPad it must be synced to a computer. The internet usability alone is a much different experience on the iPad than the iPhone. You can quickly go blind and frustrated on your phone trying to read the web, but the iPad is much more readable due to it’s heftier size. The functionality is the same as the iPhone in the browsing regard, it’s just more accordingly sized. The publication apps (including Wired) are neat, but I don’t think they’ve quite yet lived up to their interactive experience potential. It remains to be seen if people will pay for them beyond the first issue release novelty (as of this morning Wired had sold more than 24,00 copies of its first iPad issue).

From a photographer and media person standpoint, one of the main selling points for me was the idea of being able to use it in place of a traditional printed portfolio. A nice portfolio book in itself can run well over a hundred dollars, then add in the custom prints, and the constant wear from page flipping/use, and suddenly $500 doesn’t seem to bad. A printed portfolio can approach that neighborhood quickly, and that’s just one book. On the iPad, photographers can create multiple books on the same device, which for someone like myself is necessary. I just dragged my images into an iPhoto gallery, organized them how I wanted, and synced it to my iPad. Done. The photos look amazing on the glossy screen, and users can flip from one to the next at the swipe of a finger. And for the time being, aside from being functional, there’s still a bit of a “that’s neat” feel to it.

One of, if not the most important asset to the portfolio usage for me, is the ability to also carry video reels as well as photographs. With the introduction of video into DSLR’s, and the ability to deliver motion on the internet, more and more photographers shoot video as well as still photos. You can’t put video in a printed book. Video works beautifully on the iPad. Much like I can with multiple photo albums (portfolios), I can have multiple video projects for different presentation purposes. It’s perfect.

I’ve begun stuffing my iPad full of photo, video and design work. I’ll keep a printed book handy for the purposes of mailing around, but other than that the iPad is a much better solution. I can swap out photos at the click of a button, and it doesn’t cost me any more out of pocket like prints would. The iPad can also be plugged into a projector, making slideshow presentations easy (another thing m printed book couldn’t do). What’s more is that now I can surf the internet and check my email from my portfolio. Could you do all those things from a laptop? Of course, but it’s a bit more cumbersome, especially when passing around, and it’s just not as streamlined of a presentation. I wouldn’t want my work presented that way.

One great unadvertised use that’s neat for photographers is that the iPad actually works fairly well as a lightbox. There is an app called flashlight for the iPhone, and when used on the iPad, you end up with a fully lit white-light surface, which works well when you need a lightbox in a pinch. In addition, photographers also have the ability to download digital photos directly from a card to the device via an accessory card reader. I don’t have a need for that, but it’s nice to know it’s a possibility.

If that’s not enough, it’s pretty handy for surfing the web on the couch, and watching movies on Netflix. Let’s call it “Portfolio +.”

My studio site (souneymedia.com) has been horribly outdated for the last couple years. Old work, old functionality etc. I think the last time I rebuilt it was 2005. I added a bit of work since, but otherwise, it was dated. I got a BETA invitation to try out the Cargo Collective CMS platform recently, and used this as an experiment to see how the platform worked. So I spent the last few weeks digging through work, shooting images of it, and getting things together. I’ll be adding more stuff as time goes on — Cargo makes it really easy to do so. But for now there’s a lot of old and new stuff up there to look at. You can click the commercial portfolio link on the right to get there, or just click here.

My regular updates will continue to be on this site, and the commercial stuff will continue to live over there.

Yesterday I wrote a post about advertising and editorial relationships specifically as the issue pertains to a recent snowboard magazine cover. The bulk of that thought involved the compensation for Photographers, writers, and even the athletes when the editorial becomes an ad campaign. This post was to draw attention to Mike Berard’s great post and discussion on the subject.

Later in the day I added a note to the post:
The biggest, and most important question I see (and one that no one seems to be asking) is this — If brand X can pay to insert its logo on any photo in a magazine, in the case of TWS a cover shot, what incentive do they have to sponsor athletes?

This morning I thinking further about the significance of this. I’ve posted two recent covers above. One is the TWS in question, with a company’s logo allegedly added in post production (and allegedly without the rider in the photo, who doesn’t get paid ensorsement from BPF, having knowledge of it), and the other is a recent cover of the BMX Magazine Dig (which I was reminded of by @harrisonboyce on Twitter). In all reality, the branding on the Dig cover is far more “in your face” yet there can be little debate over it. Levis and Monster energy both pay Jamie Bestwick to endorse their product. The benefit being that Jamie, one of the best in the world on a BMX bike, is associated with their products in the eyes of his fans and readers of BMX media. Jamie is paid to represent those brands when he gets coverage for his skills, like on the cover above. Those brands support Jamie in his efforts to do what he does, and he supports them. They’ve essentially worked with Jamie to get that cover exposure.

The snow cover has less prominent branding, allegedly added after the fact, to a photo from a Team Shootout presented by an advertiser. A huge factor that no one has been talking about (or maybe even considered until I wrote about it yesterday) regards the athlete endorsements. Despite the fact that Jamie wins nearly every competition he attends, he still depends on endorsements not only for income but for support. A winning rider like Jamie is an exception even. The majority of athletes in action sports who compete on a professional level go into competitions with the “I have to get at least 8th place to eat next week.” That’s a lot of pressure. Winning is a lot easier when that pressure is off. The brands benefit, and the riders benefit. Endemic companies like BMX brands and snowboard manufacturers often have low margins and are able to pay their athletes very little salary. Those non-endemic brands become that much more important. A rider like LNP is paid by brands like Rome Snowboards to produce video parts and get coverage like this particular TWS cover. The brand and the athlete are in a relationship and they work hard to promote each other’s interests.

So back to the question this all raises. Now I know that Levis is down for BMX, and has been remarkably supportive in their program over the last few years. But if the high ups at brands like Levis are presented with the opportunity to have their brand positioned prominently every time, why wouldn’t they go for it? Even the best in the world doesn’t get a magazine cover every month. But print and online coverage is one of the things a brand hopes to get out of a top rider. If they can buy their way onto a prominent position, what’s their incentive to support the athletes day in and day out? As much as some of these brands have done great things and been incredibly supportive, they are in it for the money.

There is no question that new relationships need to develop between print and advertising in order for these publications to survive. But to what extent should those lines be blurred, and what is in the best interests of the professionals who make these sports what they are? While the Team Shootout was a sponsored feature, presented by an advertiser, it’s not presented that way on the cover, at least in my opinion as a reader. I’m all for sponsored content, but what’s next? Adding a delicious looking product to a rider’s hand? We are on a scary and slippery slope. A slope who’s only interest in mind might be keeping a magazine around a few extra months. At what point do you pull in the reigns?

In reality I’m presenting these issues more as questions and points of thoughts than as criticisms of Transworld. I think there are some big picture issues here in regards to publishing, media, and action sports that need to be discussed. It’s not the advertisers fault, they are just looking for the best marketing opportunities to reach out to their consumers. They should be doing anything they can to send their message. It’s the Publisher who makes the ultimate decision.

If you’ve not been to the TED site, go there and take a look around. TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) started as an invite only conference of the world’s leading thinkers and doers, and the site has an amazing collection of videos from some of these talks. If you work in the media in any way, it’s stuff you need to see. You’ve probably already seen it. [TED has an insightful video from designer David Carson you should watch as well if design is your persuasion]

One of the newest TED videos was brought to my attention via Dave Allen on Twitter earlier today, and it essentially sums up the recent changes in the media, analyzing how information delivery and consumption has changed. “As recently as last decade most of the media that was produced for public consumption was produced by professionals. Those days are over, never to return.”

The talk from Clay Shirky breaks down the importance of new tools like Twitter in news delivery, and explores how information has become much more social. “The internet is the first medium in history that has native support for groups and coversation at the same time,” he says. “Every time a new consumer joins this media landscape, a new producer joins … It’s as if when you bought a book they threw in the printing press for free.”

I’ve been posting a lot of original content/photos on here and on other sites that I could have saved for exclusive print use. Print magazines, at least in action sports, are concerned that contributions aren’t going to be seen prior to the magazine’s release. This use to be justifiable. But I think that’s changed, as all media has changed. So why not just hold stuff for print? There are a lot of answers to that question, but audience has been a big influence on my decisions to “let content out of the bag” online immediately. I’m not arguing that images shouldn’t go to print, I’m arguing that in many cases they are no less valuable to a print audience if they’ve been viewed on line. In many cases the two uses can benefit each other. One is a quality, tactile experience, the other is immediate.

Another upside to posting online is I can be my own editor. Magazines are — and should be — extensions of the people who produce them. Every photo editor has his or her own vision, and a style of image/subject they prefer. That doesn’t always mesh with what I think makes a good image, so here I can make my own decisions. I don’t have to worry about what’s “cool” in other peoples mind. This is not to say I intend to immediately publish everything I shoot on the web, it’s an explanation of why, in my opinion it’s a valid outlet, and wouldn’t make those photos any less relevant to a print use down the road (again, in my opinion). Of course, with contributions to other online sites there are photo editors who will make choices on usage.

The third, and one of the most important aspects to delivering content to an online audience is the ability to create online dialogue with viewers immediately. Comments back and forth ad a new dynamic between viewers and the content. Reader mail in print just didn’t have the same energy. Viewers can not online interact with the content, they can share opinions with each other. For better or worse, it’s a new frontier.

Print publications are limited in terms of audience. This is a fact.
Printing runs and distribution confine the audience of a print publication. Even in a media-rich city like Portland, Oregon, I often have to seek out print titles when I’m looking for them. Newsstand options are shrinking, so the audience narrows more each day. While that fact is disappointing, it is a reality. And it’s not a print is dying argument, it’s a “Media as we know it is dying” argument. Online media is changing as fast as print. Music, film… all this stuff is changing. New methods of delivery are altering the way information is consumed. And that information needs to hit now. Beyond that, user interaction with that information online brings content to the next level.

I’ve had a few experiences lately where budget-restricted print publications have held onto photographs with the intention of using them in upcoming issues. For whatever reason, if they decide not use them at some point (be it for contributor budget reasons, content reasons, etc.) it’s often months down the line before I find that out. In today’s world, by then the shots are dated. From a photography standpoint they can still be great, but from a timeliness standpoint they’re not as relevant to a viewer. People expect information right away. And with the new methods of delivery, they deserve it.

The internet provides an exponentially larger audience.
About 24% of the World’s population are internet users. That is roughly 1.6 Billion people. From 2000-2008 the World’s internet usage numbers grew 342%. In the scheme of the World population it’s a small chunk (1/4) that are internet users, but in the scheme of audience, 1.6 million people with potential access to content posted online is significant. Even if you believe the print mantra that 4-6 people read every distributed copy of a magazine, that still limits an Action Sports publication to a very small audience.

Now, by no means are 1.6 billion people looking at the content on this site. But the fact is, they do at least have access to the content. I’m increasingly suprised at the searches that lead people here, and the sites that send their audience to specific stories. A site in Russia can easily link its audience to a post on my site, and viewers can see the information immediately. It’s impressive how information is exchanged and how easily it all happens.

A few months back I started experimenting more with what sort of real audience would be seeing things if I posted them here. I can immediately feed that content to an audience via Twitter, Facebook, etc. In BMX alone, with endemic sites like The Come Up, Vital, Defgrip, BMXOnline, and more, I often get links into the content/photos I’ve posted, resulting in a large viewing audience. An immediate audience. Those sites get viewers because they post links to great content (and content of their own) and I’ve gotten a lot of viewers from them in return. But it’s not just happening with sites like that. Last months NotCot picked up on a my Bicycle Portraits, and within 24 hours I had over 3000 new unique visitors who not only looked at those photos, but others as well. So in reality a new audience could be seeing BMX photos for the first time.

But I don’t make any money from posting the photos here, do I? Magazines pay for photos.
That depends how you look at it. Photographers, artists, and general people (especially self employed people) today have to look at themselves as a brand. Professional BMX riders or skateboarders are also a brand. Artists market that brand to consumers (clients) and build a name through the work they do. BMX riders are representing their personal “brand” as well as their sponsors. So audience is vital. I get work based on the work people see and the larger that audience is, the more people who can potential demand your work. Advertising clients use search engines to find photographers, designers and more. They look at current sites like NotCot. So posting stuff here is essentially brand building.

In reality, shooting an Action Sports photo can cost a photographer like myself several hundred dollars, even if there are no “direct production costs.” What? Despite the fact that I love BMX bikes and have been around them all my life, in reality, I have to consider the billable hours that accumulate if I go out to shoot a photo. Add that to the depreciation cost of the vast amounts of gear you need (even minimal gear will cost you several thousand dollars these days from a DSLR to a computer to process), those photos don’t happen for free. So if a photo costs me a few hundred dollars to produce, even if it runs in a BMX magazine I lose money… even if it’s a cover (Note: this concept doesn’t apply to larger non-endemic magazines I shoot for like Sports Illustrated and ESPN who’s page rates are much higher, but again, they cater to a larger audience). Over the years of doing this, that’s always just been a cost of doing business. The editorial has never been a money maker, it’s essentially been advertising for the photographer’s brand. That said, online content sites need to be paying usage fees to use images just like magazines do. Afterall, depending on visit counts, that larger potential audience can lead to large ad revenues. I’m definitely not suggesting online media deserves handouts. After all, I don’t want to pay for someone else to make money off my work.

This isn’t to say I’m not giving stuff to magazines anymore, but I do think they need to get over the exclusivity thing. Does seeing a photo online devalue holding a printed version in your hands??? I don’t think so at all. It’s two different beasts. In reality, most of the stuff you see in those magazines has already been online in some capacity. People have blogged about it. There have been web edits from the same shoot or trip… while you’re not seeing the exact photo, you’re not in for a suprise when you see the magazine. In fact, magazines could be using online content to their advantage.

Recently I posted all my shots from the Old School BMX Reunion on this site. I also contributed many of the same photos to Dig Magazine. While people had seen those photos here, I don’t think they were any less important to them when they saw them in print. In fact, they also got promotion out of it. I posted notes on my Twitter and Facebook pages noting that you could check out those photos in the latest issue of Dig. And people responded to those posts with positive comments.

Print HAS to mesh the old (print) with the new (web) and use the audience to its advantage if it’s going to survive. The same goes for photographers, sponsored riders, and anyone doing any sort of business. Personally, I think a photo posted here has as much if not more benefit to a rider and myself than print alone. I also don’t think if it’s seen here, it’s any less relevant to a print publication. But that’s up to them to decide.

I should note, that have a loose plan to self publish a print piece at the end of the year/early next with my favorite images from the previous year or so, published or not. Sort of magazine style. That way the images of my choice are in print as well. Yes, that costs money, but print costs are lower than they’ve ever been, and it can be absorbed as advertising cost. A loose plan, which may change as media evolves.