National Geographic Is Still Cool (I Think)
Look at this picture of penguins and what is probably the best double rainbow of 2017. It almost makes you forget the horrible pressure these penguins are facing with the ever growing threat of climate change (and powerful people who pretend it doesn’t exist). National Geographic is undoubtedly the most inspiring brand I follow on social media. Every now and then while scrolling through posts by models, and clothing brands, and celebrities, and people I barely know, I get to see a post by National Geographic. These posts remind me that the world online is terribly unimportant compared to what exists offline. They remind me that humans do other things than take covert pictures of their cleavage and post memes about whatever corporate brand fucked up this week.
Sometimes humans engage in cultural practices like going to a Turkish spa.
Sometimes humans tempt fate and climb up the sides of cliffs.
Sometimes humans uncomfortably crowd onto the train cause they just need to get home.
And sometimes humans take pictures of their funky looking gourds relaxing on a dock because…why not?
National Geographic’s social media shows the beauty of both nature and humanity. Because they are renowned for their photography and videography, naturally Instagram is the best medium for them. It makes me happy that National Geographic shares their amazing imagery with people for free like that, as it used to be the kind of thing you could only get from subscribing to their magazine.
National Geographic has a few different Instagram accounts, although it is not immediately discernable to me what is supposed to be different between @natgeotravel or @natgeo. Either way, each account has equally visually arresting content. This is common practice now, but I noticed National Geographic giving photographer credits much earlier on compared to other brands. This was great because it demonstrated the respect they had for the photographers that work for them. And because of the nature of Instagram, I expect that this credit ultimately gives these photographers more exposure than they would have in a time that predated social media. The photographers can get immediate followings and connection with fans. In contrast, credit in the magazine would have been quite prestigious but it is unlikely that readers would then go out of their way to find where this photographer might have a gallery showing.
I don’t use Twitter at all. However, for the purpose of this post I decided to go through National Geographic’s tweets to see how they compare to their Instagram posts. Their tweets are more akin to the content one would see in their magazine. There are links to serious articles about climate change or innovations in mapmaking during WW1, Buzzfeed style top ten lists for national parks, and interesting videos of animal showdowns (in this case baboon versus geese). A look at their Facebook page shows similarly styled but not identical content. This is important because posting the same content across multiple accounts can irritate fans and comes across as very ingenuine. Luckily for National Geographic, they have many different outlets to choose from in terms of what content they post. They can use stuff from their channel, articles from the magazine, photos their photographers take on assignment or otherwise, etc. They also have the benefit of not being focussed on topical events the way that most other brands are. Most brands feel compelled to give their input on whatever is happening in the incredibly fast paced world of our current news cycle. National Geographic doesn’t need to give their two cents on United Airlines or the Pepsi ad (so last week) because their focus is more in depth and long term. Therefore, they have the benefit of carefully planning their content without the risk of putting out something that may be perceived as a canned response to current events.
Another thing National Geographic is quite good at is contests. Typically, these are photo contests so they are most heavily promoted through Instagram. Some examples are their Travel Photographer of the Year contest or their Nature Photographer of the Year contest. These contests drive fan engagement with the brand and offer cool prizes. For instance, the Nature Photographer grand prize for 2016 was a 10 day trip for two to the Galapagos and $2500.
This was the Grand Prize winner for 2016’s Nature Photographer contest.
And this is the 2016 Grand Prize winner for the Travel Photographer contest. Doesn’t it make you want to run away to Mongolia?
On the flipside of their social media use is that the magazine (like most magazines these days) has lost a considerable amount of its subscriber base. While they still maintain their television channel, that is not enough to sustain the costly nature of producing the top tier quality that they are known for. In order to navigate their falling profits, National Geographic was purchased by Fox in 2015. Many people were concerned about how this would impact the brand’s content since Fox is notoriously right wing and is associated with anti science, pro industry mindsets. However, having followed the brand since before the purchase went through, I can say that I haven’t noticed any substantial difference in their content since that happened. This is a relief for fans because if the brand changed their tone so significantly it would be quite alienating. They would inevitably still have engagement through Instagram with their beautiful photos. However, it would be difficult to maintain an identity with such a close tie to nature without addressing the changing realities of that nature and how human activities are impacting it.
Despite this connection to an organization I loathe, I am optimistically holding out hope for National Geographic to maintain its caliber of information and imagery. My first awareness of it as a brand came when I was around 8 or 9 years old. My dad took me to see my first documentary at the IMAX about Iraqi forces burning oil fields in Kuwait during the first Gulf War. The documentary was produced by National Geographic and going through the gift shop afterwards, I could see various company merchandise for sale. Among that merchandise were prints of the most iconic image National Geographic ever produced. It was a photo of an Afghani girl named Sharbat Gula taken in 1984 by Steve McCurry. Everyone knows this photo, or at least I assume they do if they’ve ever come in contact with the brand. It has been compared at times to The Mona Lisa for both its intensity and ubiquity in Western consciousness.
I wonder if we will ever have images like this again. In an online world that is oversaturated with images, how can a single image stand out? Even looking at all of the amazing photographs National Geographic shares on their social media accounts, I am sadly underwhelmed simply because I’m simultaneously overwhelmed. These are some of the most incredible images taken by some of the world’s best photographers with some of the world’s most expensive photography equipment. But I’m certain that none of them will stick with me like Gula’s photograph has.
I really like that penguin photo. But I doubt it will stay with me long after I’ve finished this post. Part of this is because I can see an endless amount of penguin photos if I want to. Hashtags are great and all, but they can also take some of the uniqueness and the specialness out of a photograph. As of this moment there were 1,092,065 posts with #penguins on Instagram. And sure enough, this photo is in there. And it is undoubtedly the best one that comes up recently under the hashtag. But I’m sure by next year we’ll have another amazing penguin photo to replace it.
(This #penguins photo is much less moving)
If I look for #portrait, 37,490,372 posts come up on Instagram. At a glance, I would say that most of them are attractive young people staring seductively into the camera. A lot of them are people hoping to get noticed as models or photographers. Some are trying to sell something. Some are commemorating big moments like a wedding or a pregnancy. Some are just selfies for the sake of being selfies. I wonder where Gula’s portrait would fit into this stream of +37 million other portraits. Would anyone even notice it in 2017?
I want National Geographic to survive even if it means being owned by Rupert Murdoch. I want to keep seeing their penguin photos and their articles about maps and coral bleaching. I feel like I may sound like an old man complaining about technology ruining everything. That wasn’t what I was trying to get at. I guess the point is that it’s very hard for photos to be really special anymore. But even if they can’t be particularly special on a universal scale, they can still be important on an individual level. As I said in the beginning, when one of their shots comes up in my feed I get to pause for a moment. I get that reminder that so many of us need. Social media isn’t inherently a bad thing or a good thing. It’s just a part of life now. And sometimes there are moments or people or groups or brands that can bring out a deeper beauty in what they show through these different mediums. And I’m thankful that National Geographic is one of the ones that can do that for me.
