As I’m sure you are all aware, I recently changed my photography presence from Mike Cavaroc Photography, to Free Roaming Photography. The excitement I felt as I got the wheels rolling on the conversion in weeks prior had me flying with it, growing more and more anxious to let it loose. Once I finally did unveil that proud moment, it was met with some criticism from several photographers whose opinions and feedback I value very much.
One in particular rightly pointed out the fact that an artist’s best branding is their name, especially if it has a unique ring to it. More agreed with him and in a matter of minutes I found myself about ready to call up tech support on my hosting plan and ask them to revert the changes. Did I “jump the gun” a little too quickly with this? Did I not think it through entirely? Instead of making any rushed decisions, I decided to sleep on it for the night and address it in the morning.
I didn’t sleep well though and woke up just as concerned as I was the night before, despite many attempts to put my mind at ease before going to bed. I researched different opinions all morning and read one article after the other about deciding between a clever business name vs your personal name, without ever reaching a solid conclusion.
That was when I realized I was over-thinking everything and potentially taking other peoples’ opinions, albeit well-meaning, a bit too much at heart. I went back to when I initially got the idea for why I wanted a new name in the first place. I had been looking at local photographers, Tom Mangelsen and Henry Holdsworth, and admiring their galleries as I always do, noticing they had catchy business names that defined their galleries and the images represented inside. Granted, there were arguments such as Art Wolfe and Peter Lik thrown into the mix that are doing quite well without any kind of catchy business name, but once I remembered exactly why I started the whole rebranding process, it was crystal clear to me to continue moving forward with it.
What prompted me to follow through with the change was not just that I had thought up a catchy name, but first, it was something that represented what I wanted out of my photography. In the name Free Roaming Photography, I’ve captured the essence of nature being free to take its course without limitations and restrictions put on it as we see in many places of a developed society. In a way, it’s a firm nod to the conservation movement and a dream that it will grow much more than what it is today. This is also the reason I chose a bison as the logo: I hope that someday this particular animal, among many others, will be permitted to roam its native territory freely again, without borders and penalties for merely following its instincts. Secondly, it emulates a nature that I personally want to live, and gives me a destination in my life to reach toward. Third, it solidified my portfolio that I’ve incrementally been tweaking in past months and brought the potential for a future gallery of my own even closer. And finally, in my mind, I previously saw myself as just another nature photographer with a unique and catchy personal name in an already saturated field of hopeful professional nature photographers, where many others are equally or more talented also with unique and catchy personal names. With a new business name, I feel I’ve singled myself out in a way that a broader audience can notice that would have otherwise just seen another name of another photographer.
It is true, though that with proper marketing and exposure I could get my name to be associated with all those same characteristics, and it technically should be the photography itself that really makes or breaks any deals. Eventually my name could have eventually been a synonym for it all, but at the same time, it simply boiled down to how I approached it and what made me feel more comfortable in moving forward with my photography business.
The argument about personal names being the best branding is absolutely right. It’s why I intend to brand my name with my logo everywhere it appears and maybe one day, when I’ve built up a solid reputation for where I want to be, I’ll use my name a little more prominently. But currently, it’s a moot point. I did it, it feels right and I feel more confident about marketing my photography now, which I believe is vital. I was happy with my presence before, but I now feel like there’s a more competitive edge.
Had I tried to make this change two years ago, for example, it would have been completely absent of the definition that I have for it now. My portfolio wasn’t nearly as strong, my vision not nearly as clear and my dreams much more vague. So my advice to anyone facing a similar dilemma would be this: use your personal name for as long as you feel comfortable. This could last a photographer’s entire career. If you feel like your personal name contains all the edge you need, then by all means continue with it. But if you feel like a new business name would give you an edge, make sure you pick a name that defines your photography, that you have a clear vision of where you want to go with it and that you have the portfolio to back it all up. A time measurement in years would be highly recommended before making that decision. Either way, with proper marketing and a solid portfolio, a name, when it all comes down to it, is completely irrelevant. Admittedly, I’ve been lazy with my marketing recently, but now have much more rolling to fire that up in a big way.
So, in conclusion, do what feels best to you. An artist’s name is truly their best branding, so stick with that as long as you feel comfortable. There are examples of success in either direction, but in the end, the deciding factor doesn’t lie in the name at all, but boils down to the endurance of your passion for photography.
I’m also very thankful to everyone who gave me feedback, knowing they were only concerned with my well-being. It’s truly very humbling to have photographers, whose work I’ve admired for so long, making sure I’m on the right path and looking out for me. I sincerely thank everyone for the feedback and their thoughts on the change.
What are your thoughts on the new name? After reading that do you think it was a good choice or would you still rather I had stuck with my personal name?
Hi Mike
Interesting debate you had with yourself and others about whether or not to rebrand and move away from using your own name. I can see your reasons and for certains types of photography I agree wit you. However as an artistic photographer, and I believe that is how you describe yourself, your name is everything. You’ve even been blessed with a good one.
Imagine if great artists – photographers, painters, sculptors, whoever – used a clever/catchy company name rather than their own? Truly great artists are known by their name. By using a new company name you’re effectively selling yourself short and admitting you’ll never be great. By your own admission you’ve said you might one day start using your name more again. This is totally counter-intuitive, in my opinion of course.
It’s also worth noting that you’ve recently been featured by Photoshelter in one of their very popular guides and by rebranding now you’re pretty much denying yourself a large amount of free publicity.
Having said all that I think your work’s great and I wish you all the best.
JT
Thanks for the comment, JT. Definitely some great points to take into consideration and think about.
Hi Mike
Interesting debate you had with yourself and others about whether or not to rebrand and move away from using your own name. I can see your reasons and for certains types of photography I agree wit you. However as an artistic photographer, and I believe that is how you describe yourself, your name is everything. You’ve even been blessed with a good one.
Imagine if great artists – photographers, painters, sculptors, whoever – used a clever/catchy company name rather than their own? Truly great artists are known by their name. By using a new company name you’re effectively selling yourself short and admitting you’ll never be great. By your own admission you’ve said you might one day start using your name more again. This is totally counter-intuitive, in my opinion of course.
It’s also worth noting that you’ve recently been featured by Photoshelter in one of their very popular guides and by rebranding now you’re pretty much denying yourself a large amount of free publicity.
Having said all that I think your work’s great and I wish you all the best.
JT
Thanks for the comment, JT. Definitely some great points to take into consideration and think about.
Thanks for the comment, JT. Definitely some great points to take into consideration and think about.
Thanks for the comment, JT. Definitely some great points to take into consideration and think about.
Hey Mike,
My initial thought stems from jealousy. In Mike Cavaroc, you have an distinct, catchy name. Something I could only dream of. It’s spelled like it sounds and generally straight-forward. I chose the moniker “Light of the Wild” for two reasons; one, no one knows how to even pronounce Scott Hotaling, much less spell it. And, two, because it succinctly describes what I do. I visit wild places and try to capture compelling scenes there.
Which brings me to my next thought. It’s easy to think about previous photographers and how they’ve been successful and well-known for a name and not a moniker, but frankly, the world of marketing, business and art has drastically changed in the last 15-20 years. If we only looked to the past for everything about our businesses, we’d have no chance at success. Are we both making huge mistakes by going with a brand and not our given names? Maybe. But, who knows? I’m not convinced that by labeling my photography as more of a brand that I’m hurting the legacy of my given name. You brought up Tom Mangelsen and Images of Nature, which I think is a valid example of someone that’s certainly making it work using a brand to label his work while simultaneously perpetuating his ‘name’. People know his name from awards, accolades and proper labeling. He makes his day-to-day living under a brand name. The two can co-exist.
Like you, I’m interested in someday owning a gallery (or several) that display my work. Whether or not that actually comes to fruition is wildly hard to determine but as of now, it’s one of many photographic goals I have. In that sense, a name such as “Free Roaming Photography”, “Light of the Wild” or “Images of Nature” works brilliantly, in my opinion. Unless you’re already well-established and VERY well known, I think a successful art gallery can benefit from a label that is more than a person’s name. I’m much more likely as an art buyer and connoisseur to visit Images of Nature gallery than I am to stop into John Wilson gallery — the reason being that I don’t know John Wilson from anyone else, nor do I know what he does. But, I know that Images of Nature is likely something I would enjoy perusing. This becomes exponentially more important when you think of how often people find galleries via the internet. Think of a Google locations search. Images of Nature versus John Wilson Gallery? I think that’s a no-brainer for which will draw in more visitors that have no experience with either entity.
But, that of course, is all just my personal opinion. At the end of the day, confidence in your product is key. And, if this name change brings more confidence and excitement to your work, that’s trump card for me.
Sincerely
Light of the Wild (aka Scott Hotaling)
Thanks, Scott! While you pretty much expanded on a point I was trying to make about having more than just, in someone’s eyes, a random name, I do agree with what some have been saying, such as JT below. Either way I’m going to keep it, but I’m trying to find a way to work in my personal name in more with it, such as Mike Cavaroc’s Free Roaming Photography, for example, so that it’s all branded together and looking at one will train an association with the other.
To bring up another point you touched on was that I definitely feel more confident in making marketing attempts, which at the same time could play into exactly what JT said that I’m selling myself short in my own name. It could be true, but in this respect I’m leaning more in the direction of seeing a descriptive name stand out in a field of random personal names, such as on a search results page. I think it can also be expanded as a potential buyer seeing it more as a collection of applicable images rather than a photographer’s portfolio and thus building up better subconscious expectations. But at the same time I also like the idea of having my personal name tagged with it, so we’ll see how that pans out.
I’ll probably head up into Yellowstone for a few days to just disconnect and think about it and let it all settle because in both ways I’ve heard compelling arguments. I tend to be a very instinctual person and there was a very strong instinct to get this launched as it is now, so as I said, I’m keeping it one way or another. Currently
I’m just interested in seeing
how it plays out in the long run.
I appreciate the feedback and for taking the time to comment.
Hey Mike,
My initial thought stems from jealousy. In Mike Cavaroc, you have an distinct, catchy name. Something I could only dream of. It’s spelled like it sounds and generally straight-forward. I chose the moniker “Light of the Wild” for two reasons; one, no one knows how to even pronounce Scott Hotaling, much less spell it. And, two, because it succinctly describes what I do. I visit wild places and try to capture compelling scenes there.
Which brings me to my next thought. It’s easy to think about previous photographers and how they’ve been successful and well-known for a name and not a moniker, but frankly, the world of marketing, business and art has drastically changed in the last 15-20 years. If we only looked to the past for everything about our businesses, we’d have no chance at success. Are we both making huge mistakes by going with a brand and not our given names? Maybe. But, who knows? I’m not convinced that by labeling my photography as more of a brand that I’m hurting the legacy of my given name. You brought up Tom Mangelsen and Images of Nature, which I think is a valid example of someone that’s certainly making it work using a brand to label his work while simultaneously perpetuating his ‘name’. People know his name from awards, accolades and proper labeling. He makes his day-to-day living under a brand name. The two can co-exist.
Like you, I’m interested in someday owning a gallery (or several) that display my work. Whether or not that actually comes to fruition is wildly hard to determine but as of now, it’s one of many photographic goals I have. In that sense, a name such as “Free Roaming Photography”, “Light of the Wild” or “Images of Nature” works brilliantly, in my opinion. Unless you’re already well-established and VERY well known, I think a successful art gallery can benefit from a label that is more than a person’s name. I’m much more likely as an art buyer and connoisseur to visit Images of Nature gallery than I am to stop into John Wilson gallery — the reason being that I don’t know John Wilson from anyone else, nor do I know what he does. But, I know that Images of Nature is likely something I would enjoy perusing. This becomes exponentially more important when you think of how often people find galleries via the internet. Think of a Google locations search. Images of Nature versus John Wilson Gallery? I think that’s a no-brainer for which will draw in more visitors that have no experience with either entity.
But, that of course, is all just my personal opinion. At the end of the day, confidence in your product is key. And, if this name change brings more confidence and excitement to your work, that’s trump card for me.
Sincerely
Light of the Wild (aka Scott Hotaling)
Thanks, Scott! While you pretty much expanded on a point I was trying to make about having more than just, in someone’s eyes, a random name, I do agree with what some have been saying, such as JT below. Either way I’m going to keep it, but I’m trying to find a way to work in my personal name in more with it, such as Mike Cavaroc’s Free Roaming Photography, for example, so that it’s all branded together and looking at one will train an association with the other.
To bring up another point you touched on was that I definitely feel more confident in making marketing attempts, which at the same time could play into exactly what JT said that I’m selling myself short in my own name. It could be true, but in this respect I’m leaning more in the direction of seeing a descriptive name stand out in a field of random personal names, such as on a search results page. I think it can also be expanded as a potential buyer seeing it more as a collection of applicable images rather than a photographer’s portfolio and thus building up better subconscious expectations. But at the same time I also like the idea of having my personal name tagged with it, so we’ll see how that pans out.
I’ll probably head up into Yellowstone for a few days to just disconnect and think about it and let it all settle because in both ways I’ve heard compelling arguments. I tend to be a very instinctual person and there was a very strong instinct to get this launched as it is now, so as I said, I’m keeping it one way or another. Currently
I’m just interested in seeing
how it plays out in the long run.
I appreciate the feedback and for taking the time to comment.