Snowleopard, I totally agree with your comment about "how it's the bee's knees, without owning it, using it, or actually seeing it."
Reminds me of Naomi Klein's book, "No Logo".
It's not about if their product is good/bad, nor if it the speculation is true or false. Just tired of hearing the same old company lines being spouted by people who have never used it. I've noticed that the term revolution seems to enter into many posts whenever the word Red is mentioned. There marketing campaign is very smart.
Results 61 to 70 of 126
04-18-2007 05:59 PM
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
04-18-2007 06:20 PM
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
Well JVC is still making 720p cameras so that should tell you the established companies are moving pretty slow compared to RED.
04-18-2007 08:14 PM
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Los Angeles CA
I have not pre-ordered a RED, and doubt I'll ever buy one personally. However, the attacks here on RED's company is quite bizarre. The beef seems to be that they've been "talking for a long time without delivering the actual product", as if that by itself was somehow "bogus". The reasons seem to me extremely obvious: they took the approach that they'll create a camera based on extensive feedback from the potential users. Designing a camera - especially if the design is at all ambitious - takes quite a bit of time. So, if it takes, say, 3 years, what should they do? Keep quiet for 2 years and 11 months and only announce it 1 month before the product rolls out into the public? What they decided to do is to communicate with their potential users from very early on - and therefore it's natural that they'd be "talking for a long time without delivering the actual product"... that's how long it takes to deliver a camera from conception to execution! It's what every company does - the only difference being that RED has chosen to interact with users the entire time, while other companies perhaps do so only during the last stretch of the design process. Why is that a crime?
Strikes me that it's broadly in the interest of users to have the company interact with them extensively and at every stage, no? So why all the sniping? Unless you think that the product does not exist and RED intends to abscond with the money. However, they have actual working models (which could be seen and touched at NAB, and have been used by prominent DPs and directors), so it's not likely that the product doesn't exist. And the likelyhood of RED absconding with the funds is pretty low - they have a whole company behind them, why would they do this for chump change?
Critisizing a company is fine, but how about sensible criticizm, if you have one? Saying that they take pre-orders and that's just sleazy and wrong and immoral (?) marketing and unethical and whatever other bizarre accusations along these lines, well, that just doesn't make any sense. IMHO, of course.
OldCorpse: Not a likely RED user.©
04-18-2007 09:20 PM
IMHO - I think RED has exhibited marketing genious perhaps second only to Apple. They have lots and lots of people talking, many of whom are potential users or who might influence potential users. You can't beat that.
04-18-2007 09:22 PMOriginally Posted by AloysiusK
Thank you, at last a word of wisdom...
04-18-2007 09:23 PM
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
but not only that, by RED choosing to "interact with users" and coming out with a camera that more accuratley reflects what the users want, the big companies will have to take notice (when they start loosing customers) to create similar products at competetive price points.
so the red will not only benefit red users, but future panasonic, sony, canon and jvc users as well!
04-18-2007 09:27 PMOriginally Posted by js33
04-18-2007 09:49 PMOriginally Posted by SomewhereinLAMatt Gottshalk - Dp/Editor
McGee Digital Media
EPIC-X #00740 "Decker"
Cinevised Zeiss ZF primes
04-18-2007 10:58 PM
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
"However, the attacks here on RED's company is quite bizarre."
I think one of the main reason this is happening is balance. The main reason I find this marketing strategy to be so disturbing is there is no way to put to test claims RED is making until it is fully available to the consumer market. "The product has this and that", and it will wow you. You cannot really critique it, because you cannot use it yet.
This is where I think alot of the negative reactions come from, it is just the natural order balancing the mythical, bulletproof buzz(that has been building for years!).
"Critisizing a company is fine, but how about sensible criticizm, if you have one?"
How can you criticize something that you cannot test across a broad range of users?
No possibilities to do so. (In the meantime, that bulletproof buzz is growing and growing.)
"What they decided to do is to communicate with their potential users from very early on - and therefore it's natural that they'd be "talking for a long time without delivering the actual product"... that's how long it takes to deliver a camera from conception to execution!"
If you think that these intentions are purely for the benefit and goodwill of Joe Blow cameraman and have nothing to do with marketing, I don't know what to tell you. They are intertwined. One doesn't exist without the other. Joe Blow cameraman isn't being let into the top secret red studios to be a part of this creative process, because they are protecting the sanctity and exclusiveness of their commercial product.
Jim Jannard didn't make Oakley sunglasses the most buzzworthy name in sunglasses by accident. He knows how to get people excited about his product and he knows how to turn the consumer into his personal salesman.
Last edited by AloysiusK; 04-19-2007 at 12:15 AM.
04-18-2007 11:25 PM
This thread is worthy of Cinematography.com