Re: Seen on Dpreview
On 4/1/05, Joseph Tainter, discombobulated, unleashed: Trip to NYC, extra hour on my hands, stopped by the BH store. Place was a madhouse. Pentax counter space much smaller than any other brand. I asked to look at the IST DS. It had some other lens on it, Asked about the 18-55mm, and the clerk told me they are trying to get them in stock from Pentax. What a pity that the last sentence does not surprise me. Perhaps Nguyen has been hanging out and imbibing with Cotty. Hell, he's on the porch right now with a few empty Sakes rolling around at his feet. Keeps muttering something about a new assistantbut that was back in 1982... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Seen on dpreview
PS thinking about the message, but it sticks. It doesn't mean they're PS stupid, it must means they absorb little bits of information on the PS fly. That's how advertising works. It's not about presenting logical PS arguments. That job falls to the press. Concept of Memes. Virus. I don't like any viruses in my mind. No thank you. PS Fine. But advertising works for many consumers. Advertising is part of PS what makes a free market economy function. It's part of how I earn my PS living. I don't care if you don't like it. Nor do the majority of free PS people in the world. Tightly regulated socialist and communist PS societies prohibit advertising of goods and services. The freedoms that PS are allowed by any society are a matter of choice, and it's a choice we PS all have to make. Oh Paul, stop it. Since when are you the speaker for the majority of free people in the world ? Since when are people who don't like advertising are associated with socialist and communist totalities? I see the freedoms you offer us as totalitarian. What freedom at all? Damn, what choice do I have to turn of the adverts? There is less and less choice in that free society of yours. And if you'd label me as socialist, let me tell you, I come from a country which suffered 40 years under communism, we know totality very well, and we have sensitive noses for snuffing new forms of it. Others: sorry for the politics, but such self-assumed message makes me hot. If Paul hadn't pursued the topic of politics himself, I might not have boiled off. Good light! fra
Re: Seen on dpreview
On Sep 1, 2004, at 6:56 AM, Frantisek wrote: . If Paul hadn't pursued the topic of politics himself, I might not have boiled off. The thread was about Pentax advertising. You had to search long and hard to find anything that even hinted at politics. Exercise some self control. Paul
Re: Seen on dpreview
Just announcing I have the steam off ;-) Good light! fra
Re: Seen on dpreview
On Sep 1, 2004, at 7:26 AM, Dan wrote: Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: or just read what you wrote: PS living. I don't care if you don't like it. Nor do the majority of free PS people in the world. Tightly regulated socialist and communist PS societies prohibit advertising of goods and services. Yes, I did write that. My point is that it was one sentence in a thread that was certainly not political. And I wasn't responding to any political statement. I was responding to a negative comment about advertising, which happens to be my sole means of support. However, in the interest of harmony I will state unequivocally that this was an unfair statement, and I retract it. Paul Stenquist
Re: Seen on dpreview
On 1/9/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: Yes, I did write that. My point is that it was one sentence in a thread that was certainly not political. And I wasn't responding to any political statement. I was responding to a negative comment about advertising, which happens to be my sole means of support. However, in the interest of harmony I will state unequivocally that this was an unfair statement, and I retract it. Paul Stenquist Paul, you are my hero. Buy that man a beer :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Seen on dpreview
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Cotty wrote: On 1/9/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: advertising, which happens to be my sole means of support. However, in the interest of harmony I will state unequivocally that this was an unfair statement, and I retract it. Paul Stenquist Paul, you are my hero. Aye, there's some people worth reading/listening to. Kostas (did not get Paul's original message)
Re: Seen on dpreview
Cotty wrote: On 1/9/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: Yes, I did write that. My point is that it was one sentence in a thread that was certainly not political. And I wasn't responding to any political statement. I was responding to a negative comment about advertising, which happens to be my sole means of support. However, in the interest of harmony I will state unequivocally that this was an unfair statement, and I retract it. Paul Stenquist Paul, you are my hero. Buy that man a beer :-) Two Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Seen on dpreview
An odd view, if you don't mind me saying so. A properly-functioning market economy requires lots of buyers, lots of sellers, and perfect knowledge so that buyers can make informed decisions. All of which should lead to low prices. Of course that is why the market is full of people trying to subvert these market mechanisms, typically by establishing monopolies (only one seller), or by misleading buyers so that they make uninformed decisions. It is to counteract these efforts that all sophisticated market economies (including the US) have found it necessary to have loads of regulations. Without them, things would be far worse than they are. Truth in advertising is perhaps an impossible goal, but it is one that we should surely strive for. John On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:02:26 -0400, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Advertising is the art of knowing what you can get away with it. It has nothing to do with truth. I happen to think that's a good thing. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Seen on dpreview
I've worked as an advertising writer for 22 years. My job is to create illusions based on truth. It's about fueling desire and presenting a product in the best possible light. As you say, there are regulations, many very strict regulations, that limit how far one can go. But the most skilled advertising creatives learn to work right at the limit. Survival in this business depends on that. My job is not about providing perfect knowledge. That job falls to the press and to consumer organizations (like the PDML for example) that analyze and discuss the available merchandise. The Pentax positioning as the camera of the internet is a good example of working at the limit. I don't think it's been utilized very well in any advertising executions. But it's a good advertising claim, and it should prove effective at a subliminal level. On Aug 31, 2004, at 3:58 AM, John Forbes wrote: An odd view, if you don't mind me saying so. A properly-functioning market economy requires lots of buyers, lots of sellers, and perfect knowledge so that buyers can make informed decisions. All of which should lead to low prices. Of course that is why the market is full of people trying to subvert these market mechanisms, typically by establishing monopolies (only one seller), or by misleading buyers so that they make uninformed decisions. It is to counteract these efforts that all sophisticated market economies (including the US) have found it necessary to have loads of regulations. Without them, things would be far worse than they are. Truth in advertising is perhaps an impossible goal, but it is one that we should surely strive for. John On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:02:26 -0400, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Advertising is the art of knowing what you can get away with it. It has nothing to do with truth. I happen to think that's a good thing. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Seen on dpreview
On 31/8/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: European advertising is generally just more obtuse rather than more sophisticated. Hang on tosh, let's not lump us all into the melting pot on this one! Have you seen some of those German TV ads? And the French - let's not talk about the French! As for the Spanish - well, I rest my case. (anyone else I can insult?) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Seen on dpreview
French television is a strong argument for being an English speaking nation ;-) (duck cover) regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 31/8/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: European advertising is generally just more obtuse rather than more sophisticated. Hang on tosh, let's not lump us all into the melting pot on this one! Have you seen some of those German TV ads? And the French - let's not talk about the French! As for the Spanish - well, I rest my case. (anyone else I can insult?) Cheers, Cotty
Re: Seen on dpreview
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Seen on dpreview (anyone else I can insult?) The WOGS start at Calais. That should just about cover it. WW
RE: Seen on dpreview
Maybe they are the official camera of the internet because that is all the *istD is good for, low resolution web photos? :) JCO -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 4:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Seen on dpreview They are the Official Camera of the Internet because they trade marked that phrase. Joseph Tainter wrote: Pentax advertises -- at 2 AM. I don't know where this fellow is located. Joe -- I was sitting up about 2a.m. watching TV and an interesting commercial came on. There are 4 major camera companies, it starts out. Canon, Olympus, Fuji, and Pentax, it continues, Only one is the official camera of the internet, Pentax. Well, I thought this to be very odd for a few reasons: 1. How does Pentax get off ignoring Nikon as a major camera company? 2. What reasoning do they have behind calling themselves, The official camera of the internet? I am a Canon person myself, but I thought these claims were both unfair (for Nikon) and unfounded. I couldn't find the commercial on their website to link to, but was anyone else seen it, and what do all of you think about that?? -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: Seen on dpreview
Joseph Tainter quoted someone else: I was sitting up about 2a.m. watching TV and an interesting commercial came on. There are 4 major camera companies, it starts out. Canon, Olympus, Fuji, and Pentax, it continues, Only one is the official camera of the internet, Pentax. Well, I thought this to be very odd for a few reasons: [...] 2. What reasoning do they have behind calling themselves, The official camera of the internet? [...] I'd been planning to comment on this as well, but I wanted to hear the commercial again in case I'd misheard something the first time (IIRC I heard it during prime time, but I can't remember if it was on television or radio). I'm all for seeing my brand promoted, but this bit did give me pause as well. What entity could grant such a status on behalf of the Internet? (Okay, I guess Pentax could propose an RFC and get it accepted, but ...) -- Glenn
Re: Seen on dpreview
I'd give that title to Kodak for their docking cameras. They make uploading your pics oh so easy. What entity could grant such a status on behalf of the Internet?
Re: Seen on dpreview
What entity could grant such a status on behalf of the Internet? Who cares? It's smart advertising. They're apparently getting away with it. The networks haven't refused the ads, nor has the fcc made them pull it. People who want point and shoot digitals so they can send images to their friends will probably remember that Pentax is the official camera of the internet. Too bad they don't have enough money to run the ad frequently in prime time. Advertising is the art of knowing what you can get away with it. It has nothing to do with truth. I happen to think that's a good thing. It's all part of a free market economy. Paul Stenquist
Re: Seen on dpreview
No it was first come first served. For once Pentax had a promotional idea before the other companies did. I think it was the first promotional idea they ever had. BTW, since it is offical now you can get kicked off the internet for posting photos taken with any other brand camera. Us PDML'ers don't have to worry about that, but those guys on the other camera mailing lists better watch out! GRIN -- Caveman wrote: I'd give that title to Kodak for their docking cameras. They make uploading your pics oh so easy. What entity could grant such a status on behalf of the Internet? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Seen on dpreview
They are the Official Camera of the Internet because they trade marked that phrase. Joseph Tainter wrote: Pentax advertises -- at 2 AM. I don't know where this fellow is located. Joe -- I was sitting up about 2a.m. watching TV and an interesting commercial came on. There are 4 major camera companies, it starts out. Canon, Olympus, Fuji, and Pentax, it continues, Only one is the official camera of the internet, Pentax. Well, I thought this to be very odd for a few reasons: 1. How does Pentax get off ignoring Nikon as a major camera company? 2. What reasoning do they have behind calling themselves, The official camera of the internet? I am a Canon person myself, but I thought these claims were both unfair (for Nikon) and unfounded. I couldn't find the commercial on their website to link to, but was anyone else seen it, and what do all of you think about that?? -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: Seen on dpreview
Hi, Who cares? It's smart advertising. They're apparently getting away with it. The networks haven't refused the ads, nor has the fcc made them pull it. People who want point and shoot digitals so they can send images to their friends will probably remember that Pentax is the official camera of the internet. This seems to imply that people who use ps digitals are not smart enough to spot advertising bullshit. Sounds like pompous crap to me. Too bad they don't have enough money to run the ad frequently in prime time. Advertising is the art of knowing what you can get away with it. It has nothing to do with truth. I happen to think that's a good thing. It's all part of a free market economy. One man's advertising is another man's propaganda. Personally I think most advertising is pollution and should be treated as such. -- Cheers, Bob If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it Goebbels
Re: Seen on dpreview
Bob W wrote: People who want point and shoot digitals so they can send images to their friends will probably remember that Pentax is the official camera of the internet. This seems to imply that people who use ps digitals are not smart enough to spot advertising bullshit. Sounds like pompous crap to me. Ah, but most modern advertising isn't about fooling people on a conscious level; it's mostly about name recognition these days. So they don't have to _believe_ Pentax has any official status -- they can even laugh at the idea like I do -- as long as there's that tickle of association in the far back of their brain when they see the name Pentax on a camera in a store. One man's advertising is another man's propaganda. Personally I think most advertising is pollution and should be treated as such. Most, yah. (Sort of a necessary evil on our society, but I'd be happy to have a bit less of it.) -- Glenn
Re: Seen on dpreview
On Aug 29, 2004, at 6:52 PM, Bob W wrote: Hi, Who cares? It's smart advertising. They're apparently getting away with it. The networks haven't refused the ads, nor has the fcc made them pull it. People who want point and shoot digitals so they can send images to their friends will probably remember that Pentax is the official camera of the internet. This seems to imply that people who use ps digitals are not smart enough to spot advertising bullshit. Sounds like pompous crap to me. Most consumers may well be smart enough to spot advertising bullshit. But most consumers don't spend much time thinking about it. If you can create an impression with advertising mssage, it may well work for a lot of consumers. It's almost subconscious. They may not spend any time thinking about the message, but it sticks. It doesn't mean they're stupid, it must means they absorb little bits of information on the fly. That's how advertising works. It's not about presenting logical arguments. That job falls to the press. Too bad they don't have enough money to run the ad frequently in prime time. Advertising is the art of knowing what you can get away with it. It has nothing to do with truth. I happen to think that's a good thing. It's all part of a free market economy. One man's advertising is another man's propaganda. Personally I think most advertising is pollution and should be treated as such. Fine. But advertising works for many consumers. Advertising is part of what makes a free market economy function. It's part of how I earn my living. I don't care if you don't like it. Nor do the majority of free people in the world. Tightly regulated socialist and communist societies prohibit advertising of goods and services. The freedoms that are allowed by any society are a matter of choice, and it's a choice we all have to make. Cheers, Paul -- Cheers, Bob If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it Goebbels
Re: Seen on dpreview
On Aug 29, 2004, at 7:29 PM, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote: So they don't have to _believe_ Pentax has any official status -- they can even laugh at the idea like I do -- as long as there's that tickle of association in the far back of their brain when they see the name Pentax on a camera in a store. Exactly. And kudos to Pentax for being there first. It's about time they made some smart marketing moves. Paul
