Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Yes. You're right and it is a Leica marketing ploy. Everyone else is wrong. There you go. You solved life's great mystery and we can all move on and buy the Leica kit many of us already owned.And how would she go about selling her audience a Leica in a different way? The more I read it and the more it gets obvious: it is an ad, fair and square.
And it works wonderfully well. Many people fall for it, including you
So, you have convince yourself you are right and the rest of us are fools. That is very sad. I really feel sorry for you.And how would she go about selling her audience a Leica in a different way? The more I read it and the more it gets obvious: it is an ad, fair and square.
And it works wonderfully well. Many people fall for it, including you
Now hold on Gary.....there are many of us with plenty of disposable income (well, maybe not TONS of it) who buy Canons, Nikons, Hasselblads, Fujis, Panasonics etc etc etc.Yup - Leica sucks. What a bunch of arrogant, snobby fools with TONS of disposable income....
Let's get the terminology right.Look at those impression space. Reading this article, you are segmented as 'purchase intender'. I am being now targeted and served with Leica products ads whether it be from Leica directly or Amazon. Love it... digital marketing at its best.
The problem arises when you have disposed of that disposable income, but retain the arrogant, snobby foolishness. :ROTFL:Yup - Leica sucks. What a bunch of arrogant, snobby fools with TONS of disposable income....
Funny thing about those blinking ads, whether here on GetDPI or on any other website I encounter.....I purposely do NOT click on them. So if those advertisers hope to connect with me, they are much better off by making products which someone like Sara Lee will find appealing and write about, of her own accord and with a genuine feeling of enthusiasm.BTW, checkout the blinking ads at the top of the Get Dpi sceen. Advertising in its many forms helps make the world go around.
Gary, I DO click on them if I like the forum site where they appear. I try to remember to click through to retailers I am about to purchase from or gather information from so Get Dpi gets credit for those click throughs ... which helps support a forum I enjoy reading and participating in.Funny thing about those blinking ads, whether here on GetDPI or on any other website I encounter.....I purposely do NOT click on them. So if those advertisers hope to connect with me, they are much better off by making products which someone like Sara Lee will find appealing and write about, of her own accord and with a genuine feeling of enthusiasm.
Guess I'm just not as cynical as old what's his name above.....what was it, N23 or some such thing? What kind of name is that anyways.
Gary
Yep, "everyman" is the new aspiration.I read the article too and enjoyed it.
It got me to thinking about the purchase of a Fuji X-Pro1 or X-E1, the everyman's Leica.
So if it's a subtle marketing promo for Leica rangefinders, it didn't work very well in my case.
Gary
OMG You're right! There's a link to Ken Rockwell in there! the plot thickens :ROTFL:Thanks Jono for the link!
A nice little read and yes obvious that it is a promo with all the link backs to the mothership.
I don't know why this ruffles all the feathers of those following this thread.
Happy 2013 all!
Sara Lee doesn't work for any government as a specific industry overseer.After considering all the comments made in this thread, I purposely held off temporarily reading the Sara Lee article to gather my thoughts regarding what may be a bigger issue at play here....namely that it's not so much that the thoughts expressed by the Guardian's author may or may not have been influenced in some direct way by Leica other than her expression of sheer enthusiasm for the tools of her profession and she happen to name them by name, but that a ethical line has been crossed with respect to her profession. I'm not commenting at all regarding the answer to this question as it specifically relates to the Sara Lee article (I haven't read it), but to a larger looming question that some in society ask all the time.
In one sense I do believe NB23 brought up an salient point that somewhat goes beyond the hypothetical question of Leica's questionable involvement in the article and although many have caught and understood NB23's point, it may need to be included in our conversation, simply to move beyond focusing simply on the intent of Sara Lee's article. Namely it's whether a ethical line has been crossed with regards to ones profession and whether standards and the rules set forth in years past that were expected of those that must uphold these ethical standards, are still doing so or has we as a society modified our expectations for these standards in recent times. Acceptable norms are changing all the time including possible endorsements made by those in certain positions, depending on the circumstances of whether these endorsements are simply due to enthusiasm, or instead are related to the direct or indirect involvement of the manufacturer of the product.
Without making this too lengthy or getting off topic I'll simply cite an example, hoping it comes full circle back to possibly as to why a few question the intent and circumstances of the article and whether or not it crossed an real or imaginary ethical line.
Years ago it was frowned upon and also considered somewhat unethical (and there were some laws governing this) for certain heath care professions to advertise, especially in a way of hawking their services like a general consumer commodity. Even their participation in a commercial endorsement of a product was considered highly unethical. Much of this has changed though in recent years! Same standards would hold true for many other professions, as complete unbiased objectivity was expected by most others, when the views were expressed by these professionals. PJ's, newspaper editors etc. would also come under this banner of unbiased reporting, putting aside the question at the moment of whether there ever was such a thing to begin with.
As a hypothetical, would we be concerned if here in the States, if the current head of DOT (Dept. of Transportation) in the U.S. endorsed a particular brand or model of car while in office? Could he infer to that car indirectly by simply mentioning his admiration for its engineering and therefore it helping the economy and environment and by virtue of this kind of endoresement, would not be questioned for stepping over the line of ethical responsibility in using his position of power? Some might question (especially other competitors in the auto industry) if he would be getting anything out of his endorsement either while in office or upon leaving it? What if he went further and simply gushed about his use of this automobile in everyday driving and said he found a new long lost love of driving while using this particular car.
A similar hypothetical question could be posed of the current head of the Dept. of Defense, if alternatively the example is switched to a particular brand of gun that the general public might be considering for purchase (for personal use in hunting). Has the line of what is considered responsible ethical behavior been moved and that a person in one of these professions can now expresses their personal thoughts while still maintaining responsible ethical/professional behavior while holding certain positions? Are there differences in perception and expectations between those in these individual's profession vs. the perceptions of the general public, especially if they question personal gains, directly or indirectly?
Again I'm not commenting specifically on the Sara Lee article which I haven't read, but maybe a similarly important question that NB23 raised, which simply refers to why articles like this might raise the eyebrows of some, while others are simply enthused, excited or possible amused when such pieces are written. My questions and comments are simply food for thought....nothing more. On that note, it's morning and I'm hungry
Dave (D&A)