The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
An interesting article in the Guardian
- Thread starter jonoslack
- Start date
iiiNelson
Well-known member
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
Shashin
Well-known member
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
edwardkaraa
New member
Leica is so EVIL :ROTFL:
Gary Clennan
New member
Yup - Leica sucks. What a bunch of arrogant, snobby fools with TONS of disposable income....
bensonga
Well-known member
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....
Don't WE ever get to play in the part of arrogant, snobby fools? That's just not fair. Why should Leica owners have all the fun?
Gary
PS. I own a couple of older Leica R cameras, but I know that doesn't really count when it comes to playing the part of an arrogant, snobby fool. In that respect, I wasted my money on those Leica SLRs.
Gary Clennan
New member
Let's get the terminology right.
If, (IF being the operative word), it was a planted story, then it is Public Relations at its best.
Proper Direct Marketing is never that inefficient.
-Marc
BTW, checkout the blinking ads at the top of the Get Dpi sceen. Advertising in its many forms helps make the world go around.
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....
-Marc
bensonga
Well-known member
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.
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
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.
Brand advertising, PR and promotional messages are different from retail messages. Yet one cannot exist without the other. One creates the desire by many different means, the other informs and full-fills those desires.
As an ad agency Creative Director, I often had to make presentations to a groups of "civilians" about advertising's pivotal role in commerce. During the Q&A afterwards there was the inevitable cynical comment that advertising real role was to make people buy things they do not need.
To everyone's surprise, I agreed. No one needs more than 600 to 1000 calories a day, just a lean-to for shelter, and a fur if it is cold. Yet we want/desire, more.
Related to this specific thread, it is a lesser known fact that Ben Franklin is considered the Patron Saint of advertising. Under the guise of a pseudonyms, he even stooped to writing letters to the editor of his own newspaper promoting both ideas and products
Today, you can't get away with such tactics ... your competitors will make sure of that. :shocked: -Marc
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
It's interesting how Leica remains and others come and go. Poor Man's Leica, Everyman's Leica, Texas Leica, Leica imitators, copies and knock-offs ... all pay tribute to the real thing.
BTW, I don't get the repetitive "Bling" comments that seem to always accompany any Leica M thread or blog entry. For all practical purposes, the blingy Leicas are so rare as to not exist at all ... and those that do see the light of day are in palaces, or places that are gated to keep out the riff-raff.
The vast majority of Ms are actually quite plain jane looking ... even with a red dot, few by-standers actually know anything about it. The actual M experience requires it in hand ... it's a tactile thing that becomes associated with how it looks.
-Marc
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 and to be fair to all points of view expressed. To some degree, it's whether a ethical line has been crossed with regards to ones profession and whether the standards and the rules set forth in years past that were expected of those in certain positions, must currently uphold these ethical standards (and 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 (or elsewhere for that matter under similar circumstances), if the current head of U.S. DOT (U.S. Dept. of Transportation) endorsed a particular brand or model of car while in office? Could he/her infer to that car indirectly by simply mentioning their 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 or her position of power? Some might question (especially other competitors in the auto industry) if the endorser would be getting anything out of his endorsement either while in office or upon leaving it? What if he/she 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 U.S. DOD (U.S. Dept. of Defense), if alternatively the example is switched to a particular brand of gun that the general public might be considering for purchase was endorsed by him/her (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 express their personal thoughts while still maintaining responsible ethical/professional behavior, all while holding certain politically appointed or elected positions in public service? Are there differences in perception and expectations with regards to ethics, between those individual's in the same profession vs. the perceptions of the general public, especially if either or both groups question personal gains made by the individual, 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)
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 and to be fair to all points of view expressed. To some degree, it's whether a ethical line has been crossed with regards to ones profession and whether the standards and the rules set forth in years past that were expected of those in certain positions, must currently uphold these ethical standards (and 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 (or elsewhere for that matter under similar circumstances), if the current head of U.S. DOT (U.S. Dept. of Transportation) endorsed a particular brand or model of car while in office? Could he/her infer to that car indirectly by simply mentioning their 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 or her position of power? Some might question (especially other competitors in the auto industry) if the endorser would be getting anything out of his endorsement either while in office or upon leaving it? What if he/she 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 U.S. DOD (U.S. Dept. of Defense), if alternatively the example is switched to a particular brand of gun that the general public might be considering for purchase was endorsed by him/her (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 express their personal thoughts while still maintaining responsible ethical/professional behavior, all while holding certain politically appointed or elected positions in public service? Are there differences in perception and expectations with regards to ethics, between those individual's in the same profession vs. the perceptions of the general public, especially if either or both groups question personal gains made by the individual, 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)
Last edited:
Brian Mosley
New member
OMG You're right! There's a link to Ken Rockwell in there! the plot thickens :ROTFL:
You guys, take a rest and watch a documentary.
Happy New Year
Brian
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)
The article isn't a "news article", it is a Blog post under a sub-heading of Culture > Art and Design > Camera Kit Exposed > Photography Blog.
IMO, on-line Blogs are an euphemism for interactive editorial commentary. Editorials in news vehicles commenting on electronic products or cars or what-ever often offer personal opinions including likes and dislikes. Some reviewers even endorse the product being reviewed by buying it. It was clear in the blog that she bought the ME ... it wasn't given to her by Leica, nor purchased by the Guardian for her.
Mt. Everest from a mole-hill comes to mind.
-Marc