[johnmflores]

Perhaps they had two versions? I know when I worked at a large company, there would be a 'conceptual' ad that was approved before the real ad.

The conceptual one could've been something like the poorly-photoshopped one...

Exactly. Designers will make "Comps" of ads to help visualize what the final ad will look like. Agencies will often present three or more comps to the client for discussion and critique. Of the lot, one comp is usually selected then final artwork and photography is produced. Comps are for internal review only and are frequently made with hastily Photoshopped stock photos because most of them will be thrown away. Traditionally, the comp photograph is marked "FPO" (For Position Only) and the production team is supposed to replace it with the proper photo before printing/publishing.

It looks like someone forgot to swap out the FPO comp photo for the real photo. It would be good to release the actual photo, but there's a valid argument against doing that-it may keep this negative story in the news even longer. So it looks like they are hoping that the story doesn't have legs and dies quickly. When you consider that their target audience is not likely the DPReview/PentaxForum crowd, that may ultimately be the prudent decision.

[clackers]

It would be good to release the actual photo, but there's a valid argument against doing that-it may keep this negative story in the news even longer.

Could be something to that, John.

A Western ad agency might suggest get a correction out quickly, possibly with humorous postmodern references to the original. Lemonade out of lemons.

But the Japanese owners may have been notified and insisted on a very traditional burying of the story.

[ogl]

here is the sample of very good marketing
Cinematographers: Samsung and Joseph Gordon-Levitt need your help to shoot a crowd-sourced 4K film with the Samsung NX1!


I don't see any problems to hire well-known actress to make good photo session with new colors K-S1.

It costs money, yes...But does Ricoh really want to make real promotion for new camera and get good sales...? Or they don't care about it?

[clackers]

It costs money, yes...But does Ricoh really want to make real promotion for new camera and get good sales...? Or they don't care about it?

Probably get their money back in the Japanese market, OGL.

Probably not worth it in the Western markets - being Japanese they would have crunched the numbers.

The advertising is expensive, you've got to pay off chain stores for display space, give kickbacks to magazines and websites, bribe a bunch of pro togs to be ambassadors ... and for all the effort you're up against bigger budget Canikony with exactly the same game plan.

---

Last edited by clackers; 10-26-2014 at 02:43 AM.

[Kunzite]

Apples to oranges, what good would it do to spend large amount of money on the K-S1? Will it raise the sales that much? (but then, this means preparing for higher production/distribution levels, which will backfire if the additional sales don't happen).
Instead of hiring a well-known (i.e. expensive) actress, they decided to lower the price some $100 - and do "normal" ads. Was that a mistake?

[RonHendriks1966]

Apples to oranges, what good would it do to spend large amount of money on the K-S1? Will it raise the sales that much? (but then, this means preparing for higher production/distribution levels, which will backfire if the additional sales don't happen).
Instead of hiring a well-known (i.e. expensive) actress, they decided to lower the price some $100 - and do "normal" ads. Was that a mistake?

They should make a plan on how to promote their new products and how to gather images and footage to go with promotions. They clearly don't have a plan and then things like this happen. You hire a Nikon photographer, you photoshop a stockimage and on and on and on....

First thing:

Believe in your product, use them yourself and get control over your promotional work.

[Kunzite]

They don't hire "a Nikon photographer"; they hire a specialized agency, which might use whatever tools. The camera which made the ad is rarely a part of the message.
And photoshopping stock images is widely used in advertising, otherwise we won't see so many blunders.

I wonder how many big companies do their advertising work all by themselves?

[monochrome]

You've hit the panic button, Monochrome.

Most don't know or don't care.

The mocking of the bending iPhone 6 is a storm in a tea cup, for example.

You're in Australia - not the marketing area of RIAC. At the very beginning I said in the USA I was afraid this would be another K-01. I also said it would be a successful product.

[rawr]

Believe in your product, use them yourself and get control over your promotional work.

In software development and other parts of the tech world, there's a concept called 'Eating your own dog food' that Ricoh should study.

[Kunzite]

Not in software development per se, we don't care much about corporate policies It's the management who's pushing for such things (when they do, and when it's possible); but even so, often the software is not suitable for individual use. Yes, I have no need for the software I'm working on.

I'd say with cameras it works much better - employees should be encouraged (not forced!) to use the company's products. However, can we extend this to external contractors? How would it work?

[rawr]

How would it work?

Ask them. Or write it into the contract - 'Ricoh Imaging products to be used in all media produced for this campaign'. Supply them with the gear if needed.

It would also be a useful way of getting feedback from professionals, of course, which Ricoh could use to improve their products. If they say to an agency - 'here, use our gear', but the agency says: ' for our work, we need support for this software, or this hardware in our studio, or tethering via Lightroom ', then that could all be a very good means of learning lessons that could be applied to making their products more appealing to similar pros in future.

[Kunzite]

It might work only if they'll be the major customer for that agency. And then, there's no point in doing that unless they'll plan to heavily advertise it (which doesn't happen often).
Changing the tools you're used with is a major hassle.

In principle, I agree with you, it would be nice to see high quality ads with "image taken with a Pentax blah blah" footnote. I'd surely like Pentax to advertise on image quality (no need to do that for me, though, and probably for neither of us - we know about their products). I'm saying it might be impractical, and besides us few would care (IMO).

[rawr]

I'm saying it might be impractical, and besides us few would care (IMO)

True. it might be more trouble than it's worth. But it's worth testing out, I think, if I were Ricoh.

I don't think it is un-common in the industry. The last thing Nikon wants showing up in a Nikon ad, for example, is Canon in the EXIF, or a Canon logo seen in a reflection somewhere on a Nikon lens product shot.

[Kunzite]

I think even Canon and Nikon might have some ads taken with medium format cameras. The solution? Be careful to strip the exif data, and watch out when photoshopping

[Jean Poitiers]

In software development and other parts of the tech world, there's a concept called 'Eating your own dog food' that Ricoh should study.

This is just so basic in marketing principles (especially for an "imaging" firm) that the Ricoh Pentax lack of its use screams several thousand words ... and very few of those would be nice ones to use here.

What is the old saying ... "a picture is worth a thousand words" ... maybe even more when it's taken with your own products ?!