[mee]

I agree with you!

Unless the marketing is effective, it just makes the cameras and lenses more expensive without making them any better. That's why Canikons cost so much more than Pentax despite the clear economies of scale that Canikon has -- their camera prices reflect the millions of dollars Canikon spend on marketing (ads, retailer incentives, etc.). Canikon buyers pay for all those ads and incentive when they pay for equipment.

I think its too easy to cherry-picking those viral, entertaining v-loggers that top the viewership lists as if creating those channels is something that is easy to do. For every successful gopro marketer, there's a 1000 that suck. And if Ricoh can crack the code that makes viral advertising without a big budget, they should dump all their other businesses because there's lots of companies that would pay billions of dollars for the secret of cheap viral marketing.

Effective marketing really does cost real money. Marketing is guaranteed to increase costs but offers no guarantees that it will boost sales sufficiently to actually increase profits.

If Joe Enthusiast is doing the grunt work for you then it costs very little to the company, beyond lending or even giving gear out to Joe for his reviews.


Either way we're really deep into the weeds on this... this is a discussion company bodies would have.. the people who get paid to think about this stuff. I'm not paid to do this work, I just want a capable end product that meets my perceived goals/requirements.

[Rondec]

I agree with you!

Unless the marketing is effective, it just makes the cameras and lenses more expensive without making them any better. That's why Canikons cost so much more than Pentax despite the clear economies of scale that Canikon has -- their camera prices reflect the millions of dollars Canikon spend on marketing (ads, retailer incentives, etc.). Canikon buyers pay for all those ads and incentive when they pay for equipment.

I think its too easy to cherry-picking those viral, entertaining v-loggers that top the viewership lists as if creating those channels is something that is easy to do. For every successful gopro marketer, there's a 1000 that suck. And if Ricoh can crack the code that makes viral advertising without a big budget, they should dump all their other businesses because there's lots of companies that would pay billions of dollars for the secret of cheap viral marketing.

Effective marketing really does cost real money. Marketing is guaranteed to increase costs but offers no guarantees that it will boost sales sufficiently to actually increase profits.

Most companies choose to give gear to You Tube channelers who seem to have a following. As much as people despise Digital Rev, they had a lot of views of their videos and they sometimes delved into Pentax gear.

But the whole question of how to spend advertising dollars isn't anything new. John Wanamaker is supposed to have said "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, the trouble is I don't which half." These days with companies like Facebook mining our internet presences, they can target ads more effectively, but it still isn't great. But it has to be better than, say, a billboard, where most of the people who see it have no particular interest in the product being sold.

[Kunzite]

It doesn't look like many people share my perspective on this. But not to worry - it's just an opinion.

Well, it's easy to disagree without having to actually pay the extra money
The problem is, we have the extra price here in Europe, but without the added marketing or whatever.

---------- Post added 26-09-17 at 08:30 PM ----------

If Joe Enthusiast is doing the grunt work for you

Joe Enthusiast will do the grunt work for you, if he will make enough money through advertising, or will otherwise be compensated (perhaps with trips in nice, exotic locations).
For Joe Enthusiast, his Youtube channel is a business.

[sculptor666]

if ricoh/pentax na just copied and pasted the ads (fb, twitter, whatever) from ricoh japan... or even germany, their online presence would be much improved... and give us access to the merch that japan has. we have to design and print our own t-shirts, dammit :P

[mee]

Joe Enthusiast will do the grunt work for you, if he will make enough money through advertising, or will otherwise be compensated (perhaps with trips in nice, exotic locations).
For Joe Enthusiast, his Youtube channel is a business.

Yep! Precisely... it offloads much of the costs from your company onto Joe.

[Kunzite]

I don't think we fully agree here... what I'm saying is that Joe Enthusiast is profit-oriented, which means he won't simply support the costs instead of the company.
We're calling him Joe Enthusiast, but what he's really enthusiast about are money

[totsmuyco]

There are times when I look at reviews in youtube to support my decision in purchasing items especially cameras. I even read some of the feedback in dpreview. True enough the reviews in youtube and dpreview would point to a camera or a system's deficiencies. But some reviews would give the pros and the cons of the system. It would then be up to you to decide if you're going into the system. In my case, the advantages simply outweighed the disadvantages. However, when it came to buying into Pentax, I gave priority to this forum. Though some would give over rated reviews, most reviews are balanced. It's sad though that Pentax wasn't able to provide better marketing efforts. It would have been in a better position if marketing made some efforts. I guess the shake off from being bought from one main company to another stopped marketing from doing their work.

[mee]

I don't think we fully agree here... what I'm saying is that Joe Enthusiast is profit-oriented, which means he won't simply support the costs instead of the company.
We're calling him Joe Enthusiast, but what he's really enthusiast about are money

Hmm maybe, maybe not.. Joe Enthusiast (such as yourself) is really into a certain brand.. Joe Moneymaker is really into all brands that are popular..

These people are both online and both have large audiences. The beauty of the Enthusiast is he is essentially an employee of that particular brand (just on time and effort spend promoting that brand online), but isn't drawing a paycheck from the company.. Yet the brand can use his published work on their commercial channels (facebook, twitter, wherever else) and that work is largely going to be favorable to your company.

Joe Moneymaker may or may not support your brand, but you (as a company) get the option of linking to his videos/podcasts/articles if they favor your company. And he doesn't mind because the exposure is drawing more audience to himself.. which, in turn, is drawing him more ad revenue.

It is a mutually beneficial relationship, yet it offloads much of the risk and effort onto the Joes.

[Kunzite]

But that's the issue here... a Joe Enthusiast who would start a Youtube series out of love for a certain brand has no traction, no visitors. Well, he might build something in time and with lots of effort - effectively transforming his hobby into a business.
If we're talking about a "Joe Enthusiast" with a serious Youtube following, he's really conducting this as a business, not as a hobby.

Assuming that a hobbyist Youtuber would have large audience... nope, I won't believe that unless I see examples. Nope, Tony Northrup isn't a hobbyist

P.S. There's a third option I would rather not talk about - by removing my (implied) criteria of quality.

[mee]

All of these businesses start out small.. one of the larger fuji sites started out as someones enthusiast blog.. he just liked the brand. These forums here started with humble beginnings.. I'm pretty sure every one of these sites and video channels started out with only a handful of views and, over time, were built into something larger.

But Northrup isn't an enthusiast.. and even he started small.

[totsmuyco]

Some of them are pros. I like some who review products without bias. I know some are locked into specific brands. They normally review 3rd party gears like sigma or tamron versus a specific brand for example Canon and nothing else. But they give a balance review by providing sample shots and actual field tests.

[Rondec]

But that's the issue here... a Joe Enthusiast who would start a Youtube series out of love for a certain brand has no traction, no visitors. Well, he might build something in time and with lots of effort - effectively transforming his hobby into a business.
If we're talking about a "Joe Enthusiast" with a serious Youtube following, he's really conducting this as a business, not as a hobby.

Assuming that a hobbyist Youtuber would have large audience... nope, I won't believe that unless I see examples. Nope, Tony Northrup isn't a hobbyist

P.S. There's a third option I would rather not talk about - by removing my (implied) criteria of quality.

Either you build a photo channel by giving tips and instructional things or you buy someone's photo channel and steer them into your gear. Either way, you are reaching a different group of people than you get by the standard review sites.

I will say clearly that I pretty much despise you tube. Very little there is tightly edited. Even if there are moments of funniness or interesting points that are made, they are interspersed with a whole lot of boring nothing. At least with a written review I can skim over the boiler plate stuff they stick into most reviews and look at the parts that actually interest me. Hard to do that with a video review.

[Kunzite]

My point is that it's not as easy as counting on some "Joe Enthusiast" who would do a quality job and get really popular mostly by himself, "out of love for a certain brand". If that was the case, we'd have it already.
Yet I'm not aware of even a single case.

[Rondec]

My point is that it's not as easy as counting on some "Joe Enthusiast" who would do a quality job and get really popular mostly by himself, "out of love for a certain brand". If that was the case, we'd have it already.
Yet I'm not aware of even a single case.

I don't disagree.

Usually the people who do best at these sorts of video streams have been doing it awhile. A newly launched video feed is going to be rough in the beginning even if it eventually turns out to be excellent.

If you crowd source content you have to be willing to invest the effort necessary to edit it down into something watchable. I thought that was sort of the point of PPG -- have a bunch of high quality images from a variety of Pentax cameras and lenses, but while there is still a ghost of a site there, I don't think Ricoh does anything with it at this point.

[mee]

Rome wasn't built in a day.. and I think any effort is better than the zero effort we're seeing right now. Pentax isn't just late to the party, it seems they're not planning on going to the party.


I don't think it is easy either.. but I'm sure neither was this forum and look at it now. Just imagine PF if they offered video reviews and tips themselves..


Either way the major point, being lost between the nitpickery, is the online talking heads seem to be valued by many, thus why there are so many... that shows it is lucrative for them.. because it is only lucrative if they can get enough views. And it is a lot easier to produce a video once and offer it indefinitely, 24/7 than to hire a team to produce a spiel multiple times at limited events..