[rburgoss]

Hey, just got in the mail an official apology from Ricoh Imaging marketing department about all this thing:


http://view.s6.exacttarget.com/?j=fec917777561007e&m=fe9212737561007873&ls=f...07797d13&r=0ey

[rrstuff]

Hey, just got in the mail an official apology from Ricoh Imaging marketing department about all this thing:


http://view.s6.exacttarget.com/?j=fec917777561007e&m=fe9212737561007873&ls=f...07797d13&r=0ey

It is nice to see they are listening and acknowledge a mistake. Made me think of Canon exec who claimed that their sensors are the best in the industry just a couple of months ago. Everyone rolled their eyes, because it is difficult to expect innovation from people who lack self criticism.

[calsan]

I just got that email too. I must say i was quite impressed - it's rare to see a company acknowledge an error.

[rrstuff]

I just got that email too. I must say i was quite impressed - it's rare to see a company acknowledge an error.

and within days too. It also left a good impression on me.

[rburgoss]

I just got that email too. I must say i was quite impressed - it's rare to see a company acknowledge an error.

You are right. Such letter (apology) is rare, but we also know Pentax (Ricoh) follows this forum closely, because even though we are a miniscule percentage of Pentax users worlwide, we are also about the only source for reliable "instant" feedback from real customers.

There is actually two threads about this issue in the forum, and both account for the same thing: the marketing flop, bad phtoshopped image, etc.

Ricoh's communication offering an apology to all their mailing list subscribers ( and probably through other channels too) is a nice way to tell us "yes, we screwed, it won't happen again; we care a lot about what you have to say and think..." of course, this is a thousand times better than to keep silent in a total arrogant status.

[LFLee]

Apology is one thing, this shouldn't happen in the first place..... email to listserv already cost very little, and they skim on this?

[EarlVonTapia]

Kudos to Ricoh for releasing an apology.

[AtitG]

This women is a giant.

Your version is much better than the ks-1 ad. Ü

[Uluru]

Kudos to Ricoh for releasing an apology.

Yes. Should you also expect an apology from Ricoh for shamelessly promoting the 24MP APS-C K-3 as the camera to have that is an FF substitute, that it beats FF, like D600. And then, use that same FF Nikon D600 to make advertising material for the K-3?

Or what you say about a Ricoh branch pinching the product photograph from the photographer Ming Thein, using on their website, without any notice or permission asked from the photographer?

And then the lilliputian camera in the world of a giant woman?

This is all more than a coincidence — this is a bad habit.

They have engineers that know how to make cameras, but everybody else is clueless about anything related to imaging.

[rrstuff]

Or what you say about a Ricoh branch pinching the product photograph from the photographer Ming Thein, using on their website, without any notice or permission asked from the photographer?

Are you sure about that part? I am curious about the source. Olympus has posted my photograph on their global frontpage for a couple years now without a visible attribution, and there is no proof online that they had a permission for it, but I submitted it to them myself some time ago. Did he complain on his blog or something? I would imagine they would take it down if he did.

[Uluru]

Are you sure about that part? I am curious about the source. Olympus has posted my photograph on their global frontpage for a couple years now without a visible attribution, and there is no proof online that they had a permission for it, but I submitted it to them myself some time ago. Did he complain on his blog or something? I would imagine they would take it down if he did.

Ming Thein (I have read his Facebook updates) raised the smoke immediately, because it was a very bad practice. No one asked him for any permission. It took a couple of days for him to get an apology from Japan.

The company has some serious issues when it comes to communication of value of its own products, then making of marketing material and messages.

1. Pinched photographer's images without asking
2. Badly photoshopped and false advertised K-S1 using stock photography
3. Used FF D600 to make material to advertise K-3, then used K-3 to say APS-C K-3 is a perfect substitute for FF and D600 taken as an example
4. Promoted Ricoh Theta with a feature containing person with a Canon camera
5. Used Canon setup throughout to make Q7 advertising

And this is only in the last year or so. An imaging company with its own extensive lines of products, does a total opposite of what one would expect a serious imaging company would to do promote own products with honesty and truth.

[RonHendriks1966]

I don't see the issue. Use of stock photos for ad copy is pretty much the norm.


Steve

That is fine for almost any company except a company that tries to sell their own camera's.

http://petapixel.com/2014/10/25/pentax-k-s1-promo-features-bad-photoshop-job/

[Nass]

First I heard about it was an apology email in my inbox. Then I saw the petapixel story, and all the other material online about this by now. I'm a professional marketer myself and boy, this is a shot in their own foot on so many levels. Pentax marketing has never been praised for overwhelming amazingness over the years but this yet again proves the point.

Ps the 645 photo and comment had me in stitches

[BrianR]

Their apology is interesting:

"With regards to the poorly photoshopped stock image which was released inadvertently, please accept my deepest apologies.
This was a tremendous error as the email went out with the wrong image."

A charitable interpretation would be it was a quick mock-up for internal use and it wasn't meant to be seen. An uncharitable read is they thought it was grand and that no one would notice and are now hoping people will believe that it was an accident..oopsies!

It's not so much the stock image I find bad (though that's a pretty poor approach for something like this), it's the poor Photoshop job nobody internal noticed that I find most embarrassing.

[fuent104]

I believe them. I don't think any agency's quality control would be so bad as to let this slip through the cracks. It's poorly executed AND misleading. That's a really bad combination.