Well, I knew what was coming when I wrote my original piece (below). By the way, neither Canon nor Nikon had a camera ad in that issue of the magazine, so those of you who interpreted my comments as a criticism of Nikon are wrong. But let's go through some of the responses I got and deal with the points they bring up:
- Popular Photography isn't exactly where serious photographers would go, and it's not much about photography any more. I'm not 100% sure I'd agree with the latter part, though the latest redesign and editorial shift has me rethinking this. But that's besides the point: you advertise a camera in that magazine because you want to sell it to potential customers. Even if we accept the premise that the magazine is now mostly about selling things and describing the latest and greatest, the bottom line is this: what do you expect that new camera will do for you? Let you take nice pictures of it?
- Images can be faked. Well, yes (though I'd tend to say phase it that they can be manipulated to better show what you want to show). But advertising text can be misleading too. Thus, I dismiss this assertion out of hand. The viewer of an advertisement always has to come at it with some skepticism, regardless of whether it is an image or text. Egregious manipulation or overstatement is eventually called out, either by neutral third parties (e.g. consumer organizations) or by competitors.
- Most people who buy cameras aren't actually all that interested in how good the pictures are. There's some truth to that, of course. And some people just want the latest and greatest, even though it might not make any large contribution to their image quality. We buy new vehicles long before our old ones wear out, after all. But if all you need to sell cameras is to put a "new and improved" sticker on the replacement model, then we've gotten to a very dark place. I believe it is incumbent upon a product's maker to tell me why I need it. Show me the benefit. Yeah, louder. Show me the benefit! Yes, but brother, you got to yell that ****! Show me the benefit!!! (Yes, that's another movie reference.).
- Without photos in the ad, the implication is that the camera can do anything. Right. And without roads in the ad, the implication is that a car can go anywhere. Sorry, I don't buy this argument. The ultimate reduction of such logic is that a plain white box with no markings must contain a better product than a box that actually highlights or describes the product, because obviously, the plain white box could contain a product that does anything. Call it Schrodinger's Camera.
- Cameras as objects has been a common theme for a long time. Yes, it has. Indeed, it's now to the point where it's a cliche. Do cliches really sell products? One of the most effective ad campaigns for cameras recently were from Nikon. First, there was the "we gave a D40 to everyone in a small town and this is what they did with them." Then we got the D80 follow up: "we gave a D80 to a group of photographers on Flickr and here's what they did with them." Both campaigns provoked discussion and new buyers coming into the store. Indeed, my next door neighbor got so hooked by the D40 campaign--she figured that if Joe Average in small town could take such nice pictures, maybe she could too--that she acquired a D40. Then there were the Sandro ISO 6400 motorcycle posters with the D3 that proved the camera could (a) deliver big images and (b) deliver them fast. It's no coincidence that most of Nikon's market share gains came during the period when they were doing such direct "here's what it does" ads. These we so contrary to all the "look at this nice camera" ads that they stood out. As much as I've complained about various aspects of Nikon's marketing, they got their advertising right for an extended period and it helped. Canon, too, has been successful with benefit ads. Indeed, their original rise with the original Rebel came about due to showing cameras at sporting events and implying that you could get pro results, too. Canon's long had a successful ad campaign in National Geographic where they show exotic or endangered animals caught with those big white lenses.
- It's the advertising companies' fault, not the camera companies'. Sorry, no winning argument here. The marketing message comes from and is controlled by the manufacturer. If you buy an inferior product (ad) and get inferior results (no gain in market share) then you either hired the wrong advertising firm or approved a poor campaign or both. I'd say that the real issue is economics: the camera makers aren't spending enough to get really good ad campaigns. Indeed, this gets back to one of my common themes (why do I feel like I'm turning into a Lou Dobbs-type character?): most of these companies aren't top tier in terms of their marketing abilities, and they also fail to act both globally and locally as well as they should. It's not a coincidence that there were no Nikon or Canon ads in the issue I was looking at. The slip of the dollar against the yen has cut into margins and the knee-jerk response of these two companies has been to cut back on marketing costs (Canon isn't going to PMA 2010, for instance).
- Any camera will give great image quality. True to a point, but there are still plenty of differences that show up in images. Frame burst rates, autofocus accuracy and speed, tilt-shift abilities, large optical range options, high ISO capability, fill flash capability, the list goes on and on. And most of those things were mentioned at some point in the text of the ads I was looking at. Not really shown, just written about.
- Foreign ads are sometimes different. True. Though as several International readers pointed out, also often lacking a clear benefit display. One wrote about an advertisement in a European magazine for the Panasonic GF1: sexy, fashionable lady holding a GF1. As he pointed out, the message was about a different kind of image: "If you're cool, if you look good, if you're in sync with fashion, you should get a GF1."
Finally, one email statement resonated with me: "The camera makers aren't selling cameras any more. They're selling lifestyle." Yep. And a lifestyle that actually doesn't seem to include taking any pictures (though it'll allow us to record movies if we want ;~).