So I'm browsing through the latest issue of Popular Photography last night, still trying to shake a head cold that's plagued me for the last couple of weeks when I notice something. Pentax (page 8), Sigma (p 11), Sony (p 24), and Panasonic (p 36-37) all use the same approach: picture of camera(s) + text. Only the Fujifilm (inside front cover) and the Pentax ad on the back cover had images in them, and even then, only the Fujifilm ad had examples that spoke to image quality I might get with their product.
Compare this to the lens makers: Tokina (p 4), Sigma (p 12), Tamron (p 19, 27), and Tokina (p 61) all at least use an image representative of what you could do with the lens as well as a photo of the lens itself. (We won't get into how well those images are in illustrating the unique properties of the product being advertised--that's another can of worms. At least they used images that connected to what the product can do.)
Given that the purpose of these products is to take images, you'd think that images would be important in marketing them. But the camera makers are getting to be like auto makers were for awhile: it's all about the bling of the object, not how it performs (which is another reason why really ugly autos, like the Pontiac Aztek, didn't do so well).
Not that I'm hoping that the camera makers can ever aspire to great ad campaigns, but you'd think that they'd be a little better at selling what it is the product will actually do for you.
For example, let's quickly conjure up a basic ad for the D3s. Text at top: "Problem: Dimly lit gym requires ISO 6400." Text at bottom: "Answer: D3s. Any Questions?" And in small text: "more answers can be found at WebURL." The rest of the ad would be some impressive sports photo taken under those tough conditions with the camera in question. Simple, straight to the point, and offering up a result, not the object.
Throwing text at users that is basically just specifications expressed in sentences instead of bullet points seems, well, pointless. More to the point, the magazine itself tends to be running plenty of specifications about products. How much was the copy writer paid that wrote this gem: "All of the control of a DSLR--shake reduction, lens flexibility and aperture control--in stunning HD video quality." Or this perfectly vague line: "takes its dedicated image-processing engine to the next level." What level was it at? What level did it achieve? And are we talking levels in a parking garage or image quality?
The ironic thing is this: when professional photographers get together these days we talk about having to scramble harder to get meaningful money from our work. Magazines still pay the same day rate they did 20 years ago but want all rights in perpetuity. Stock sales are way down. And camera companies aren't even bothering to use images in their ads. I guess cameras aren't for taking pictures any more. Excuse me while I go to my gear locker and admire my bling collection. Maybe I should build some lighted pedestals and put them out where everyone can see them...