RED's militaristic branding and marketing.

[Alexander Sutton-Hough]

Personally, I was excited to see the potential opportunity for RED to move from military-themed branding to space-themed when the Gemini came out (if we're going to have themed branding at all). Alas, it didn't stick and I find that quite unfortunate.

I was also excited for that. Make it feel like the future is optimistic not depressing and war.

[Alexander Sutton-Hough]

I think my RED fits in nicely with my other shooting utensils

That doesn't give a creepy mass shooter vibe at all.

[Michael Hastings]

I suggest tough guy TJ should come spend some time in the open water (no cage) with the Tiger sharks with some of of us "snowflakes" that don't need a bunch of weapons to feel tough. We'll prepare him for the dive with the facts of people being killed and maimed by them on these photo dives, and how its most often the inexperienced that waive their hands and get maimed.

PS: beware of Phil's arsenal

We're in a terrible age of repression and intolerance. Very saddening. I recently dug out an old script that I wrote long time ago and found myself needing to change something in every other page, fearing that I might offend someone or another. When will all this be over?

Maybe consider that you were concerned that it might be offensive because it actually was a nasty way to put it, and could be improved.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Jim, Jarred and the RedTeam can name their products whatever they want. You can decide to purchase them, or not.

That said, RedUser is a customer feedback platform. In that context, I would advocate for new branding that leaves the military theme behind.

Cheers - #19

[Bobby Farokhzad]

That doesn't give a creepy mass shooter vibe at all.

Are you suggesting that every gun owner is potentially a mass shooter?

[Les Hillis]

After seeing RED’s new Youtube videos touting “RED TECH | ARSENAL ''... I couldn’t stop thinking about how so much of RED’s branding throughout the years has always alluded to weaponry...I don’t know about anyone else, but...I’m discouraged to keep seeing it featured so prominently by RED in our community of filmmaking.

Don’t get me wrong, I love RED cameras. I own a Gemini and have shot on many other models all the way back to the RED One. I’m specifically talking about the marketing...of these cameras as if they’re military assault rifles, branding them as Weapons, putting skulls on them, calling them Rangers, and using words like Arsenal and Magazine as if swapping out hard drives is akin to loading ammunition.

What I’m asking here is why RED continues...branding them as such?

You don’t see RED’s competitors in Germany or Japan using that kind of language and marketing...

So as a dedicated RED customer, I want to see a move away from the militant imagery in their marketing. They’re already halfway there. Komodo, Dragon, Gemini, Helium, these are all great names that embody creativity and adventure. You can invoke a sense of toughness with something like Monstro instead of referencing a literal weapon.... But even these examples are then wrapped up in marketing language as 'arsenals' and branded with the Weapon skull logo.

I personally don’t want to be reminded every time I pull out my camera of death, assault rifles...

If we're talking about the branding and marketing of the RED products...

It's not so cut-and-dry, and involves personalities, morals, ethics, values, tastes, contexts and a bunch of other unquantifiable intangibles.

While the 'weaponization' of the RED camera system via branding and marketing doesn't interest me personally, I'm not really offended by it either.

I'll say this though, for better or worse, from the design of this website down to the little arrows on the RedMags, no-one can accuse RED of not paying attention to every aspect of the camera system they've developed. It's a huge amount of work that's gone into creating a unified and cohesive 'brand'. I'd also say it probably wasn't (and isn't) a bad idea to opt for excessive or even misplaced creativity over blandness and polite deference to the status-quo. Especially if you factor in the high probability that they were still going to get criticized for it no matter how they presented their products.

At this point though, I think it's fair to say RED have taken on board some of the criticisms, and will probably continue to do so as they refine their overall 'brand'. But in some ways I doubt they're ever going to really change and are more likely to continue more or less as is, to keep it interesting for themselves if no-one else. At least while it's still a privately owned company with Jim and Jarred at the helm. Which is a good thing imo.

People are obviously entitled to turn their noses up at some of the branding and marketing decisions RED have made, but RED are just as entitled (and likely) to keep doing as they see fit. So, yeah...


If we're talking about design of the actual RED products...

The development of image-making tools has always gone hand in hand with military applications of the technology. There's no way that's going to change. The tools and processes will always be developed directly by or for, or co-opted and adapted by, the military.

There's also an inherent similarity in some ways between the military and film industry requirements when it comes to weapons and cameras and other equipment, so that kind of crossover and back-and-forth development is always going to be reflected in the design at some level.

That also comes down to the fact that film equipment and genuine military-designed product is primarily based on industrial and utilitarian design requirements in the first place.

It could be said those particular design qualities and requirements are masculine in nature.

In contrast, Apples designs (for example), with their soft smooth shiny fragile surfaces, could be considered comparatively effeminate in nature. Which might appeal to a broad market and be fitting for the kind of status-affirming jewelry-like products that they make and the end-uses they're put to, but I don't think that design ethic should apply to industrial-level image-making tools. I think the stills camera manufacturers have found a better balance between style and ergonomics in that area.

While I think RED would find more scope for creativity in their designs by looking more towards industrialism and utilitarianism than militarism, I don't see them trying to make their products appear blatantly weapon-like and militaristic by design anyway.


If we're talking about the effect of the militarization of 'everything' on society in general...

This isn't the place for that kind of discussion.

[Alexander Sutton-Hough]

Are you suggesting that every gun owner is potentially a mass shooter?

When some who is not in the military in active war owns a military assault rifle or sniper rifle that are 100% designed to kill people and a lot of them, yeah creepy vibe why he owns it and shows it off. Its not a sport or hunting rifle, its a military grade weapon for killing people from a long distance. So what is going through his head for the reasoning to own it? It one thing to play video games and watch movies, its another to start bringing it into your real life.

Thus why this forum is discussing for red to get away from branding of cameras with that vibe of assault weapons and killing people.

[Bobby Farokhzad]

When some who is not in the military in active war owns a military assault rifle or sniper rifle that are 100% designed to kill people and a lot of them, yeah creepy vibe why he owns it and shows it off. Its not a sport or hunting rifle, its a military grade weapon for killing people from a long distance. So what is going through his head for the reasoning to own it? It one thing to play video games and watch movies, its another to start bringing it into your real life.

Thus why this forum is discussing for red to get away from branding of cameras with that vibe of assault weapons and killing people.

Point taken. However you did not answer my question, are all gun owners mass shooters? The answer is of course unequivocally no! Wether or not Red decides to move away from the military naming convention is up to them, no one should be offended or triggered by a name that suggests a weapon of some sort or an image of a weapon of some kind. I never really liked the skull on the camera body or the name Weapon for a camera but it never bothered me, it’s just a name. Nothing more.

[M Harvey]

I'lll just weigh in to agree that I'm glad Red has moved away from the military theme, and hope they continue to go in a more fresh, inspired, "smart" direction.

I think that Red must have recognized years ago that their marketing was effectively selling the product short. I long associated the company with extreme sports and the aggressive masculine posturing that can go with that (and I take the military language chiefly as a competitive metaphor). And while Red of course is rightfully a big name in adventure and sports cinematography, I think that aggressive marketing caused me to overlook the broader strengths of Red-- I thought of it as the company you go to if you need high FPS and the rigging solutions for situations that are rare in my work, and not so much good skin tones or "smart" modular design. There'd sometimes be eye rolls on set when the company's name came up-- despite the hierarchy and professionalism of a film crew, the camera department usually wasn't interested in being styled as, say, an "elite Navy Seal strike force" heading out on a secret "mission" with a sleek "weapon."
Long story short: it's less that I was offended, and more that for me the brand obscured the benefits of the product. And my sense is that there's less of that cultural mismatch now, and that that has benefitted the brand.

[Alexander Sutton-Hough]

Point taken. However you did not answer my question, are all gun owners mass shooters? The answer is of course unequivocally no! Wether or not Red decides to move away from the military naming convention is up to them, no one should be offended or triggered by a name that suggests a weapon of some sort or an image of a weapon of some kind. I never really liked the skull on the camera body or the name Weapon for a camera but it never bothered me, it’s just a name. Nothing more.

I have worked in house in large PR and Marketing agencies through out my career. Branding is everything. It not just the name of a product its the overall lifestyle image they are advertising with red cameras and cinematography as being related to going to war and killing people. Its the lifestyle image they are trying to brand on to the cinematography community and as one of the leaders of digital cinema cameras, they have the ability to influence that image.