Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Lose the "Visual Verbosity" please

Status
Not open for further replies.
Harry, you have probably missed a few discussions on these boards few years back. :)

I see two disrespectful remarks in your prior post. In the latter post there seems to be a lot of anger.
I am not offended but you can do better.

Let's try again.
What you are achieving with this particular tone (not topic) is a) building up negativity and b) reducing the chances of this notion being considered by Red (i.e. screwing it up for others with similar request).


See, not talking about positivity.
 
really hrvoje, please explain the exact mechanism that you feel that a third party pointing out an issue and while doing so also is engaged in a somewhat negative back and forth with some cliche based lemmings would have any effect on the decision making process of a large company a thousand miles away from this argument? I'd really like to know this logical flow to your thinking here. In other words if someone was informing you that there were piles of birdshit on your favorite car, would the fact that two other people whom you have never met, and who themselves between them are debating on the amount of birdshit on your car, have any baring whatsoever on whether there is actually birdshit on your car? I think you are placing way too much emphasis on third parties impact on the attitudes and beliefs of people who don't give a shit. (at least not about third party squabbles) Of course I seriously doubt you will answer this because that is not how things go on forums like these, which are primarily cheerleading squads and there is no room for any one different, then some asshole inevitably calls for a censorship or banning. yea man just ban me ... douchbag.
 
This thread has gone off track, but to bring it back a bit...I really! like the brandings and all markings on the camera and accessories. To me at least, reminds of the military planes that has EVERYTHING marked and pointed.
Just a plain black camera and side rails would be boring...but that's me.
 
This thread, somewhat dubious to begin with, IMO, has been totally lost to a dude with 28 posts, most of them here, talking about himself and his own great ideas. I smell troll. :troll: I don't think we should dignify his claims of marketing genius with a response.
 
All my life in art music or as an employer of people, i always requested that people not tell me how good I am doing but tell me what is wrong. This is a technical forum, about technical issues, unfortunately there is always those who live on these forums and a somewhat cliquey, clubby, lickspittley environment emerges. Which is fine if your are into that, I am just visiting temporarily to share with the executives at Red that it's time to reel in the graphics department. I had no idea this was such a sacrosanct issue and that it is wrong to question these godlike things, or at least if we questioned them we better make damn sure we strip it down and candy coat it. Like I said, I am against this style, it is DISHONEST. I prefer to tell it like it is and be done with it. Kill the graphics that's all. I gave a very thorough explanation as to why. Certain lemmings (which are found in all corners of the earth) thought that they would bring this into the realm of personality simply because I actually have one. I come armed only with ideas, never cliches and never any cotton candy. If you want cotton candy watch CNN - if you want to the truth goto www.voxnews.com - That is more my style, if you don't like it you are more than welcome to read another thread. Why in the world are you subjecting yourselves to my posts then? go somewhere else, it's a free world. (oops not really)
 
Harry - you can say tell the graphics department whatever you like. It would be a bit more convincing if your own work suggested you know about what you speak. :smiley:

Maybe you are just trying to talk your way into a marketing job at RDC. LOL
 
Terry VerHaar said:
This thread, somewhat dubious to begin with, IMO, has been totally lost to a dude with 28 posts, most of them here, talking about himself and his own great ideas. I smell troll. :troll: I don't think we should dignify his claims of marketing genius with a response.
Click to expand...

Somewhat dubious? speak for yourself terry, most agree or can you not read? If most agree, how in the world is it troll-like. And again I only spoke about myself because people were CONSTANTLY DEMANDING THAT I GO THERE. It's called chronology. look into it. And what about that little MAJORITY on this thread who agreed with me? should we ignore them too because they dared to agree? yea lets ignore the majority... you sound like the troll my friend. Maybe you should get together with the person who suggested they lock the thread and bore each other to death.
 
harry stuckey said:
yea man just ban me ... douchbag.
Click to expand...

You won't get banned for being a contrarian. There are plenty of people who agree with your opinion of Red's branding (myself included) but you've gone totally overboard and de-railed this thread with your self-righteous rambling. There's no conspiracy of fanboys trying to censor critics on Reduser. You're just being long-winded, unconstructive and inflammatory.

There's an internet term for what you are, it's referred to as "butthurt". Turn off your computer, go smoke a doobie and try again tomorrow.
 
harry stuckey said:
Joe, I seriously doubt the owner of the company has a hands on approach regarding the graphics - This is the marketing department - not the owner who is responsible for the design of the graphics. To suggest that the billionaire owner of this company has directed this graphic mess and that by questioning it, questions his ability to be a billionaire and thus "steps over the mark" is a ridiculous assertion on it's very face. I am saying precicely the opposite, that the billionaire owner probably has too many other things going to be focused too much on these details. And this is why a thoughtful person will bring up these issues, especially on account of the very longstanding position of the Red Camera company to solicit precisely that - recommendations, augmentations, and improvements. So you are welcome stay put within the "marks" and lets others bring up important issues that need discussion.
Click to expand...

I think what you are missing Harry is how marketing actually works. Jim Jannard and his Red Team are some of the most effective marketers in the world. How many businesses do you know that are this effective without spending any money on advertising. Up until recently the sole marketing of Red was this forum, NAB, a lot of attitude and what you call 'visual verbosity'.

Consider how 'visual verbosity' works. How many people do you know that drink bottles of black sugar, years after Coca Cola have market dominance. How many people drink it and give it to their children even though they know there can only be a negative outcome. Wow-people consistently buying against their better judgement! That's good marketing! It may be somewhat evil but nevertheless it is good marketing.
Then you have a company like Red who have a great product and "visual attitude". That seems like a good formula to me. Whether I like the marketing or not is irrelevant.

BTW: Jim Jannard and Jarred have overseen every step of Red's marketing. That is why, Red is so successful. In the early days Jim and Jarred handcut all of the Red stickers that some of us were so eager to pay for.
 
you wrote: (Up until recently the sole marketing of Red was this forum, NAB, a lot of attitude and what you call 'visual verbosity'.)


I dont recall any visual verbosity in the early stages of the Red Company. A lot attitude yes but visually they did not clutter the products like they do today. And I disagree that their success was "based" on marketing, it most certainly was not. It was based on technical achievement - they built a better mousetrap for a world hungry for a better mousetrap, and the world hungry and eager for such developments rushed towards them like a magnet. marketing had little to do with it when you announce a 4k camera for 17 grand. sorry but doesn't take much marketing to create demand there. marketing was very much subsidiary to their technical achievements which of course is the backbone of this company. (marketing was always secondary)
 
harry stuckey said:
really hrvoje, please explain the exact mechanism that you feel that a third party pointing out an issue and while doing so also is engaged in a somewhat negative back and forth with some cliche based lemmings would have any effect on the decision making process of a large company a thousand miles away from this argument? I'd really like to know this logical flow to your thinking here.
Click to expand...

No problem.
This should be sufficient.


The exact mechanism consists of:

- The issue pointed out
- The impression of the person pointing out the issue
- The environment created around that particular issue

Workings of a mechanism (typically):

If the person presents valid arguments with a respectable approach, it provides a chance for others who disagree to re-think, and it allows others who agree to join the conversation and give proper feedback, with higher potential for the notion being considered (as it has been the case many times on this forum).


Potential side-effect of the current mechanism:

If the whole experience leaves a bitter taste, the chances of consideration are reduced and every other time the same notion gets mentioned it is likely to trigger a negative emotion from the past experience.


Location of the mechanism:

Red's forum with direct insight to user experience, miles don't exist in www and data is click away.


Potential improvements to the mechanism:

Avoiding using caps, using paragraphs, avoiding provocations or responding to them, tact.




harry stuckey said:
In other words if someone was informing you that there were piles of birdshit on your favorite car, would the fact that two other people whom you have never met, and who themselves between them are debating on the amount of birdshit on your car, have any baring whatsoever on whether there is actually birdshit on your car? I think you are placing way too much emphasis on third parties impact on the attitudes and beliefs of people who don't give a shit. (at least not about third party squabbles)
Click to expand...

Wrong analogy.

You are not informing Red about accidental crap, you are presenting the notion to Red that their choice has flaws and you are doing it disrespectfully.
Reactions you minded from others, which got you upset, are a reflection of your type of approach.


harry stuckey said:
Of course I seriously doubt you will answer this because that is not how things go on forums like these, which are primarily cheerleading squads and there is no room for any one different
Click to expand...

That was a generalization. I understand the cause but it is an incorrect one.
Hence the incorrect expectation based on it.
 
ha ha ha - don't change - ha ha ha yea sure never change.. ha ha what a joke this mentality is. Yea lets never change a thing because everything is perfect. (Guess you lemmings havent read the principle philosophy of red camera company (EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE!)

so long as you are not in a forum of lemmings who hate change or opinions that differ from the lemming pack. Have fun with you lemming mentality -- i assure you you will get nowhere with your Dont Change philosophy.
 
harry stuckey said:
you wrote: (Up until recently the sole marketing of Red was this forum, NAB, a lot of attitude and what you call 'visual verbosity'.)


I dont recall any visual verbosity in the early stages of the Red Company. A lot attitude yes but visually they did not clutter the products like they do today. And I disagree that their success was "based" on marketing, it most certainly was not. It was based on technical achievement - they built a better mousetrap for a world hungry for a better mousetrap, and the world hungry and eager for such developments rushed towards them like a magnet. marketing had little to do with it when you announce a 4k camera for 17 grand. sorry but doesn't take much marketing to create demand there. marketing was very much subsidiary to their technical achievements which of course is the backbone of this company. (marketing was always secondary)
Click to expand...

Hi Harry, I suggest that 'Marketing' and 'Product' are equally a part of Red's success in the market. Marketing was seamlessly integrated into every step of Red's progress. However, It looks like we disagree and I imagine no amount of arguing or discussing will change either of our viewpoints.
Joe

So-enough procrastinating for me (on Reduser) and back to work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top