RED's militaristic branding and marketing.

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

But isn't that what everyone does with a product, name it something memorable? Car companies do it with reckless abandon. RED's tongue-in-cheek naming is silly on purpose. Nobody would ever mistake a Weapon for a weapon. Or a Bomb EVF for a bomb. Speaking of bombs, have you ever tried Da Bomb hot sauce?

I see it as playful fun, nothing more. I can easily differentiate between a company being creatively off-kilter and the real thing. That's all this is, Karens getting their panties in a wad because of semantics. When the rubber meets the road, a RED has to deliver the goods. Otherwise, all the goofy names won't matter. Fortunately for us, RED delivers, and does it with a smile.

While this is true in a commodity consumer market place where competition is fierce and "shock marketing" impact makes a difference, especially with the Chinese subsidized product aggressive pricing entries aimed at wiping out the domestic competition, our industry traditionally is not a commodity consumer and the traditional marketing had been more pragmatic with focus on tech , specs ergonomics and professional production intergration. ARRI stuck to that model and is doing quite well. RED decided to lure the newbies with their consumer style marketing model. They succeeded as well, but not without irking some of the truly competent pro crowd. I think they consciously made that decision.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

[...]I see it as playful fun, nothing more. I can easily differentiate between a company being creatively off-kilter and the real thing. That's all this is, Karens getting their panties in a wad because of semantics. [...]

I'm a privileged white male. Society makes it trivial for me to see things however I want to see things, because society does all the rationalizing for me. Without being asked, norms serve me.

It is all fun and games for those who make the rules. Some people celebrate that fact. I simply acknowledge it, and ask: how is the skull logo serving me? How does it serve my work? How does it serve those around me?

 

[Mark Phelan]

I'm a privileged white male.

Well good for you.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

While this is true in a commodity consumer market place where competition is fierce and "shock marketing" impact makes a difference, especially with the Chinese subsidized product aggressive pricing entries aimed at wiping out the domestic competition, our industry traditionally is not a commodity consumer and the traditional marketing had been more pragmatic with focus on tech , specs ergonomics and professional production intergration. ARRI stuck to that model and is doing quite well. RED decided to lure the newbies with their consumer style marketing model. They succeeded as well, but not without irking some of the truly competent pro crowd. I think they consciously made that decision.

IMHO it's more a personal fascination of RED's CEO/CFO about US military. In many ways they behave like kids in front of a christmas tree, and sometimes we also get one toy to play with.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

IMHO it's more a personal fascination of RED's CEO/CFO about US military. In many ways they behave like kids in front of a christmas tree, and sometimes we also get one toy to play with.

Having met the RED leadership many times I think you are grossly under estimating the experience and competence behind RED branding and marketing...

 

[Jamil Stubbs]

In 2021, it's honestly not hard for me to believe that what RED names their products is a topic for such discussion.

If anything, I think this year has brought on more reactive irony and suppressive behavior from those who think they are not suppressive than ever before. I think it is also ironic that we as customers feel the need to police the naming convention of products we decide to purchase or not to purchase. If you don't like RED as a company or the nomenclature and branding of their products then simply don't purchase them.

Instead, to have the audacity to make a direct statement about a company on a public forum available to the entire internet, that it is too "brash" or "hyper-masculine" is stereotyping equally in its own right. Some prefer femininity in the products they purchase and some prefer masculinity, but who are we to point the finger at what is right and wrong and tell a designer their creation is politically incorrect because it has a skull logo or weapon nomenclature? It is stereotypical to consider a word like "weapon", "gun", "bomb" offensive or any word for that matter as they are just a "word" and figment of language and nomenclature, which is only offensive when applied in certain contexts or when accompanying assumptions, statements and or opinions which so far have only been generated by a "user".

RED has the constitutional right to brand their products however they see fit and if they like military nomenclature and symbolism, then more power to them and as a supporter of our constitution and our military, I fully stand behind that position. I personally like minimalistic design and I probably would be happier with less logos in general on all products (cough cough GDU), but I find it somewhat crazy to consider "Weapon" or "Skull Logos" as hyper-masculinity and offensive? To associate a logo or words as "masculine" or "feminine" goes against the whole gender identity movement to begin with, so the point you are trying to make is a little ironic and you might want to look more from above at what you are really trying to say.

If you guys have family in the military or have any experience using or owning more guns then maybe you wouldn't be so afraid of them or find words and logos associated with them as offensive or masculine. I know quite a few female gun owners, which is funny because they are beautiful, feminine, and many of which are published models who you would never expect to own firearms judging by their appearance. So is owning a gun really that masculine or is that really a judgmental assumption? I find to often, most people easily "hurt" by gun ownership, gun marketing, hunting, military and associated logos, etc. are those who have the least experience with them and are "judging" from afar.

I agree that companies providing products for established markets should focus their best interests on being as utilitarian and neutral as possible in order to spread their reach as far across that market as possible, but to call out RED over their naming conventions all because of some recent events is a little ridiculous, very narrow minded and quite honestly immature.

Thank you for this wise statement!!!

 

[M Harvey]

A few people here have responded to the original post by bringing up concerns akin to censorship/"cancelling"/etc. I get why people frame it that way-- conversations about "free speech" are very prominent and uncomfortable right now (at least in the US), and I have to imagine that many of us have mixed feelings about the exercise of different kinds of power to control public speech.

But I actually don't think this is THAT conversation.

I don't think anyone has threatened Red-- there are no calls to start a boycott, and no one has said that Red in some way "shouldn't be allowed" to name their cameras after weapons, much less that the Constitution doesn't afford Red the right. So far, this actually strikes me so far as a fairly constructive conversation where users are reporting back on real issues with the brand (some elements of which Red already seems to be moving on from).

It's the internet, of course, so trolls will descend and tempers will flare and probably we'll drift into a more general political discussion that no one wants to have. But this is reduser, and we don't HAVE to make it that conversation-- we can keep it focused on the future of a brand we all want to support.

 

[Alexander Sutton-Hough]

For me, personally, as someone interested in history, the skull logo and the militaristic attitude conjures up far right fascist symbolism and, as evidenced by a lot of people in this thread, I don’t think I’m alone in that. As a cinematographer, I make an effort to ensure my crew is of diverse backgrounds, but how must it feel to them arriving on set and being greeted with symbolism that represents a toxic culture that is historically sexist, racist, and violent? What kind of environment are we creating and perpetuating? Not one of inclusivity.

You don’t even have to agree with my views on this to see how this could become problematic for us as professionals overall. The world is shifting away from glorifying violent fantasies (a positive, in my opinion) whether you like it or not. Hollywood is going to follow the money, as it always has. While there hasn’t been an industry backlash to RED’s branding yet, as things in the US get increasingly worse, it could only be a matter of time before it comes. When that happens, that hurts all of our investments in RED products.

As an owner of RED Cinema Camera, I want the militaristic death lifestyle and symbol branding gone and out of the workplace because I feel it has no place on a film set or in the cinematography community. But even if you disagree, from a pure PR perspective, you’d be better off without it so as to not risk our hard earned money spent on RED products we’re making a living with. This year has been super hard on all of us for work. The last thing we need is to be turned down for work due to a backlash to owning a RED camera and their lifestyle branding.

 

[Mark Phelan]

For me, personally, as someone interested in history, the skull logo and the militaristic attitude conjures up far right fascist symbolism and, as evidenced by a lot of people in this thread, I don’t think I’m alone in that. As a cinematographer, I make an effort to ensure my crew is of diverse backgrounds, but how must it feel to them arriving on set and being greeted with symbolism that represents a toxic culture that is historically sexist, racist, and violent? What kind of environment are we creating and perpetuating? Not one of inclusivity.

You don’t even have to agree with my views on this to see how this could become problematic for us as professionals overall. The world is shifting away from glorifying violent fantasies (a positive, in my opinion) whether you like it or not. Hollywood is going to follow the money, as it always has. While there hasn’t been an industry backlash to RED’s branding yet, as things in the US get increasingly worse, it could only be a matter of time before it comes. When that happens, that hurts all of our investments in RED products.

As an owner of RED Cinema Camera, I want the militaristic death lifestyle and symbol branding gone and out of the workplace because I feel it has no place on a film set or in the cinematography community. But even if you disagree, from a pure PR perspective, you’d be better off without it so as to not risk our hard earned money spent on RED products we’re making a living with. This year has been super hard on all of us for work. The last thing we need is to be turned down for work due to a backlash to owning a RED camera and their lifestyle branding.

How about Barney? Is that better?

 

[Alexander Sutton-Hough]

How about Barney? Is that better?

This is exactly my point of the toxic environment that Hollywood might backlash to and hurt us as RED owners and the product reputation. Mark your only adding examples to my argument and could potentially be hurting all of us in the long run.

 

[Mark Phelan]

This is exactly my point of the toxic environment that Hollywood might backlash to and hurt us as RED owners and the product reputation. Mark your only adding examples to my argument and could potentially be hurting all of us in the long run.

Assuming you're (not your) an actual owner, you should have had this discussion with yourself BEFORE you purchased the "far right fascist" camera. You have only yourself to blame.

 

[Alexander Sutton-Hough]

Assuming you're (not your) an actual owner, you should have had this discussion with yourself BEFORE you purchased the "far right fascist" camera. You have only yourself to blame.

You can check out my websites equipment list. http://www.alexandersutton-hough.com/equipment I am also registered as a LLC as well in California as Sutton-Hough Cinematography LLC.

I own the Red Gemini serial number #017485. I bought it through BH photo as a Dragon-x kit and upgraded 6 months later to the Gemini Sensor. Do you want me to send you invoices and emails from BH photo and Red?

This was my lively hood up until COVID hit Los Angles hard and my clients.

I chose RED because in Los Angeles a lot of my clients were demanding RED for projects so I invested where the market was demanding to make a living.

I had that discussion with myself and weighed all my camera options, but the clients I have been working with demand RED for the camera tech reputation and specs. Day one I covered up the skull with Velcro and then later replaced it with a small rig cheese plate and added custom made power cables splitter box attached to it.

So Mark would you like to share more about you? Are you a owner of a RED camera and making a living with it?

 

[Raymond Zananiri]

Not a good hypothetical. Childish Gambino shocked the senses with his aesthetic on "This is America" and people properly recognized it for the art that it was. If Mr Tarantino loses confidence in his ability to tell stories of grit, determination, betrayal, and general detachment, somebody will surely rise to the occasion. Perhaps even Mr. Tarantino himself!

I don't know what you mean by not good hypothetical. The point is: there are many iconic works of art from the past that would not have a chance to come to life today. Not to mention the emerging pressure to censor them altogether and pull them out of circulation.

That means we live in a very repressive period of our history.

This is not about people having differing opinions.

Museums are pulling out works of artists and canceling exhibitions.
Streaming services are rejecting productions that are "controversial".
Publishing houses are canceling book deals they made.
Universities are censoring free speech and firing faculty members.

The danger is very real and the response to it so far has been in one of two way:

1- Some decide to make an insincere apology and acknowledge that they harmed many people and ask for a chance to be rehabilitated.
2- Or, some hoodlums decide to resort to violence to rebel against this repression.

Intelligent artists need to stand up together to this, peacefully and with good composure and say that they will not accept the censorship of fellow artists no matter what their views are.

The intent of the original post is not simply to express a personal opinion. The intent is to employ those potent tactics, to galvanize public and institutional pressure to cast a company as "extremist" and pressure it to conform to their view of the world or else.

I see the same tactics used again and again and intelligent people are acquiescing, in fear.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Assuming you're (not your) an actual owner, you should have had this discussion with yourself BEFORE you purchased the "far right fascist" camera. You have only yourself to blame.

That's one of the dumber things I've heard on Reduser.

It's not that they think it's a fascist camera - it's just a suggestion to alter one (minor in the grand scheme of things) aspect of their business methods.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

That's one of the dumber things I've heard on Reduser.

It's not that they think it's a fascist camera - it's just a suggestion to alter one (minor in the grand scheme of things) aspect of their business methods.

I thought the branding meant "the left radical antifa camera" dang it ;-)

 

[Mark Phelan]

That's one of the dumber things I've heard on Reduser.

It's not that they think it's a fascist camera - it's just a suggestion to alter one (minor in the grand scheme of things) aspect of their business methods.

His words, not mine, thus the quotation marks.

 

[William Long]

Why take it and make it so personal?

The discussion is simply about the paint job on a very good camera.
Of course the points of view are going to differ, it's very subjective.

 

[Michael Hastings]

His words, not mine, thus the quotation marks.

You took it out of context which was an adjective before "symbolism" and stuck it in front of "camera", a common but inappropriate technique.

But as far as the dumb part it was referring to that he should have decided not to buy the camera he thought was best for his needs and go away rather than simply and politely telling the manufacturer that he didn't like that type of branding and making cogent suggestions for what he thought would be a better way.

PS
By the way, I agree with Jacek that Red has very capable and sophisticated marketing people - so they clearly are choosing this type of branding in spite of suggestions by paying customers to go in a different direction. But sophisticated/capable people make mistakes and some of us think it may be at least a minor one. As some have pointed out, those of you that own RED have a financial stake in how that works out.

 

[Donald MJ Anderson]

I remember a simpler time - A simpler time when REDs branding was either considered COOL or CHILDISH. Now CHILDISH has been replaced with FAR RIGHT. Sad....really.

Extreme POV`s absolutely everywhere now.

 

[Bobby Farokhzad]

Alexa owners reading this thread must be getting a good laugh at our expense.