RED's militaristic branding and marketing.

[Misha Engel]

After seeing RED’s new Youtube videos touting “RED TECH | ARSENAL '' posted the day after Jan 6, I couldn’t stop thinking about how so much of RED’s branding throughout the years has always alluded to weaponry and how it plays right into America’s culture of violence. I don’t know about anyone else, but especially after the events last week here in the US, I’m pretty tired of seeing the glorification of guns and war overall, but I’m especially discouraged to keep seeing it featured so prominently by RED in our community of filmmaking.

Shit got real this week.

Shit is real in countries like Afganistan, Jemen, Irak, etc.. they where invadid by the US-military and private military companies like Blackwater and not with RED camera's but with the killing stuff. When Wikileaks uncovered this with the help of Manning and Assange... well we all know(or atleast should know) how that went. RED with it's skull branding is just fun for people who live in a "free" country. I'm more worried about how US-tax money is spend outside the US and Trump being the first president who didn't start a physical WAR(where most if not all previous ones since WOII did).
Let RED keep it's branding and hope more people understand the horrors of WAR financed with US tax-money.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4785472/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

 

[Dominik Muench]

QUOTE: "I think my RED fits in nicely with my other shooting utensils."

You Americans really get to play with the best toys. Here in Oz, cameras and handthrown rocks is about as good as it gets for the humble cit who does not live on a broadacre farm or station (ranch).

I'm based on the Gold Coast mate

 

[Jaime Vallés]

Agree completely with the original post. It's time for RED's branding to grow up.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I've never been a fan of the military aesthetics of Red. The same ways I'm not a fan of alienware and similar computers when trying to get performance equipment for post-production. I think it's juvenile and unnecessarily niche.
But when it comes to technology, there's a reason why Apple makes big bucks on clean and smooth design. They're the only ones who seem to have a good sense of the design and function combinations while everyone else, literally, everyone else don't.

I'm glad that the military-style seems to be an outgoing trend though, hopefully, it never comes back. I remember when Weapon cameras even got held up at airports due to the name "Weapon" being on the delivery papers.

I also don't understand why it has to do with cinematography and photography. Only recently when Jarred expressed his love for old medium format cameras in relation to Komodo did I sense a more logical sense of design around the love for images. I think that a proper design and naming for camera equipment should celebrate the art of cinematography, filmmaking and photography rather than the mess that Red gear has been under.

I would hope that the DSMC3 system would be renamed to something more in line of smooth and clean design. Just look at the clean design, name and feeling of quality of Hasselblad or Leica. When people mention or holds a Hasselblad, it is something impressive. A Red with the "Weapon" logo screaming at the front does not feel quality for anyone but the ones who knows about Red's quality cameras. So I'd wish we get a 180 turn of these things into a more prestine slick and quality-oozing design and naming.

In my opinon, the Komodo is the best designed camera from Red ever. But I think the paint and markings could look better and less chaotic. Having a background in design work, I think Red can do better going forward.

 

[Ryan Sauve]

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.

 

[Alexander Sutton-Hough]

Next thing you know, it will be uncalled for to say "I'm going to go out and SHOOT with my camera" As much smack as I talk about RED the naming conventions will not be one of them..

Growing up in San Diego in school in the 2000s there were a lot of school shootings from white teenage boys trying to shoot up high-schools. My highschool was because the boy was rejected by the on campus military recruiter for being overweight. He came back with a shot gun and tried to kill everyone one in the office and was shot in the street by off duty police officer who was dropping his kid off. In the lockers near by still had bullet holes for years to come. This was two weeks after the Santana high school shooting few miles away and a kid killed bunch of students. My Dad grew up two blocks from the famous 70s girl who hated Mondays and shot up a whole elementary school. So yeah I make it a habit of not to say shooting and say filming instead as often as I can. Also grew up in school during 9/11 and at my school had a lot of mild eastern families in a very Republican racist area. So the notion of watching what you say was also on every student's mind to protect our mild eastern friends. Also watched a lot of friends go to war after highschool and regretted it. So I keep respect by not devaluing their service and playing into juvenile views of playing pretend soldier with my camera gear and cinematography career. Also my country just had a domestic terrorist attack by white guys fantasy they are some kind of revolutionary soldier.

 

[Mark Phelan]

I've never have an issue with the "militaristic" naming convention used by RED. Like Phil, I thought calling the viewfinder a BOMB was going to be an issue at the airport, i.e. "You can't say bomb on a plane" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCN31uK45GE

It's all a bit of fun and people in 2021 are WAY TOO easily offended. People are looking for reasons to take offense, and I find that offensive.

If there's anything I'd like RED to change, it'd be the use of the name RED multiple times on every bit of gear. It's almost as if they think we have amnesia and can't remember the name of that company the Oakley guy started. What's his name?

 

[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 :emote_hippie:

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 :wink5:

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.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I have definitely posted on this before... but yeah I think this is terrible branding.

I actually do think it encourages the bad tendencies of folks on REDuser.

So much juvenile, adolescent, aggressive testosterone posturing nonsense that I don't have time for in my life.

It definitely affected my decision to not buy into RED and to instead move towards Alexa and spend less time on REDuser. Just a calmer, more mature and professional world out there.

I'm from South Africa and I've had friends killed by folks with guns. In the theatre school I studied there was a bullet hole in the cafe window - a guy shot my directing teacher the year before I got there because he was upset about the timeslot his play was scheduled in.

My guess is the people doing all this branding came from a nice cushy, lucky, privileged position where they didn't actually lose friends as a result of gun violence.

And serisously... do I really want to point a WEAPON at my actors? No thanks. I mean if they were a bunch of rich white boys maybe they'd think it's cool but come on man, that's a tiny slice of the real world.

Please count me among the people who would prefer to not use film equipment that looks like it was branded by a design firm that spends the rest of its week doing hardcore right-wing militaristic websites.

Also WTF is up with the nuclear blast for GDU?! I mean I guess Hiroshima was a result of "Research, Innovation and Results" (what they have below the nuclear blast) but wow, what a fail. More "toys for boys" nonsense. And for the record I am a boy who loves toys, loves military aircraft etc... just I don't feel it has to be aggressively branded in everyone's face.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Raymond Zananiri]

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 :wink5:



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.

Revising your work for artistic reasons is one thing. Doing it because you fear prosecution from society is another.

Imagine for a minute that Tarantino decided, way back, to put Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction scripts on the shelf and then decided to film them today. Do you think he would be remotely able to leave them untouched? They would have been altered beyond recognition. And we would have lost two icons of film history.

It's one thing to find the Red themes juvenile etc. It's another matter to link those themes to the ugly events at the Capitol (as the original post did). What does one thing have to do with another? I see this tactic used again and again to repress others, as I see it here in this post: "If you use certain words or make a certain argument or have a certain preference, you automatically belong to a certain hideous group and need to either bow, apologize and change your ways or be outcast and prosecuted"

These are not good times for any artists or free thinkers. It is not the responsibility of any individual to bear the ills of society. If Red wants to put a skull on their camera that's their choice and if someone gets inspired the wrong way by it, that should never be their responsibility. And anyone trying to make the link should be confronted, politely and respectfully.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

It's all a bit of fun and people in 2021 are WAY TOO easily offended.

Why is it that this seems to be every counter-argument any time someone is critical about things in society? People can be critical and challenge norms and conventions in society without ever being offended. Being critical is as old as philosophical civilization. Critical thinkers and thinkers questioning conventions progress society to new levels and have done so for hundreds and thousands of years. Most of the current society is built upon ideas questioning the old.

The only ones I can see who are offended are the ones upholding the status quo and who can't accept any criticism. Technically, they are the offended ones because they seek shallow defense of critical thought.

Militaristic naming and conventions can be criticized because it has nothing to do with cameras. The naming conventions in this style is closer to a juvenile war game, a style of screaming bear-can squeezing humvee kids-with-beards shooting guns in the middle of the desert. This is the mentality that comes to mind whenever I see a militaristic type of style for something that has nothing to do with the military, war games and war.

It just comes off as unserious and juvenile, which in turn gives off the similar unserious and juvenile sense on set. I've seen people laugh out loud at Red gear because of this and it's rather hilarious to see, but I rather have my gear be more grown-up in style and naming. I'm too old for playing war games and nothing of this has to do with me feeling offended, I just think the styling is juvenile.