DPReview Interview With Canon Execs, \

[-pekr-]

Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.

This is the most bizarre business quote I ever read Have you ever heard of the product segmentation, target audience, etc? Companies do spend fortunes to know their customers, to predict or influence their behaviour, etc.

To be fair, you are taking Orangutan's comment out of context. He was responding to the sexist and elitist statement... "you can sell million of devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousands for the higher price...Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ...."

No, he was not and you should learn of how not to put things out of context yourself. Just go and re-read prior conversation - those two paragraphs I left did not put the third one out of the context. To your "sexist and elitist" accusation - I have used the "quotes", as the term "blogging moms" was used in subsequent discussions re m50 release. It was used mostly as an attack quote to Canon, rather than to harass any social group of ppl.

I took Orangutan's statement as meaning that most companies don't impose cultural background checks on their customers. Indeed most manufacturers try to produce a range of products meant to appeal to customers are varying levels of resources and sophistication. In that context, he is correct, Canon does not care who is buying their products. If they could make the same amount of money and have the same profit margin by selling only entry level rebels or selling only 1Dx IIs, they would probably do so. But, they sell a mix of cameras at mix of prices because that is their successful business model.

And you are of course wrong again. Company not caring who's buying their products is a doomed one. It is quite normal to address your adverts to particular sex. Apart from corporate IT, I work in advertising, run LED screen business and I don't need to be tuaght how to scope the target audience. Where is the sexism in there, if I target a wedding advert to women in particular or some children related stuff to moms? You are making stuff up ....

I won't even dignify the blatant sexism with a response.

This is my last warning to you - one more false accusation to the person you know nothing about re sexisms or other aspects of social life, and you get reported to moderator for a blatant accussations.

 

[Orangutan]

Canon does not care who buys their gear to put money in their bank account. Neither do any of the other companies: these are not are not charities or arts advocacy associations, they are profit-driven companies, and nothing else.

This is the most bizarre business quote I ever read Have you ever heard of the product segmentation, target audience, etc? Companies do spend fortunes to know their customers, to predict or influence their behaviour, etc.

To be fair, you are taking Orangutan's comment out of context. He was responding to the sexist and elitist statement... "you can sell million of devices for the price of x, or sell hundred of thousands for the higher price...Guess which groups creative ppl belong into. So if you really think that selling to "blogging moms" is just OK, well then ...."

No, he was not

Yes, I was. The terms "blogging moms" and "creative ppl"(sic) jumped out at me from your message. I should have called out those ridiculous ideas explicitly; fortunately, unfocused did a great job in follow-up.

To your "sexist and elitist" accusation - I have used the "quotes", as the term "blogging moms" was used in subsequent discussions re m50 release.

Do you mean "subsequent" or "previous?" Maybe you should have referred to the original use of the term: you can't expect people to know your context.

It was used mostly as an attack quote to Canon, rather than to harass any social group of ppl.

If that was your intent, you didn't do it very well.

I took Orangutan's statement as meaning that most companies don't impose cultural background checks on their customers. Indeed most manufacturers try to produce a range of products meant to appeal to customers are varying levels of resources and sophistication. In that context, he is correct, Canon does not care who is buying their products. If they could make the same amount of money and have the same profit margin by selling only entry level rebels or selling only 1Dx IIs, they would probably do so. But, they sell a mix of cameras at mix of prices because that is their successful business model.

Company not caring who's buying their products is a doomed one. It is quite normal to address your adverts to particular sex. Apart from corporate IT, I work in advertising, run LED screen business and I don't need to be tuaght how to scope the target audience. Where is the sexism in there, if I target a wedding advert to women in particular or some children related stuff to moms? You are making stuff up

We all know marketing targets different segments of potential buyers, so that is not in dispute; it's also not what you misunderstood about my post. Go back and read Unfocused's post -- pretty much perfect.

I won't even dignify the blatant sexism with a response.

This is my last warning to you - one more false accusation to the person you know nothing about re sexisms or other aspects of social life, and you get reported to moderator for a blatant accussations.

Oh, you're one of those. Look, if you're in advertising, you should be aware when a marketing campaign fails, and it's time to backtrack and try again. This marketing campaign,

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34716.msg713571#msg713571

was a failure.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Oh, you're one of those. Look, if you're in advertising, you should be aware when a marketing campaign fails, and it's time to backtrack and try again. This marketing campaign,

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34716.msg713571#msg713571

was a failure.

Indeed. I guess his point was that he thinks he's one of those 'creative ppl' and he's a much better photographer than all those 'blogging moms' becuase he buys more expensive gear that fewer (and thus, more elite) people own. But then, that's the sort of sentiment I'd expect from a -pecker-.

 

[3kramd5]

The excitement for Canon cameras is being threatened and I fear it may go the same way the iphone did; i.e. staying relevant but being completely overtaken by the competition https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6581377/meeker-2016-ios-android.jpg

So the operating system only installed in single manufacturer’s phones is less used than a free operating system found in practically every other manufacturer’s phones? Shocking.

It’s hard to draw the parallel to canon.