Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Why is Nikon advertising a lowly P&S on TV??

Reply
Thread Tools

Why is Nikon advertising a lowly P&S on TV??

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2011
Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not the
P7100, but some cruddy P&S. I thought there was little money in them,
is it really economical to flog them on television??
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2011
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:12:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not the
>P7100, but some cruddy P&S. I thought there was little money in them,
>is it really economical to flog them on television??


Send the Nikon marketing people your telephone number. I'm sure
they'll appreciate your views on what is the most effect advertising
program. They're really novices at this.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2011
On 12/10/2011 8:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-12-10 15:12:22 -0800, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not the
>> P7100, but some cruddy P&S. I thought there was little money in them,
>> is it really economical to flog them on television??

>
> Because Walmart, Target, Bestbuy and many other outlets are peddling
> stocking stuffer P&S cameras, and if the Xmas shopper has the subliminal
> suggestion of a Nikon imprinted, that is going to make the decision
> almost reflexive when looking at the massive selection to choose from.
> That is for purchases which are going to be made without consideration
> to specifications, pixel peeper reviews, or your opinions regarding
> marketing.
> ...and 99% of those buyers are going to be happy with the "cruddy P&S".
> You are after all a "1%er".
>


It has n shame

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2011
On Dec 11, 1:52*pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not the
> > P7100, but some cruddy P&S. *I thought there was little money in them,
> > is it really economical to flog them on television??

>
> Which "lowly P&S" are they advertising on TV?
>
> Not all compact Coolpixes are so "lowly." I just recently bought an S9100
> and I love it.


Technically, it is a superzoom which people buy to avoid having to
carry 2 or more lenses and that portability is paid for in med-high
ISO performance issues.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Dobbs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2011
Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>Not all compact Coolpixes are so "lowly." I just recently bought an S9100
>and I love it.


Just read a couple reviews and it sounds impressive
--

http://bit.ly/g2PCII
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2011
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:30:54 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Dec 11, 1:52*pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > RichA wrote:
: > > Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not the
: > > P7100, but some cruddy P&S. *I thought there was little money in them,
: > > is it really economical to flog them on television??
: >
: > Which "lowly P&S" are they advertising on TV?
: >
: > Not all compact Coolpixes are so "lowly." I just recently bought an S9100
: > and I love it.
:
: Technically, it is a superzoom which people buy to avoid having to
: carry 2 or more lenses and that portability is paid for in med-high
: ISO performance issues.

Then it's properly referred to as a "lowly superzoom", is it not? Or are all
superzooms ipso facto lowly? You also called the camera "cruddy". That's worse
than lowly, right? If I were a camera, I might not mind being characterized as
lowly (though I might prefer the term "humble"), if my lowliness were a
consequence of my portability, or even of corners being cut to render me less
expensive and therefore more available to the masses. But I think it would
pain me to be called cruddy.

How well have you thought this through, Rich? Enquiring minds want to be both
sensitive and terminologically correct.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2011
On Dec 11, 7:01*pm, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:30:54 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> : On Dec 11, 1:52*pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:: > RichAwrote:
>
> : > > Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not the
> : > > P7100, but some cruddy P&S. *I thought there was little money in them,
> : > > is it really economical to flog them on television??
> : >
> : > Which "lowly P&S" are they advertising on TV?
> : >
> : > Not all compact Coolpixes are so "lowly." I just recently bought an S9100
> : > and I love it.
> :
> : Technically, it is a superzoom which people buy to avoid having to
> : carry 2 or more lenses and that portability is paid for in med-high
> : ISO performance issues.
>
> Then it's properly referred to as a "lowly superzoom"


P&S superzoom then.

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2011
On Dec 13, 9:21*am, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 1:52 pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> RichA wrote:
> >>> Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not
> >>> the P7100, but some cruddy P&S. I thought there was little money in
> >>> them, is it really economical to flog them on television??

>
> >> Which "lowly P&S" are they advertising on TV?

>
> >> Not all compact Coolpixes are so "lowly." I just recently bought an
> >> S9100 and I love it.

>
> > Technically, it is a superzoom which people buy to avoid having to
> > carry 2 or more lenses and that portability is paid for in med-high
> > ISO performance issues.

>
> As with any other small-sensor camera, of course. But the backlighted CMOS
> sensor of the S9100 (and some other recent Coolpixes) actually does provide
> some improvement in useful ISOs.


If I were the designers of these things, rather than trying to reduce
the inevitable noise you'd see above 200 ISO, I do like Fuji did with
the S5 and try to make it a more palatable noise quality.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-18-2011
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:03:36 -0600, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: rwalker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
: news:(E-Mail Removed):
:
: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:12:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
: > wrote:
: >
: >>Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not the
: >>P7100, but some cruddy P&S. I thought there was little money in them,
: >>is it really economical to flog them on television??
: >
: > To make profits.
: >
:
: Supposedly, there are no profits from P&S's. They exist to fill shelf
: space and act as a branding device.

So your theory, if I may dignify it with that term, is that Canon and Nikon
are making all their money from the likes of us and that my daughter, who goes
through a $500 P&S every year or so, is getting pretty much a free ride? Do
you have any real evidence for that conclusion? Does "supposedly" mean that
someone who actually understands the industry supposed it?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2011
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:48:05 -0600, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
: news:(E-Mail Removed):
:
: > On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:03:36 -0600, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >: rwalker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
: >: news:(E-Mail Removed):
: >:
: >: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:12:22 -0800 (PST), RichA
: >: > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >: >
: >: >>Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not
: >: >>the P7100, but some cruddy P&S. I thought there was little money
: >: >>in them, is it really economical to flog them on television??
: >: >
: >: > To make profits.
: >: >
: >:
: >: Supposedly, there are no profits from P&S's. They exist to fill
: >: shelf space and act as a branding device.
: >
: > So your theory, if I may dignify it with that term, is that Canon and
: > Nikon are making all their money from the likes of us and that my
: > daughter, who goes through a $500 P&S every year or so, is getting
: > pretty much a free ride? Do you have any real evidence for that
: > conclusion? Does "supposedly" mean that someone who actually
: > understands the industry supposed it?
:
: It isn't my conclusion. This was stated a couple years ago and not by
: me.

It sounds as though you're saying it doesn't matter who arrived at that
conclusion; we should believe it because it wasn't you. Have I got that right?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Nikon D50 - Circuit City advertising as a "closeout" THO Digital Photography 4 11-06-2006 02:27 AM
The lowly data field TenDot ASP .Net Web Controls 1 12-30-2005 12:52 PM
6MP Nikon D100 - good enough for critical 24" x 42" advertising posters? borkomile@hotmail.com Digital Photography 29 09-12-2005 03:23 PM
6MP Nikon D100 - good enough for critical 24" x 36" advertising posters? borkomile@hotmail.com Digital Photography 3 09-04-2005 06:20 PM



Advertisments