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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 10, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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??
    RichA, Dec 10, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:12:22 -0800 (PST), 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??


    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
    tony cooper, Dec 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/10/2011 8:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-12-10 15:12:22 -0800, RichA <> 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
    PeterN, Dec 11, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Dec 11, 1:52 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> 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.
    RichA, Dec 11, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bob Dobbs Guest

    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
    Bob Dobbs, Dec 11, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:30:54 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    : On Dec 11, 1:52 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> 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
    Robert Coe, Dec 12, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Dec 11, 7:01 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:30:54 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > : On Dec 11, 1:52 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> 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.
    RichA, Dec 12, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Dec 13, 9:21 am, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > On Dec 11, 1:52 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> 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.
    RichA, Dec 13, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:03:36 -0600, Rich <> wrote:
    : rwalker <> wrote in
    : news::
    :
    : > On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:12:22 -0800 (PST), 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??
    : >
    : > 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
    Robert Coe, Dec 18, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:48:05 -0600, Rich <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote in
    : news::
    :
    : > On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:03:36 -0600, Rich <> wrote:
    : >: rwalker <> wrote in
    : >: news::
    : >:
    : >: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:12:22 -0800 (PST), 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??
    : >: >
    : >: > 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
    Robert Coe, Dec 20, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/19/2011 10:13 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:48:05 -0600, Rich<> wrote:
    > : Robert Coe<> wrote in
    > : news::
    > :
    > :> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:03:36 -0600, Rich<> wrote:
    > :>: rwalker<> wrote in
    > :>: news::
    > :>:
    > :>:> On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:12:22 -0800 (PST), 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??
    > :>:>
    > :>:> 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



    Actually that's one criteria for believability.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Dec 21, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Rich wrote:

    <edited for brevity>

    > Supposedly, there are no profits from P&S's. They exist to fill shelf
    > space and act as a branding device.



    Supposedly, there's no "gray matter" between Richard Anderson's ears. His
    cranium exists to be filled with odoriferous material from a rather lower
    bodily area.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Dec 22, 2011
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,213
  2. You HAVE NO IDEA

    Why Why Why

    You HAVE NO IDEA, Apr 22, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,458
    billyw
    Apr 24, 2004
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    450
    George Nyman
    Sep 4, 2005
  4. Replies:
    29
    Views:
    735
  5. THO
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,142
    Not Disclosed
    Nov 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page