The mythology is too enticing
This is why I think Flickr and Nikon are teaming up for this strange campaign. [via BL Ochman]
What they are doing is making it explicit, which isn't always bad, but it could backfire. For instance:
Everyone knows that Scott Beale's photos are great because:
By training everyone to start looking at the camera brand, they may be disappointed in the results. ;)
What they are doing is making it explicit, which isn't always bad, but it could backfire. For instance:
Everyone knows that Scott Beale's photos are great because:
- He has an excellent eye
and... - He has a pretty kickass camera
By training everyone to start looking at the camera brand, they may be disappointed in the results. ;)
3 Comments:
Camera = kick ass pictures? I beg to differ. I happen to own a camera rig that cost me around $5K and some of your pictures are much better than mine. I think Scott or Thomas could take great photos with a CVS disposable camera. -Alex
I was thinking along the same likes of strangeness, since the results might be so convoluted that bottomline might not help Nikon at all. However, thinking about it from the user standpoint, it's network effects which will drive this campaign. Most people will be driven to photos with the more viewership or interestingness as Flickr coins it. As such, even if I were to view a crummy photo by chance, I might not pay attention to the Nikon logo as much as I would on a highly viewed photograph with the Nikon brand on it. This means that given the mechanics of viewership, it is likely that this new Flickr / Nikon would pay off . It's risky, that's what cutting-edge marketing is about.
I think Nikon would be much smarter to sponsor sections on Flickr about how to take better pictures than to have their logo in our faces
Post a Comment
<< Home