Exactly. It's not really sexist. It's not particularly offensive to most. It's just lousy advertising. But isn't that what we might expect/ By the way, someone raised an ineresting point earlier. Pentax probably made it on the cheap. You can bet it's a stock photo that cost them about $500 at most. A goos shoot would go for about $10,000. You do the math.
Amita Guha wrote: > > I have to say I didn't find the ad all that offensive, but it doesn't > say a thing about the camera. I showed it to my husband and at first > glance he thought it was a lingerie ad. > > In general I don't get too steamed about this sort of thing, but I have > to wonder about their strategy, if they have one. I mean, this is a > $1700 piece of technology, not a sixpack of Budweiser...
