I know it's expensive to advertise... my point that they are paying for what they are getting. Those companies that pay big bucks to advertise don't do it because they think it's throwing money down the drain.
If Pentax is putting a gallery out there to show pretty pictures, that's fine, no problems. If they're putting it out there because they think it will significantly influence a potential customer's purchasing decisions, I think they are wrong and that the relatively small cost of building and maintaining the gallery will exceed any relatively small benefit gained by it. A static online gallery does not do much to generate interest in their product, relying on a potential customer to happen by it. They really need to generate some dynamic, vibrant, appealing ad's that show people having fun with and taking great pictures with their cameras. Ads so that people walk into a retailer and say "I'd like to see the Pentax K-whatever". Tom C. >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: PESO: One that got accepted >Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:19:21 -0400 > > Eye catching, innovative, intelligent 30-second commercials run at >least $300,000 per spot in production costs alone. With an A director >and special effects, make that a million. A healthy media budget >rings up around ten million dollars more. A tie in with a show like >American Idol will run you a million plus. Now you know why they >built a gallery. >Paul >On Mar 22, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Tom C wrote: > > > Does Pentax really think they are going to appreciably increase > > sales of > > their products by having a web gallery of images? > > > > What they need to do is sink 50 million dollars into eye-catching, > > innovative, intelligent, 30 second advertisements on television > > during prime > > time viewing (here in the USA). > > > > Give a free K10D to every American Idol finalist... or something... > > > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > >> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: PESO: One that got accepted > >> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:03:09 -0400 > >> > >> Not surprising. It's a strong, graphic image that demonstrates the > >> capability of camera and lens. Good work. > >> paul > >> On Mar 21, 2007, at 9:20 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> > >>> I expected the Pentax Gallery to reject this one but they > >>> confounded me > >>> again... > >>> http://www.robertstech.com/peso.htm > >>> > >>> It's the Conemaugh Dam, about an hour's drive from Pittsburgh, > >>> which I > >>> photographed while on a Sierra Club hike. Seems a bit Margaret > >>> Bourke-White influenced to me. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
