Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly! There's enough anger in the world. No need to manufacture more- especially about camera gear, of all things.Outrageous! Unprecedented!! I am cancelling my S9 preorder!!! And selling all my Panasonic gear!!!!
Agreed, which is why I don’t think Panasonic should have “manufactured” misleading photos. The reporting isn’t “manufacturing” it’s simply reporting.Exactly! There's enough anger in the world. No need to manufacture more- especially about camera gear, of all things.Outrageous! Unprecedented!! I am cancelling my S9 preorder!!! And selling all my Panasonic gear!!!!
Fair enough, and I'm not agreeing with what their marketing department did. I was instead responding to your use of the word "horrified." To each his own of course, but I wouldn't use that term to describe a lazy move by Panasonic marketing- or any other marketing division for that matter. I would reserve the word "horrified" for, say, Boeing's quality control/engineering issues. People's lives are on the line there. With that context, this marketing issue matters little.Agreed, which is why I don’t think Panasonic should have “manufactured” misleading photos. The reporting isn’t “manufacturing” it’s simply reporting.Exactly! There's enough anger in the world. No need to manufacture more- especially about camera gear, of all things.Outrageous! Unprecedented!! I am cancelling my S9 preorder!!! And selling all my Panasonic gear!!!!
While using stock photos to market consumer electronics and any manner of goods is standard practice, camera companies especially should not engage in this when marketing a new camera. It should be obvious to the company that consumers will assume the images are from that specific camera, and that the internet is savvy enough to find out if they aren't. Hopefully someone doesn't lose their job over this, and that they change their marketing practices to more accurately represent their products. It will blow over of course, once real-world users start posting actual images. Those will become more important than any marketing mistake.
Someone at Panasonic decided that stock photos were sufficient to put in the marketing material for this camera; that photos from the actual camera were unnecessary. It's very probable that was someone much higher in the decision-making chain than the lowly dev whose job was to follow orders and place stock pictures on a webpage. My comment was basically sympathizing with the person lowest in the chain.I don't know, when your job is to put photos that represent the camera and you totally fail at that simple job, getting fired would not be a surprise in any way.While using stock photos to market consumer electronics and any manner of goods is standard practice, camera companies especially should not engage in this when marketing a new camera. It should be obvious to the company that consumers will assume the images are from that specific camera, and that the internet is savvy enough to find out if they aren't. Hopefully someone doesn't lose their job over this, and that they change their marketing practices to more accurately represent their products. It will blow over of course, once real-world users start posting actual images. Those will become more important than any marketing mistake.
Well perhaps if we assume the S9 could take as good of a photo as the Nikon, why didn’t it?If you are buying a camera because you think a specific photo can only be taken with this camera, you are more religious than me
because it would take too much time to reshoot every stock photo out there every time you release a new camera.Well perhaps if we assume the S9 could take as good of a photo as the Nikon, why didn’t it?If you are buying a camera because you think a specific photo can only be taken with this camera, you are more religious than me
So they can’t demo photos with the actual camera? Sounds like Milli Vanilli logic. They probably didn’t want to sing their own songs with the actual singers already took care of it for thembecause it would take too much time to reshoot every stock photo out there every time you release a new camera.Well perhaps if we assume the S9 could take as good of a photo as the Nikon, why didn’t it?If you are buying a camera because you think a specific photo can only be taken with this camera, you are more religious than me
Girl, you know it’s true!So they can’t demo photos with the actual camera? Sounds like Milli Vanilli logic. They probably didn’t want to sing their own songs with the actual singers already took care of it for thembecause it would take too much time to reshoot every stock photo out there every time you release a new camera.Well perhaps if we assume the S9 could take as good of a photo as the Nikon, why didn’t it?If you are buying a camera because you think a specific photo can only be taken with this camera, you are more religious than me
Dang, now it's in my head!! :-DGirl, you know it’s true!So they can’t demo photos with the actual camera? Sounds like Milli Vanilli logic. They probably didn’t want to sing their own songs with the actual singers already took care of it for thembecause it would take too much time to reshoot every stock photo out there every time you release a new camera.Well perhaps if we assume the S9 could take as good of a photo as the Nikon, why didn’t it?If you are buying a camera because you think a specific photo can only be taken with this camera, you are more religious than me
Well in that comparison Panasonic looks like Mother TeresaFair enough, and I'm not agreeing with what their marketing department did. I was instead responding to your use of the word "horrified." To each his own of course, but I wouldn't use that term to describe a lazy move by Panasonic marketing- or any other marketing division for that matter. I would reserve the word "horrified" for, say, Boeing's quality control/engineering issues. People's lives are on the line there. With that context, this marketing issue matters little.Agreed, which is why I don’t think Panasonic should have “manufactured” misleading photos. The reporting isn’t “manufacturing” it’s simply reporting.Exactly! There's enough anger in the world. No need to manufacture more- especially about camera gear, of all things.Outrageous! Unprecedented!! I am cancelling my S9 preorder!!! And selling all my Panasonic gear!!!!
It’s just disappointing. If you have a Panasonic camera like I do and you like it then you might say who GAF, right? And that’s a reasonable answer. But if you are evaluating the situation based on wanting to get what was advertised, you might feel cheated. Like the Milli Vanilli fans. I mean you can still like their music if you liked it from the start, even if you discover later that those fake front men didn’t actually sing it.Girl, you know it’s true!So they can’t demo photos with the actual camera? Sounds like Milli Vanilli logic. They probably didn’t want to sing their own songs with the actual singers already took care of it for thembecause it would take too much time to reshoot every stock photo out there every time you release a new camera.Well perhaps if we assume the S9 could take as good of a photo as the Nikon, why didn’t it?If you are buying a camera because you think a specific photo can only be taken with this camera, you are more religious than me