Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 5/27/05 6:46 PM, "D L" <mr.blather@gmail.com> typed: > Believe it or not, I think Leica could learn a lot from LOMO: Here was > a toy that was incredibly well marketed. > > The LOMO Club was, if I remember correctly, actually run by the > company that had exclusively rights to distribute the LOMO world wide > and it did a masterful job of selling LOMO as a lifestyle. > > According to the hype, the LOMO wasn't just a camera, it was a tool > that went beyond photography (Lomography) and brought art to the > masses. You didn't need to spend a fortune on M4's and M lenses, > how-to books, or lessons. All you had to do was point and shoot and > you were an artist. > > Even here in Japan people would gush when you mentioned LOMO (even > though most hadn't actually used one.) All of the marketing made LOMO > users feel part of a larger community. It made people who didn't have > a LOMO want to join the community. It made all of the above forget the > LOMO was basically a plastic toy you might get for subscribing to a > magazine. > > You figure a company with Leica's history and name should be able to > find marketers at least half that good. > I find it difficult that Lomo promoted itself as a cult thing and succeeded. Such a thing is extremely hard to do and I cant think of an example where it was pulled off. I don't underestimate the pubic "mind" you cant fool them they smell a rat every time on such stuff and don't fall into it. .... Not gullible. Cults which exist to this extent have to come about naturally it seems to me. I'm sure the Lomo marketing people were not stupid enough to not take advantage of a burgeoning cult status their little cheap item quickly attained but I'd like to see where they created that from the beginning.. And so would a lot of other marketing people like to see that. My hit on it is it was just made by a company who wanted to make the cheapest camera possible that would still usually produce an image and not really be considered a "toy". That serious artists would embrace using the term "toy" it I'm sure they were delighted if not surprised to find out. Perhaps despite the term. They could of course known about the Holga. But it is just as possible they didn't. I think it was a cheap company of little sophistication. Maybe I'm wrong! Glad it happened despite its taking away from the wealth for the unwealthy of Box cameras and other simple inexpensive and even classic cameras made for the masses for over a century. I just don't believe it was planned. But would love to see evidence of such and be proved wrong. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/