Brand Loyalty - Why?

Bowser wrote:

What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?

I don't get it. Not in the least.

I think it's because the Nikon owners are a bunch of really smug
*******s. Yeah. That's it.

;-)

Sorry, I can't explain it. That strange behavior has been around as long
as there have been brands, not only of cameras, but pretty much anything
else. Cars, snowmobiles, televisions, you name it. When I was younger
the big brand wars were Ford vs Chevy, RCA vs Magnavox, etc. Brand wars
are nothing new, not in the least. I've shot with Hasselblad, Pentax,
Mamiya, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Olympus. Whatever suits the need, I
use. Couldn't give a rat's ass about the label.

SLRs are different ... as someone else wrote, its not loyalty, its slavery.

Once you buy a bunch of lenses, you are committed.

With Nikon and Canon it currently does not matter, both are excellent.

Doug McDonald

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
Bowser wrote:

What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?

I don't get it. Not in the least.

I think it's because the Nikon owners are a bunch of really smug
*******s. Yeah. That's it.

;-)

Sorry, I can't explain it. That strange behavior has been around as
long as there have been brands, not only of cameras, but pretty much
anything else. Cars, snowmobiles, televisions, you name it. When I was
younger the big brand wars were Ford vs Chevy, RCA vs Magnavox, etc.
Brand wars are nothing new, not in the least. I've shot with
Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Olympus.
Whatever suits the need, I use. Couldn't give a rat's ass about the
label.

SLRs are different ... as someone else wrote, its not loyalty, its slavery.

Once you buy a bunch of lenses, you are committed.

With Nikon and Canon it currently does not matter, both are excellent.

Doug McDonald


For me it has to do with, 1- I have a bunch of lens for the system I
own, and 2- each camera brand has it's own way of doing things such as
which way the lens turns when you focus them. Some of us still manually
focus our cameras. Canon and Nikon turn in opposite directions. I'm used
to that way my system works and I have no interest in learning a new
system and retraining myself after 40 years of using one brand.

John Passaneau

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
Mr Curious wrote:

I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
I've *never* understood this. If some company comes up with an innovative
technology or better ways of incorporating past technology to create a
better camera or optical system (and it has passed all reasonable tests) I
jump "brand name" in a heartbeat.

Yep, happens every day. Minuscle changes with less impact.
But, OH! NEW! SHINY! oh so SHINY! And promises to do
everything better and automatically!

I've always done that in the past with SLR gear

.... obviously just exchanging the film would have been cheaper,
and maybe once upgrade to a top level body for a pittance.
Or buy a few of them, changing film halfway isn't that easy.

.... obviously you never had any good lenses --- and sold what
you had at a loss, each time. And for what? For nothing!

and I do it today with digital camera gear.

So *you* are iand have been one of the stupid people who exchange
their well-working camera everytime a competitor comes out with
half a megapixel more or 10mm longer tele or other minuscle
'upgrades' that have absolute no bearing on their photography.

That's one thing I just don't get. Slave to 'fashion'.
Owned by the 'newest gear virus'. Defined by how many days
his camera is old. Photographic quality determined by how good
the fully automatic modes are. No understanding of the gear,
no knowledge how to use it to it's best advantage. But *just*
all new ... SHINY!
*shudder*

Say MOOO!

They should be on their knees thanking me
every day that I bought anything at all from them.

Sure, you buy 10.000 cameras and even more lenses per year, right?

In fact, I even scrape their name off of any included camera-strap that
might come with a camera.

If I was a fashion and newness slave as you are, I'd also scrape
off the names, I'd be deadly embarassed showing I didn't get
along with the tenth camera either --- this quarter!

I can think of nothing sillier and more demeaning than
wanting to walk around with some corporate logo visible on my shoulder or
back.

I can, and it starts with posting such tripe as you post.
No wonder you don't own up but hide your name (in vain).

As if I'm now their obedient dog with my owner's collar and they own
me somehow.

You keep buying and buying. You are an obedient slave to the
market. Dogs are allowed to play and run at will at times.
Slaves are to just work and behave as they are told.

Yet people do this willingly, proudly, walking around like
little branded slaves.

Some people own Rolls Royces or Cadillacs or Porsches and
don't remove the maker's signature ... because *they* can
afford it. Those that cannot, frown, calling them slaves.

"MoooOOOOoo!"

See, you said MOOO. Took your sweet time about it, too,
but then these new-is-always-better fanbois aren't too clever.

shakes head

Yep, get that fly out of your ear, it might double your IQ.
Insult? You startet them, if you can't take the heat, get out
of the kitchen.

What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?

Experience. Skill. Determination. Calmness. Rationality.

I don't get it. Not in the least.

No, you got terminal envy, you cannot get experience.

People using 5 or 10 year old gear, and *still* producing snapshots
10 times better than your best with the newest stuff out there.
Envy.
People happy with their choice and publically saying so, not
unsteady affairs like you have with your many ex-cameras.
Envy!
People in a stable relationship with their lenses, knowing their
good and bad sides and using that to their advantage, versus your
camera one-night-stands.
ENVY!
ENVY! ENVY! ENVY! terminal ENVY!
How the market loves you. How much sales managers grin.

-Wolfgang

On 2009-08-28 03:24:21 -0700, Mr. Curious said:


I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
I've *never* understood this.

I never have, either, when clearly Nikons are superior to all other cameras.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Mr. Curious" wrote in message
...

What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?


All of the above :-)

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:56:47 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:


"Mr. Curious" wrote in message
.. .

I see all this bickering over different brands of cameras and camera gear.
I've *never* understood this. If some company comes up with an innovative
technology or better ways of incorporating past technology to create a
better camera or optical system (and it has passed all reasonable tests) I
jump "brand name" in a heartbeat. I've always done that in the past with
SLR gear and I do it today with digital camera gear. I already paid the
company what they wanted, they deserve nothing further from me, nor do I
owe them one damn thing more. They should be on their knees thanking me
every day that I bought anything at all from them.

In fact, I even scrape their name off of any included camera-strap that
might come with a camera. If that's not possible then I might magic-marker
it out. Or more usually just use some other better quality strap and throw
theirs in the garbage with their bold corporate name on it. If they want
me
to advertise like a minimum-wage sandwich-board in front of a store for
them then they're going to have to pay me a monthly advertiser's salary of
my own choosing. I can think of nothing sillier and more demeaning than
wanting to walk around with some corporate logo visible on my shoulder or
back. As if I'm now their obedient dog with my owner's collar and they own
me somehow. Yet people do this willingly, proudly, walking around like
little branded slaves. Just bend over while they get the iron hot and burn
their logo into your hind-quarters. You're absolutely no different than
branded cattle if you walk around with a corporate logo on you. Just say,
"MoooOOOOoo!"

shakes head

What causes this phenomenon of brand loyalty? Peer pressure? Ignorance?
Insecurity? Stupidity? Some psychotically desperate need to "belong"?

I don't get it. Not in the least.

I think it's because the Nikon owners are a bunch of really smug *******s.
Yeah. That's it.

;-)

Sorry, I can't explain it. That strange behavior has been around as long as
there have been brands, not only of cameras, but pretty much anything else.
Cars, snowmobiles, televisions, you name it. When I was younger the big
brand wars were Ford vs Chevy, RCA vs Magnavox, etc. Brand wars are nothing
new, not in the least. I've shot with Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya, Nikon,
Canon, Minolta, and Olympus. Whatever suits the need, I use. Couldn't give a
rat's ass about the label.

I'm starting to think too it's a bit like those who are satisfied with
their cameras, no problems, so you never hear from them. Just a quick post
of "I really like my XXXXXXX camera, never a problem, perfect B3 prints
from it. Bye." Then they never feel the need to post again, they said all
they felt that was necessary. The floodgates break loose on other brands
and models where a handful have a problem so you hear about it forever from
all sides.

My analogy is to imply that maybe there's a lot of people out there that
don't give a rat's-ass what brand it is, you just don't hear from them.
Those few unstable and insecure that are devoutly loyal to a brand-badge
wage holy-wars so that's all you ever see of the issue. I sometimes take
their zealous behavior into account when deciding on if a brand is worth
buying. If they have to try that hard to convince others then there's
probably something wrong. If not with the merchandise then the mental
stability of people that buy that brand, neither a good sign. I've passed
by many Canon and Nikon products during my lifetime because of this and
have never been displeased with my eventual alternate purchases. In a way I
thank them for their holy-war behavior because it convinced me to look
beyond the local "camera of the month club" and discover things they'll
never know about other makes and models. Cameras and lenses having features
that allow me to do things they'll never know about. Making my photography
even more unique and marketable than they'll ever achieve. In a sense,
they're stuck in a rut of their own making.

It's nice to see the responses (which would take too much time to reply to
individually) that show I'm not the only one befuddled about this strange
human behavior.

David Ruether wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:54:37 +0200, Ofnuts

Perhaps using Cosina lens caps on Canon L lenses would reduce the risk
of them being stolen. ;-)

But, but...., Cosina has made some very fine lenses...! ;-)
--DR

Yes, but nobody knows...

--
Bertrand

On 28 Aug 2009 16:11:56 GMT, ray wrote:



I wonder what your car looks like.

I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising. You'd be
surprised how much better they look that way. It actually gives them a bit
of class. I don't advertise any logo for anyone unless they pay me what I
ask. I never bother to ask, I just remove their corporate logos. Nothing
they could pay me would be worth it to degrade myself that much.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:54:05 -0500, Mr. Curious
wrote:

On 28 Aug 2009 16:11:56 GMT, ray wrote:



I wonder what your car looks like.

I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising. You'd be
surprised how much better they look that way. It actually gives them a bit
of class. I don't advertise any logo for anyone unless they pay me what I
ask. I never bother to ask, I just remove their corporate logos. Nothing
they could pay me would be worth it to degrade myself that much.

Visible branding is a public service. If something is an obvious
quickly-breaking-down piece of crap the rest of us know what brand to
avoid.

That's why trademarks are protected. Not to protect the interests of
the owner, at least not primarily, but to allow the consumer to
identify who makes what so they earn deserved reputations.

In article ,
says...

I've gone so far as to cut out the panel on the back-gate of a utility
truck, replaced with a properly formed non-logo sheet of metal and
refinished it. All to get rid of that corporate advertising.

Yeah. Whew. That makes a **** of a lotta sense.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"If only there were some ... natural mechanism by which to explain
variations in global temperature. It would have to be massive, though.
On the scale of our own Sun."
- Ace of Spades