Brand Loyalty - Why?

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.

Bruce wrote:

None of this has come cheap. I dread to think how much it cost me to
change systems, and I can see why people - especially those on a
limited budget - would stick with one system. And that is the basis
for brand loyalty.

There is no such thing as brand loyalty in the SLR world. It's really
brand slavery...

--
Bertrand

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:24:21 -0500, 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. 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!"

I sympathize with much of what you say, and I've been known to remove
corporate logos from my clothes and equipment on occasion. But you're totally
missing the point about camera equipment. Often it's simply impractical to
switch. For example, I'm a Canon owner. My wife and I have three Canon DSLRs
and seven Canon-compatible lenses. If we decided to switch to, say, Nikon,
we'd have to go to the trouble of selling off our Canon gear and still take a
financial beating to duplicate our current equipment in the Nikon world.

Nikon and Canon, in particular, tend to race each other, with one or the other
ahead at any given point in time. If the other company makes a better camera
today, there's a good chance that "your" company will make a better one
tomorrow.

Brand loyalty doesn't mean we're suckers. It just means we aren't rich enough
to follow the fashion of the moment.

: 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.

Now you're just trolling. If you really don't get it in the least, you're
probably not paying attention.

Bob

Mr. Curious wrote:

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

I just fit nice Dynax straps to new Alphas, to confuse people. I also
put Canon lenscaps on my Nikon.

David

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:17:42 +0100, David Kilpatrick
wrote:

Mr. Curious wrote:

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

I just fit nice Dynax straps to new Alphas, to confuse people. I also
put Canon lenscaps on my Nikon.

David

I like that idea, but you're still a walking billboard, a slightly more
entertaining one. Now if you had put a Hasselblad lens-cap on them or other
more wild combinations. I think I'd prefer a "Fischer Price" lens-cap so
everyone is amazed and impress by my using a toy camera. I believe that
Adorama sells many brands of replacement lens-caps with company logos on
them, very inexpensive. You could hunt there for more humorous combos.
Might even be more fun if people started marketing novelty lens-caps and
straps with Ferrari, Rolls Royce, etc. on them. What with how often they
try to compare cameras to cars.

Personally I don't even like telling anyone what camera I have used. The
camera deserves no credit, let alone the company that created it. Does a
chef give credit to his cookware? On the menu is there an entry of: "Chef
Antoine prepares Roast Lamb Cutlets with Mint Sauce served on a bed of Wild
Rice and Spring Shallots, all professionally cooked on Kuhn Rikon Duroply
and All Clad." Is that going to somehow make their meal better or a more
pleasurable experience? Allow them to charge more for it? Will the meal
come with a complimentary brochure showing the various cookware available
from those companies and who to contact? Any self-respecting chef on earth
would be highly insulted if anyone gave the least bit credit to his
cookware.

As for the other replies. Okay, I guess I "get it" from the financial point
of view. I guess that's never been a concern of mine, and why I
"didn't/don't get it".

I'm starting to see that those who most loudly proclaim their brand loyalty
are doing so out of the tightest financial constraints. The less they can
spend the more brand loyal they are. Would that about sum it up?

David Kilpatrick wrote:
Mr. Curious wrote:

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

I just fit nice Dynax straps to new Alphas, to confuse people. I also
put Canon lenscaps on my Nikon.


I know a troll when I see it :-) The Canon caps are crap. I know, I'm a
Canon owner...

--
Bertrand

On 8/28/09 7:48 AM, "Ofnuts" wrote:



There is no such thing as brand loyalty in the SLR world. It's really
brand slavery...

Another aspect comes up when people are really trying to defend their
decision to buy a particular product rather than admit that another might
have advantages. It quickly becomes an irrational argument that is more
about "mine si bigger that yours!"

As others have said, the DSLR brand choice is similar to a computer OS
choice, there are a number of interdependent pieces. You cannot easily
switch camera bodies without considering the collection of lenses,
accessories and software that you have also invested in.

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. 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.


Let's discount the lens mount thing. I get the idea that is NOT what
you are talking about. Rather, you mean the boosterism.

One reason is that many camera buffs want to appear as very
knowledgeable consumers. They have to make everyone believe that
anything they bought is the best that there is.

Occasionally, someone can buy something that is so outstanding and above
all competition that they are impelled to rave about it.

Personally, I have changed SLR brands twice, first time because the
company dropped out of the SLR market for awhile, the second time
because my wife bought a real expensive but nice lens for her Nikon,
while my Canon outfit had very old lenses (bought it used many years ago
(yes it was a film camera)

When I decided to go digital SLR (after a couple of digital P&S) I
wanted to be able to use her great lens. So, I guess while I buy the
same camera for lens compatibility I don't have all that much brand
loyalty :-)

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:55:17 -0400, Bob Haar
wrote:
On 8/28/09 7:48 AM, "Ofnuts" wrote:
There is no such thing as brand loyalty in the SLR world. It's really
brand slavery...
Another aspect comes up when people are really trying to defend their
decision to buy a particular product rather than admit that another might
have advantages. It quickly becomes an irrational argument that is more
about "mine is bigger than yours!"


The lengths to which people will go in order to avoid "Buyer's
Remorse"! ;-)

No doubt Edsel owners were heard loudly singing the praises of their
uniquely able automobile.

Actually, other than a terrible looking front end, and rejection in the
market place, was there anything wrong with that marque? Now, rejection
in the market place is a horrible thing for a car that was meant to
honor a beloved family member. .....

--
John McWilliams

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:47:36 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

Actually, other than a terrible looking front end, and rejection in the
market place, was there anything wrong with that marque?

Does there need to be anything else wrong? Isn't that enough?

Let's say, no, that's not enough! But I am asking if there was any other
major flaw in the car besides the look?

Hypothetically, they probably could have sold, say 5,000 units per year
indefinitely, way too few to make a decent production run.

Now, rejection
in the market place is a horrible thing for a car that was meant to
honor a beloved family member. .....


Perhaps honoring the family member was thought more important than
designing a saleable car?

Of course failing in the latter area obviated success in the former......

--
John McWilliams