Comments for Seeker Photography

Comment on Can you take market segmentation too far? by Linda Parkinson-Hardman

Linda Parkinson-Hardman — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:28:51 +0000

I see what you mean about the shampoo packet Steve. I have to admit that I’m becoming more sceptical of advertising by the day and find that I disbelieve almost everything I hear on the radio or the TV, simply because I cannot believe how it applies to me any more.

There was a time when advertisers thought that their audience might actually have a little intelligence, but that has gone out of the window and I find that I’m irritated by the way they usually talk down to the viewer, as if we aren’t able to make up our own minds.

But, back to the comment you actually made. As we discovered yesterday, being specific works (in some areas), as long as you aren’t patronising – in my humble opinion of course

Comment on Can you take market segmentation too far? by John Moyce

John Moyce — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:02:41 +0000

Hi Steve
Interesting observation – obviously the L’Oreal is one of a set and when we look at case studies if they fit “your” profile then “you” pick up the product in a far higher % than just generalised.
Be interesting to see how much product sales this generates, of course we won’t know unless they keep it on the shelves.

As for your segmentation think that takes it a bit far, with your first segment way under the rib cage – if it could be found.

Be a good strand for “Photograher Specialising in unusual Weddings” sky diving, scuba, up a mountain, wing walking – you know your worth it!
Cheers
john

Comment on Award winning wildlife photo disqualified by admin

admin — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:01:23 +0000

I know Richard, it’s still a great photo but apparently they’ve done a lot of research and as they said it seems likely.

I think that might be legal toned down speech for “we’ve found the model wolf in question and checked it’s booking diary” or at least that’s the impression I get from some other sources.

I would, of course, have liked to have given the photographer the benefit of the doubt as well. It’s not nice saying that someone cheated, but I guess that’s why they’re the judges and we’re not.

Definitely a Vietnamese Lady, by the way.

Comment on Award winning wildlife photo disqualified by Richard

Richard — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:46:28 +0000

What a shame about the photo of the wolf….. not sure I like the phrase “it was likely that the wolf featured in the image was an animal model”…. seeing as how they are damning the photographer I’d have liked them to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt!!!

Love your shot of the vietnamese lady…. or is it a man??