Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/02/27

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Erwin telling it like it may be
From: imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)
Date: Wed Feb 27 15:35:53 2008
References: <541F0D48-41FF-4D3B-80FA-755AE07D2045@mac.com> <018701c87991$4c6586c0$0302a8c0@MacPhisto> <795A31CE-0980-4CE8-84CC-AE03D7DFAD96@cox.net> <01c301c87996$fcf52a40$0302a8c0@MacPhisto>
 
The whole notion of "re-branding" makes no sense.
Working with other companies to develop product - I get.
But calling the same product two different names at two different  
prices?
I guess GM got away with it for a while - but really.
At least make it look significantly different and much better if you  
want me to pay significantly more for it.

Fond regards,
George
george@imagist.com
www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07



On Feb 27, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Christopher Williams wrote:

> Aslo don't charge $2500 for a 4/3 system camera just because it's  
> rebranded with a Red Dot?
In reply to: Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] Erwin telling it like it may be)
Message from leicachris at worldnet.att.net (Christopher Williams) ([Leica] Re: Erwin telling it like it may be)
Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] Re: Erwin telling it like it may be)
Message from leicachris at worldnet.att.net (Christopher Williams) ([Leica] Re: Erwin telling it like it may be)