RED's militaristic branding and marketing.

[Christoffer Glans]

Sounds like you have more of an issue with the military in general than with RED.

Not at all, putting militaristic naming and styling on something completely unrelated to the military becomes that juvenile masculinity bragging style of military fetish that people who are nowhere near being in the actual military adhere to. I have respect for those who put their lives in danger to defend innocents, but military fetish has nothing to do with that. Having film equipment named according to war and military concepts is like doing the same with a Starbucks brand, having all different coffee's named after different assault rifles and guns; "get your AK47 and Desert Eagle! Josh, your Sig Sauer 9mm is ready, Karen, is there a Karen in here waiting for a Fat Boy!"

It's juvenile because war games are pretty juvenile and men boosting themselves up with military fetish is a kind of masculinity that has gone so out of fashion that it has become a sort of parody.

But I never had any trouble because of the Skull logo.

Seriously though, is skulls the best logo for a camera system? Of all the things in the world that relates to light, photography, images, art etc.
Maybe a rat's anus is better?

I want to Red to be able to name their technology the way they want.
Not everyone feels like a camera must have a woman name Alexa, Amira...
Not everyone like simple code numbers FX9, R5...

Sure, they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean the choices can't be criticized. And yeah, I don't like naming cameras with women names either, especially stripper names. It's almost like the entire camera industry is as stereotypically "male" as it can get: we either have a militaristic style with skulls and stuff, or we have stripper names and if nothing of that we get into the nerdy technical terms that feels like it came from some McCheesy hacker basement.

Can't anyone name according to something else that's more related to the art form of cinematography? Or at least anything else than the current norms?

The best names from Red so far is:
Red One
Mysterium-X
Dragon
Gemini (probably my favourite name because of it's relation to being special made for NASA)
Komodo (as a form of nod to the Dragon and being smaller)
Helium

The key thing here in my opinion is that maybe choose a theme for the cameras and stick with it. I really like the more sciency terms because it relates to knowledge and the mysterious unreachable. Gemini, Kepler etc.
Or fundamental elements, like when they named the phone Hydrogen and the sensor Helium.

But in general, move away from the juvenile and have a theme. Right now, marketing terms, naming and general style is all over the place, the opposite philosophy of companies like Apple, that ooze perfect design compared to any other PC build. Maybe name cameras after some of the greats in cinematography: Nykvist, Cronenweth, Storaro, Conrad, Deakins, Lubezski. Or maybe physics terms related to light, Lux, Photon, Spectrum etc.

There are so many better themes and styles that fit cinematography, filmmaking and the artform of photography much better than any military fetish, stripper names, skulls and esoteric tech terms.

[Mark Phelan]

Not at all, putting militaristic naming and styling on something completely unrelated to the military becomes that juvenile masculinity bragging style of military fetish that people who are nowhere near being in the actual military adhere to. I have respect for those who put their lives in danger to defend innocents, but military fetish has nothing to do with that. Having film equipment named according to war and military concepts is like doing the same with a Starbucks brand, having all different coffee's named after different assault rifles and guns; "get your AK47 and Desert Eagle! Josh, your Sig Sauer 9mm is ready, Karen, is there a Karen in here waiting for a Fat Boy!"

It's juvenile because war games are pretty juvenile and men boosting themselves up with military fetish is a kind of masculinity that has gone so out of fashion that it has become a sort of parody.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

But isn't that what everyone does with a product, name it something memorable? Car companies do it with reckless abandon. RED's tongue-in-cheek naming is silly on purpose. Nobody would ever mistake a Weapon for a weapon. Or a Bomb EVF for a bomb. Speaking of bombs, have you ever tried Da Bomb hot sauce?

I see it as playful fun, nothing more. I can easily differentiate between a company being creatively off-kilter and the real thing. That's all this is, Karens getting their panties in a wad because of semantics. When the rubber meets the road, a RED has to deliver the goods. Otherwise, all the goofy names won't matter. Fortunately for us, RED delivers, and does it with a smile.

[Andrew Reese]

In 2021, it's honestly not hard for me to believe that what RED names their products is a topic for such discussion.

If anything, I think this year has brought on more reactive irony and suppressive behavior from those who think they are not suppressive than ever before. I think it is also ironic that we as customers feel the need to police the naming convention of products we decide to purchase or not to purchase. If you don't like RED as a company or the nomenclature and branding of their products then simply don't purchase them.

Instead, to have the audacity to make a direct statement about a company on a public forum available to the entire internet, that it is too "brash" or "hyper-masculine" is stereotyping equally in its own right. Some prefer femininity in the products they purchase and some prefer masculinity, but who are we to point the finger at what is right and wrong and tell a designer their creation is politically incorrect because it has a skull logo or weapon nomenclature? It is stereotypical to consider a word like "weapon", "gun", "bomb" offensive or any word for that matter as they are just a "word" and figment of language and nomenclature, which is only offensive when applied in certain contexts or when accompanying assumptions, statements and or opinions which so far have only been generated by a "user".

RED has the constitutional right to brand their products however they see fit and if they like military nomenclature and symbolism, then more power to them and as a supporter of our constitution and our military, I fully stand behind that position. I personally like minimalistic design and I probably would be happier with less logos in general on all products (cough cough GDU), but I find it somewhat crazy to consider "Weapon" or "Skull Logos" as hyper-masculinity and offensive? To associate a logo or words as "masculine" or "feminine" goes against the whole gender identity movement to begin with, so the point you are trying to make is a little ironic and you might want to look more from above at what you are really trying to say.

If you guys have family in the military or have any experience using or owning more guns then maybe you wouldn't be so afraid of them or find words and logos associated with them as offensive or masculine. I know quite a few female gun owners, which is funny because they are beautiful, feminine, and many of which are published models who you would never expect to own firearms judging by their appearance. So is owning a gun really that masculine or is that really a judgmental assumption? I find to often, most people easily "hurt" by gun ownership, gun marketing, hunting, military and associated logos, etc. are those who have the least experience with them and are "judging" from afar.

I agree that companies providing products for established markets should focus their best interests on being as utilitarian and neutral as possible in order to spread their reach as far across that market as possible, but to call out RED over their naming conventions all because of some recent events is a little ridiculous, very narrow minded and quite honestly immature.

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

But isn't that what everyone does with a product, name it something memorable? Car companies do it with reckless abandon. RED's tongue-in-cheek naming is silly on purpose. Nobody would ever mistake a Weapon for a weapon. Or a Bomb EVF for a bomb. Speaking of bombs, have you ever tried Da Bomb hot sauce?

I see it as playful fun, nothing more. I can easily differentiate between a company being creatively off-kilter and the real thing. That's all this is, Karens getting their panties in a wad because of semantics. When the rubber meets the road, a RED has to deliver the goods. Otherwise, all the goofy names won't matter. Fortunately for us, RED delivers, and does it with a smile.

While this is true in a commodity consumer market place where competition is fierce and "shock marketing" impact makes a difference, especially with the Chinese subsidized product aggressive pricing entries aimed at wiping out the domestic competition, our industry traditionally is not a commodity consumer and the traditional marketing had been more pragmatic with focus on tech , specs ergonomics and professional production intergration. ARRI stuck to that model and is doing quite well. RED decided to lure the newbies with their consumer style marketing model. They succeeded as well, but not without irking some of the truly competent pro crowd. I think they consciously made that decision.

[Michael Tiemann]

[...]I see it as playful fun, nothing more. I can easily differentiate between a company being creatively off-kilter and the real thing. That's all this is, Karens getting their panties in a wad because of semantics. [...]

I'm a privileged white male. Society makes it trivial for me to see things however I want to see things, because society does all the rationalizing for me. Without being asked, norms serve me.

It is all fun and games for those who make the rules. Some people celebrate that fact. I simply acknowledge it, and ask: how is the skull logo serving me? How does it serve my work? How does it serve those around me?

[Mark Phelan]

I'm a privileged white male.

Well good for you.

[Patrick Tresch]

While this is true in a commodity consumer market place where competition is fierce and "shock marketing" impact makes a difference, especially with the Chinese subsidized product aggressive pricing entries aimed at wiping out the domestic competition, our industry traditionally is not a commodity consumer and the traditional marketing had been more pragmatic with focus on tech , specs ergonomics and professional production intergration. ARRI stuck to that model and is doing quite well. RED decided to lure the newbies with their consumer style marketing model. They succeeded as well, but not without irking some of the truly competent pro crowd. I think they consciously made that decision.

IMHO it's more a personal fascination of RED's CEO/CFO about US military. In many ways they behave like kids in front of a christmas tree, and sometimes we also get one toy to play with.

[Jacek Zakowicz]

IMHO it's more a personal fascination of RED's CEO/CFO about US military. In many ways they behave like kids in front of a christmas tree, and sometimes we also get one toy to play with.

Having met the RED leadership many times I think you are grossly under estimating the experience and competence behind RED branding and marketing...

[Jamil Stubbs]

In 2021, it's honestly not hard for me to believe that what RED names their products is a topic for such discussion.

If anything, I think this year has brought on more reactive irony and suppressive behavior from those who think they are not suppressive than ever before. I think it is also ironic that we as customers feel the need to police the naming convention of products we decide to purchase or not to purchase. If you don't like RED as a company or the nomenclature and branding of their products then simply don't purchase them.

Instead, to have the audacity to make a direct statement about a company on a public forum available to the entire internet, that it is too "brash" or "hyper-masculine" is stereotyping equally in its own right. Some prefer femininity in the products they purchase and some prefer masculinity, but who are we to point the finger at what is right and wrong and tell a designer their creation is politically incorrect because it has a skull logo or weapon nomenclature? It is stereotypical to consider a word like "weapon", "gun", "bomb" offensive or any word for that matter as they are just a "word" and figment of language and nomenclature, which is only offensive when applied in certain contexts or when accompanying assumptions, statements and or opinions which so far have only been generated by a "user".

RED has the constitutional right to brand their products however they see fit and if they like military nomenclature and symbolism, then more power to them and as a supporter of our constitution and our military, I fully stand behind that position. I personally like minimalistic design and I probably would be happier with less logos in general on all products (cough cough GDU), but I find it somewhat crazy to consider "Weapon" or "Skull Logos" as hyper-masculinity and offensive? To associate a logo or words as "masculine" or "feminine" goes against the whole gender identity movement to begin with, so the point you are trying to make is a little ironic and you might want to look more from above at what you are really trying to say.

If you guys have family in the military or have any experience using or owning more guns then maybe you wouldn't be so afraid of them or find words and logos associated with them as offensive or masculine. I know quite a few female gun owners, which is funny because they are beautiful, feminine, and many of which are published models who you would never expect to own firearms judging by their appearance. So is owning a gun really that masculine or is that really a judgmental assumption? I find to often, most people easily "hurt" by gun ownership, gun marketing, hunting, military and associated logos, etc. are those who have the least experience with them and are "judging" from afar.

I agree that companies providing products for established markets should focus their best interests on being as utilitarian and neutral as possible in order to spread their reach as far across that market as possible, but to call out RED over their naming conventions all because of some recent events is a little ridiculous, very narrow minded and quite honestly immature.

Thank you for this wise statement!!!

[M Harvey]

A few people here have responded to the original post by bringing up concerns akin to censorship/"cancelling"/etc. I get why people frame it that way-- conversations about "free speech" are very prominent and uncomfortable right now (at least in the US), and I have to imagine that many of us have mixed feelings about the exercise of different kinds of power to control public speech.

But I actually don't think this is THAT conversation.

I don't think anyone has threatened Red-- there are no calls to start a boycott, and no one has said that Red in some way "shouldn't be allowed" to name their cameras after weapons, much less that the Constitution doesn't afford Red the right. So far, this actually strikes me so far as a fairly constructive conversation where users are reporting back on real issues with the brand (some elements of which Red already seems to be moving on from).

It's the internet, of course, so trolls will descend and tempers will flare and probably we'll drift into a more general political discussion that no one wants to have. But this is reduser, and we don't HAVE to make it that conversation-- we can keep it focused on the future of a brand we all want to support.