PhaseOne contest

[LKaven]

Does anyone find this a little weird?

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2346157200/phase-one-new-photo-contest-rewards-winner-with-iq250-loan

If you win the contest, Phase One will loan you an IQ-250 for a month.  There is no mention of a lens, but let's assume for the moment that a lens is included.  The winner will have to pay for insurance according to the official terms and conditions.

A loan.  Thirty days.  You have to buy insurance.

Am I alone in seeing this as a terribly deflating prize?  God help you if you damage it or lose it in any way not covered by insurance.  And how much does that insurance cost?  As a matter of convention, any prize that has to get returned is not a prize.  Not that they'd ever give you one of these.  I think I'd rather have a license for CaptureOne Pro, with two free major version upgrades.  At least that would last.

[bcooter]

Does anyone find this a little weird?

I would love to say no, but I've worked with Phase One's marketing.

IMO

BC

[Doug Peterson]

I have no opinion on the overall contest. But for clarification you don't need to pay for new insurance. You just need to have insurance which nearly all of our commercial clients already do.

[Paul2660]

Great for a larger firm.  The issue with insurance is an ugly one. I carry a policy on my gear. I work from home. Thus its a rider.  It covers all my owned equipment that stays in place printers and computers.  However I pay for camera gear that is carried in the field.  It was very clear the the insurance company expected the camera equip to stay in place also.   I haven tried to demo from US. Dealers and the insurance is a problem.  My policy won't cover it under standard coverage as I don't own it. Thus I pay around 1k to cover the back for 5 days.  Just can't do that.

Phase has a target market which must have a brick and mortar ( you have a sep building for business) policy.

It's sad that dealers can't accommodate customers like myself. They should be able to purchase the same insurance for a lot less ie at the real physical cost of the back. It would be nice to see a dealer incorporate the insurance in the rental fee at their much reduced cost. It would allow for a lot more rentals or I may just be an exception.

Paul

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would agree that insurance could be a show stopper. I am paying about 1000$US/year for insurance, but that is item for item. But, the risk of winning is very low anyway.

Best regards
Erik



 

Great for a larger firm.  The issue with insurance is an ugly one. I carry a policy on my gear. I work from home. Thus its a rider.  It covers all my owned equipment that stays in place printers and computers.  However I pay for camera gear that is carried in the field.  It was very clear the the insurance company expected the camera equip to stay in place also.   I haven tried to demo from US. Dealers and the insurance is a problem.  My policy won't cover it under standard coverage as I don't own it. Thus I pay around 1k to cover the back for 5 days.  Just can't do that.

Phase has a target market which must have a brick and mortar ( you have a sep building for business) policy.

It's sad that dealers can't accommodate customers like myself. They should be able to purchase the same insurance for a lot less ie at the real physical cost of the back. It would be nice to see a dealer incorporate the insurance in the rental fee at their much reduced cost. It would allow for a lot more rentals or I may just be an exception.

Paul

[gerald.d]

Hi,

I would agree that insurance could be a show stopper. I am paying about 1000$US/year for insurance, but that is item for item. But, the risk of winning is very low anyway.

Best regards
Erik

If the risk of winning is very low, then it should be pretty cheap to insure yourself against winning, with the insurance paying out sufficiently to cover the cost of a policy to insure the prize in the unlikely event that you were to win.

[Doug Peterson]

Great for a larger firm.  The issue with insurance is an ugly one. I carry a policy on my gear. I work from home. Thus its a rider.  It covers all my owned equipment that stays in place printers and computers.  However I pay for camera gear that is carried in the field.  It was very clear the the insurance company expected the camera equip to stay in place also.   I haven tried to demo from US. Dealers and the insurance is a problem.  My policy won't cover it under standard coverage as I don't own it. Thus I pay around 1k to cover the back for 5 days.  Just can't do that.

Have you looked at APA Insurance? That's what I have and it costs something like $500 for my business insurance and rental-equipment coverage (with a limit high enough for a digital back). From my conversations with them their average customer is not a "larger firm" but an individual photographer.

[Paul2660]

Doug.

No I haven't looked into APA. But I will.

Thanks
Paul

[LKaven]

...you don't need to pay for new insurance. You just need to have insurance which nearly all of our commercial clients already do.

So it's like a "win a test drive" that basically pre-screens prospective buyers.  It's just completely against the whole spirit of what a contest is.  It's more like a naked promotion with crowd-sourced artwork for the promotion and a faux prize. 

[Doug Peterson]

So it's like a "win a test drive" that basically pre-screens prospective buyers.  It's just completely against the whole spirit of what a contest is.  It's more like a naked promotion with crowd-sourced artwork for the promotion and a faux prize. 

For many people I'd agree this contest is a waste of time. For a small group (e.g. those who already rent frequently, or who have an upcoming multi-week project that they wanted to shoot with max quality) it's probably worthwhile. A rental kit for a month is quite expensive if paying out of pocket.

[bcooter]

For a small group (e.g. those who already rent frequently, or who have an upcoming multi-week project that they wanted to shoot with max quality) it's probably worthwhile.

Seriously?

I can see it if you just fooling around and you'd like to try the camera, have time to upload a few photos and see what shakes loose.

But to have a planned project, three months in advance, hoping to win a contest to save a rental fee seems like a stretch for any professional.

Especially when you can rent a Pentax Z for around 2 grand a month, or even buy a hasselblad h4d40 for 10 grand, keep it 6 months and sell it for a few grand less.  

I don't get it, because I thought winning something was actually winning something.

Actually since I rarely use my p30+ on the contax It just sits in the case so I called a dealer and asked if they wanted to buy it.  The result was 4 grand in store credit.  (not cash, store credit).

I passed, because it's worth more than that to me to keep it, but that kind of shows you the price of getting into reliable medium format and the depreciation.

IMO

BC

[Doug Peterson]

BC: the example I have assumed that you'd have to rent regardless, so entering the contest *might* be worth the time/hassle in that if you win your rental (which otherwise would have come out of pocket) would be free. I'm sure we are both on the same page that entering any contest with the assumption you'll win is just silly.

[SecondFocus]

I think it is perfectly fun. On my insurance I have always just sent in by e-mail the model and serial numbers of loaner or rental gear and it is covered. When it goes back, another e-mail. During a month I could find plenty of opportunities for some shooting!

[douglevy]

Paul - look at Hill & Usher, I believe any rental gear is automatically covered, or can be added for a very small fee with a phone call. I pay $900ish a yr for $60k in coverage.

-Doug

[Manoli]

I'm sure we are both on the same page that entering any contest with the assumption you'll win is just silly.

The confusion here is using the word 'contest' as a euphemism for 'selective marketing' - and not a very subtle one at that.

[LKaven]

The confusion here is using the word 'contest' as a euphemism for 'selective marketing' - and not a very subtle one at that.

Bingo!  It's just completely against the spirit of what a contest (and a prize) is supposed to be.  Promoting it on DPReview also strikes me as a misfire at best. 

[Manoli]

Bingo!  It's just completely against the spirit of what a contest (and a prize) is supposed to be...

Just read dpr & the Phase press release ..

' Phase One will reveal ten finalists in January and showcase the selected photographs ...
once the contest ends .. on Phase One social media sites (inc its Facebook page ) ...and without any included copyright data ... the winner to be announced the first week of February '.

So all that for ONE winner, loss of copyright - 'selective marketing' was the wrong phrase.

[JV]

Actually since I rarely use my p30+ on the contax It just sits in the case so I called a dealer and asked if they wanted to buy it.  The result was 4 grand in store credit.  (not cash, store credit).

And if you didn't have a Contax mount you would probably get less... or the dealer would flat out tell you he is not interested...

[bcooter]

And if you didn't have a Contax mount you would probably get less... or the dealer would flat out tell you he is not interested...

Your right and I have no problem with what the back is worth or not worth.   It served it's purpose.

I was illustrating how it's not that expensive to get into medium format.

In regards to the "competition" we all know a Phase or any company would not involve themselves if the terms were applied to them.

It just makes me wonder how much they respect their customer's intellectual property.

IMO

BC

[Joe Towner]

I find it funny that the maximum image size is 1mp (max size on long edge is 1,000).