Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Another "why ?"


Recommended Posts

Why do well respected scientific organisations allow their branding to be used on such poor quality equipment ?

You would think that a marketing department with no experience of a subject (ie: astronomy in this case) would find it fairly easy to contact somebody within these organisations who does know a little about it before making these branding licensing decisions 🤔

It's a pet peeve of mine I'm afraid 😒

natgoscope.thumb.jpg.56081c27ab88900269f582cb2bf95f0c.jpgsmithsscope.thumb.jpg.ee50cf4f090eeaac32eb784467a121a4.jpg

Edited by John
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a cynical American, I can say it's always all about the almighty dollar and the lure of a quick buck.  These organizations are dealing with changing times and declining revenue, contributions, or state funding.  They are doing whatever it takes to survive with little to no thought given to possible long term damage to their brands.  These branding arrangements are generally judged to be low risk by their governing boards.  In addition, merely getting their names out in front of the public is also seen as a form of advertising that may draw in new interest and funding.  In particular, a form that costs them nothing except reputation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John said:

Why do well respected scientific organisations allow their branding to be used on such poor quality equipment ?

Not sure but my neighbour has a National Geographic branded "reflector" from years ago and he thinks its a nice scope.... asked me to set it up- but thankfully he lives 900 miles away and only visits in the summer- and forgot about it - it is a complete piece of junk.

This in contrast to the H130, that is a very good scope and nicely affordable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my early ones was a National Geographic, think it was the 114/900. Couldn't see anything through it, not even the moon. Secondary was flimsy as paper, took it apart and back again, tried collimation and still nothing. Its just mass market environmental pollution product and should not be allowed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're just "Gift Shop" scopes and in those "Gift Shops" you can buy absolutely anything with the "Logo" on it. Everyone's out to make a quick buck, just look at Vixen for example. Now as you know I have a soft spot for nice Vixen kit but a jewelry range? Get real please.

Having said that, if Takahashi started making ear-rings I'm sure @JeremyS would buy them and probably wear them as well😁.

  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

National Geographic was a not-for-profit enterprise until 2015, when it became part of the Murdoch empire. Then Disney bought 21st Century Fox in 2019, and became owner of the brand. The NG TV stations and spin-off publications (with huge fonts and spacing for easy reading!) are a far cry from the iconic National Geographic magazine. But even they look to be better quality than the telescopes.

I have no knowledge of global telescope sales whatsoever, but I wouldn’t be surprised if NG branded scopes are among the highest selling.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

I have no knowledge of global telescope sales whatsoever, but I wouldn’t be surprised if NG branded scopes are among the highest selling.

I think you're right, Mark..

And the sad thing is, that if you are right, that could mean thousands of youngsters world wide might be put off astronomy for life after being bought one of these piles of rubbish by wellmeaning relatives who don't know any better!🥴🥺

Dave

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I take my toddler toy shopping it makes me wince to see the worst kind of tat telescopes being sold. These sorts of optical lemons would put an interested child off for life. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Highburymark said:

National Geographic was a not-for-profit enterprise until 2015, when it became part of the Murdoch empire. Then Disney bought 21st Century Fox in 2019, and became owner of the brand.

That probably explains why I let my NG subscription lapse in 2017.  I had been noticing a significant change in the type and quality of the stories in those last few years.  It wasn't the same NG I had grown up with decades earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.