Recommended Posts

98 Comments

  1. It would be hard to see eye to eye with Lady GaGa with that hat she has on.

  2. Wow.

    That is disappointing on so many levels. Now I’m positive I’ll never get my Type 55 back.

    • @liam strain, It’s 2010 (the future)…Polaroid now has a place in the future thanks to their new creative director. I love photographers and their snobby attitudes like anything having to do with film can only be loved by them. I’d venture to say that more than half the people who have ever used polaroid film weren’t photographers and would have bought more if the Beatles or Michael Jackson endorsed it. All the old folk trying to hold on to the past need turn their head forward and look ahead

      • @taylor, I am more than happy for the attention Polaroid will get from this move. However, I do feel that they need solid brand strategy and innovative products much more than they need hype and gimmick.

        I am at hopeful for the brand. But with so many talented product managers, professional marketers, and industry professionals out there, I am saddened to see such a critical role go to a pop princess of dubious ability.

        The type 55 comment is mostly tongue in cheek. I love the product, but I have never dared hope it would come back anyway.

        As for looking forward, I have yet to find a tool as helpful to my work and workflow as polaroid films were. The fuji product is fine as a stopgap, but I have no illusions about how long it will be around.

      • @taylor, what’s the “future” i’m looking ahead to? someone’s marketing creation pretending they are an artist?

  3. If it helps polaroid out. I’m all about it.

  4. I would love to take her seriously but that hat prevents me from doing so. I realize her image is a gimic to sell albums, but seriously, that hat is a joke.

    • @marc, I can’t decide if her kind of savvy (she does sell records after all) is good for Pola or not.

      It seems to me they need strategic direction (and better new products) first, not gimmicks.

  5. I agree! This is ridiculous. Let’s not use a pop star to bring attention to a dying brand and our profession and allow the masses to weigh in on art and discussion of photography.

    We need to keep this to a few select genius photographers only. I’m thinking like 4.

    • @Alan Smithee, I loved your last movie !!!

  6. Does she even own a camera?

  7. Her fashion style reminds me of a fashion show with clothes that a normal person wouldn’t wear. Since when does that mean you’d be good with an iconic camera brand? She’s not even known for anything related to photography. I think this is more about publicity than anything else.

    • @marc

      Polaroid is a brand. Brands are not solely about the sports drink, the running shoe, the German car. They represent so much more, for better or worse. Yes it’s a marketing move pure and simple, based on a business decision. Nothing wrong with that.

      As far as her fashion style filled with clothes a normal person wouldn’t wear, ever heard of haute couture and that lil city over yonder called Paris?

    • @marc,
      Agree. It is definitely for publicity. Almost the same as Nikon strategy when they hire Asthon Kutcher, which is successful. Now they just need to get Gaga to pose with their camera.

  8. I’m Instantly GaGa for Polaroid…

  9. Well, now, Ashton Kutcher has been helping Nikon push their products for years. Remember Andre Agasi for, who was it, Canon? Really, what was the thinking behind all that? Let’s get anybody who’s remotely popular hawk our products for us?

    Lady Ga Ga is an incredibly strong brand based around the idea of fearless creative expression, a solid work ethic, attention-getting style (whether you like her’s or not), and making hits/products that sell like crazy.

    This isn’t a stupid idea.

    • @Ed Verosky, exactly.

    • @Ed Verosky,

      Put a famous person on my brand okay. Branding is a different issue then naming someone “Creative Director”. I think maybe that is what people may have a problem with here.

      BTW, loved the Alan Smithee moniker above.

      • @Allen Lee Taylor, Read #20 below.

  10. Wow.

    I tried to give her an honest listen (though the hat made it difficult) & she’s onto something – but I don’t know that the “something” takes a Lady GaGa.

    Don’t we all intrinsically get that what’s great about Polaroid is that instant film is the perfect analog product in the digital world? So, while I think she’s right, I’m not sure it took her to think it up.

    On a tangent, I’m always impressed with how business savvy the top pop stars are. She’s a genius for making sure her agreement went past the role of spokesperson. That is smart for her – let’s hope the same applies for Polaroid.

  11. Well hopefully this will put Polaroid out of it’s misery. I never thought much of Polaroid either.

  12. Who/what the F is Lady GaGa

  13. This is all about selling product to the masses. Lady Ga Ga is nothing more than an over the top visible pitchman with very little connection to the world of photography other than being in People Magazine and other tabloid rags.
    It’s unfortunate but everything boils down to the almighty bottom line. Don’t mind all the photographers that are amateurs and pros who thought enough about Polaroid products if not down right coveting them, campaigning to keep them being made, even starting a movement to keep Polaroid alive.
    Take a look at the dedicated people who started “The Impossible Project”.
    http://www.the-impossible-project.com
    This is the 21st century’s version of huckstering, think Dr Brown’s 7 Day Elixir. Lady Gag Gag Me!!!!

  14. This is good news. For the cranky oldsters who poo poo this deal, vidi this:

    Polaroid’s only profit centers in the past few years were licensing its name to low end Chinese makers of P&S cams and DVD players, and the postage stamp instant cams in the Japanese market. They lost money on EVERYTHING else. In fact, the brand licensing diluted the value of the brand, so in fact they lost money on that as well, in the long run.

    So they emerge from bankruptcy and they look at their past and see that making iconic lifetyle products is profitable. Lady GaGa is an iconic lifestyle product who understands marketing. If Polaroid can turn a profit maybe they will do us a favor and start up production of sheet film again for the fine art market. I’d pay $10 a sheet for 4×5 type 55. Thus, in Lady GaGa lies the path to Salvation.

    • @Donnar Party,
      Be careful what you wish for. If you think this deal will bring back what you sadly lost ie. Type 55 film, I’ll betcha that is NOT the direction Ms Ga Ga is going toward.

  15. This reminds me of when Canon used Andre Agassi to sell “Rebel” cameras. I cringed when I heard that name too. Rebel? I mean cooommeee on Canon. You might as well have named your product line “Fruit Loops”.

    I love the idea that marketers think the masses are vapid – superficial consumers – I guess we are if we buy into this sort of crap. Maybe Lady Gaga is very creative – she probably is – but this I feel is more about Polaroid using her image to prop up their company. If the products suck – no one is going to buy them because Lady Gaga has her name on them. Honestly how many consumers buy products based on celebrity endorsements? Not me. I buy things because they work and honestly I’d rather not have people like Lady Gaga’s name splashed across the product I’m using.

    I’d honestly rather use a product named the “Zi8” (sounds to close to “zit” – as in pimple- for me) than have a camera or printer or whatever with a celebrity association or name across the title. I seems unprofessional.
    See here:
    http://adage.com/brightcove/single.php?bcpid=1370868150&bctid=55060343001

    Good luck Polaroid! I hope Lady Gaga sells some products for you and gets you folks profitable again (I really meant that). Maybe you can ditch the silly pitch-people eventually.

  16. WTF
    So we can expect a Lady Ga Ga Poker Face (Only song I know of her’s) Blinged camera, other then that, what?

  17. Why is everyone so scared of her having creative control? She is an artist right? And she happens to have more followers in a few short years than most famous photographers do in their whole lifetime.

    If anything she is going to get polaroid more publicity and in turn give them more revenue for the future. Which is good for all of us.

    As we move into the new decade there are going to be changes. This is just the beginning. Many photographers are stuck on their “old” views of what the photography world “should” be doing and how.

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change-Charles Darwin

    • @David Larson,

      Exactly. Polaroid isn’t doing this for us, they already have us.

      This is for the market they lost over the years, young consumers.

      1. Lady Gaga joins up with Polaroid.
      2. Lady Gaga shoots a video for her new single, in which everyone is taking Polaroids of each other.
      3. A whole new generation of youngsters rush to buy Polaroid cameras and film.

      It’s actually quite a brilliant move.

  18. If you want to make a statement, go to Lady Gaga’s facebook page, myspace, twitter, or whatever and state bring back T 55 or whatever. Let her know as it seems they really do read their posts.

  19. She’s going to “bring back the lifestyle of taking photos”. Where’s she been whilst the digital revolution has been happening?

    I guess they need a chimp to do their chimping for them…

  20. I seriously doubt she’ll have creative “control.” We’re likely talking about creative “input” and collaboration in order to attach her brand to certain products.

    This is nothing new for Polaroid. Remember the “Barbie” camera they produced?

    http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/pics/campics/camprice-Barbie_a.jpg

    Lady GaGa will probably also be featured in commercials. Yup, just like Bob Dylan did for the iPod (that’s for you older guys), Christina Aguilara for Target, and a ton of celebs who are “creatively” involved in branding perfume and cologne.

    “Unfortunately it’s about the bottom line.” Duh. And, why is that unfortunate when it comes to a business model?

    By the way, for those who are quick to judge without any real knowledge, the girl’s incredibly talented. Not my cup of tea, but she is amazing.

  21. The Cult of Personality strikes again!

  22. Lady Gaga and (modern) photography have very much in common,imho.

    This ‘Plastic Doll’ creature is just an overdone ‘Photoshop Disaster’ in motion pictures.

    As Ayanna Nahmias has stated in her ‘Memoirs of a Cipher’ blog :

    ‘This is the state of our society today, where nubile youth is prized over wisdom and intellect, and where a woman is defined simply by the outer appearances, hence the increased popularity and fascination with men who are capable through artifice to impersonate and project beautiful creatures more seductive than the women they emulate.’

    http://ayannanahmias.com/2009/12/19/lady-gaga-paparazzi/

    Best for Polaroid !

    • @Reinfried Marass, Interesting assessment. But how does this differ from ANY other time in history?

      • @Ed Verosky, If you look outside of Western Consumer Culture there are plenty of examples. Which does not mean beauty/youth has not been appreciated. The question is the degree and specific role in which wisdom or youth is valued.

        • @Bob, Ok, well, the opening of the quote: β€˜This is the state of our society today, where nubile youth is prized over wisdom and intellect, and where a woman is defined simply by the outer appearances…’ instantly brings to mind the Geisha culture which is far from a “today” or “modern” invention. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha) And you can see how in most art and societies, youth and beauty seem to be the big draw and always were prized. Wisdom is very subjective, as is useful experience. I would also stop short of suggesting someone who is young, popular, eclectic, and a self-made millionaire is not wise (in the marketing and arts contexts). She’s just strange to many of us, and an easy target to criticize when you don’t know all the facts. And, when you don’t know the artist personally.

          • @Ed Verosky, I’m taking a macro view of which this news item may be a micro example. There have always been courtesans in the history of civilization. As far as I know, rarely have they been respected for wisdom or intellect. Not that there have not been powerful women in history – they may also have been attractive aside from other abilities. But that has not been the same as what we have in our present society. I’d bet a great many people of the world wonder how Sarah Palin got as far as she did after all the exposure she has received portraying who she is :o

            How often were Geisha sought out for their wise consultation during important civil, family, or business matters?
            Entertainers have generally been considered at a lower level of status.
            Btw – In Feudal Japan, the farmer had a higher status than the bourgeois – which I believe would include Geisha.
            Geisha also learned many things (social conventions, rituals, etc.) aside from those related to appearance.

            “And you can see how in most art and societies, youth and beauty seem to be the big draw and always were prized”.

            Really? *The* big draw?
            What has religion been?
            Social/family status?
            Commerce?
            Governance?
            Wisdom?
            Sustenance?
            In the history of man, I see youth and beauty as minor players. I don’t see the term respect used to describe them well.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

            A young millionaire in our culture is often above all else LUCKY. Fortunate to have been born into this civilization, and not a war torn village in The Congo or some other area of the world with little civil development. The highly successful pop culture artists we see today may be good at tapping into the inner narcism of consumers. Some of that is fine. But just how much self absorption is healthy for a society? A question of balance.

            Wisdom does have proofs – it is not subjective.

            • @Bob, I’m in agreement with you in terms of the true value of wisdom (which is still as subjectively read as anything perceived). I brought up Geisha as an example of that idea that women have been seen superficially for quite a long time (not that Geisha were known for their wisdom).

              My point is that the value placed on the superficial is not just a “modern” or recent phenomena, as stated. I take issue with the way people talk about an age-old condition as if it were something that just recently came into play.

              • @Ed Verosky, The idea of Geisha as primarily superficial is a modern idea. As I mentioned, there are many other qualities Geisha culture embodied besides appearance.

                The superficial may be expressed in other cultures, other times. It is relational. Just because it existed does not mean it has been as significantly held or valued as other fundamental values. In today’s culture the balance has changed.

            • @Bob,

              *The* big draw. (we are talking about art and commerce, and men’s views of women — read how this discussion got started at the top). You’re selling items with youth and sex. I don’t see as many products being hawked with the church, or governance, as the “cool” factor. Sweeps week is as good of an example as any. Which again, is not to say it’s right. It just is.

              Wisdom has proofs? Like “go to college, work hard all your life for one company, and they’ll take care of you in the end?” How about “Pray, and everything will work out?” Old wives tales, anyone? Wisdom is going to be subjective as long as there’s someone who’s going to decide what’s wise, and what isn’t.

              • @Ed Verosky, As I stated, this is about Western Consumer Culture.
                You asked how this differs from any other time in history.
                Look outside of Western Consumer culture and you can see how it has been different.

                Wisdom – As long as a system of reasoning is used (not ideology, opinion, cognitive distortions) it is often easy to see where people made wise decisions.
                Was Napoleon wise in his decisions at Waterloo?
                Did the management of Enron make wise decisions in the management of the company?
                The “Mission Accomplished” speech and banner by GWB… wise?

                • @Bob, You’ve got that right. Of course, I’m sure lots of people considered GWB full of wisdom, especially at the time. But, time told a different story (poses the question, is there a temporal factor to determining the true value of a given wisdom?). Although many would argue lots of THOSE decisions were the wisest to this day. Hence, subjective, despite what we’d call the eventual proof.

                  But, instead of continuing an argument about possibly only a difference of semantics concerning the definition of wisdom, I’d say that

                  1) Youth and sex are highly sought after attributes and always have been, and as such used to sell products.

                  2) Wisdom actually should be revered and often is. It just doesn’t have as fast a punch when selling the new Polaroid products.

                  3) It’s annoying when someone comes out with a new book or article or post talking about how “these days” it’s all about objectifying women and superficiality, sexuality, bling, or whatever. When, in fact, there is evidence of that condition, Western Culture or not, throughout history. And that is a piece of wisdom that is quantifiable. :)

                  • @Ed Verosky, So when do you suppose “Youth and sex” were first used to sell products to a marketplace/culture?

                    On “wisdom” look at my qualifiers to determine “proof”.
                    (How long did the Flat Earth Society exist?)
                    Not all decisions by wise men are wise. But there are people who do develop wisdom.

                    3) I feel what you are missing are the grey shades. Life is rarely all or nothing. It is the degree to which things exist (including context, form, intention, etc.) that often creates our realities.

                    • @Bob,

                      I think my #3 point basically sums it all up.

                      But if you choose to believe that the fascination with superficial beauty is brand new to the world, who am I to change your mind?

                    • @Ed Verosky, Ok, I’ll bite. What evidence?

                      It’s interesting “wisdom” has been part of this discussion.
                      Do people thinking with a lack of wisdom realize they are doing this at the time?

                      Now keep in mind, there is a difference between “objectifying” women in media, and an appreciation and expression of beauty. Though some religions/theories feel that any representation of humans separates (“objectify”) flesh from the spirit. Of course as I suggested there are greater and lesser examples of this – even today.

                      I’d almost venture to say, that before this was done in media it was done in physical form through slavery.

                    • @Bob, Evidence to support #3? It’s a statement about being annoyed by someone trying to sell books/articles about a “new” condition that is not really new. Evidence that it’s not new? Please just google advertising going back to the 1800s (not new).

                      The quote, “This is the state of our society today, where nubile youth is prized over wisdom and intellect, and where a woman is defined simply by the outer appearances,” does not exclude Western Consumer Culture, but in fact specifies “our society today.” as if it is different somehow from our society yesterday.

                      A quick search of advertising from a hundred years back will give you all the evidence you need.

                      Yes, of course society values intelligence and wisdom. But as “Atlas Shrugged” suggested, not so much.

          • @Ed Verosky, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as well.

      • Ahhh,
        It seems that Annaya’s quote has started a nice discussion – Great !

        Maybe Ayanna will interact. She fights for ‘female power’ – boys be aware ! *smile

        @Ed,
        some great stuff on your website. Folio 2 and 3 is my personal fav.

        @Bob,
        Napoleon was a wise guy, but Wellington was just wiser and tricked him (and ended the ‘war of honor’ on the battlefields by the way).

        Now, who’s the girl to save e.g. Leica ? The last German goddess was Marlene. So maybe Britney, Paris, JLO or Madonna ? :-)

        Best,
        Reini

        • @Reinfried Marass, Ha… Indeed Napoleon was a *wiseguy* :) … pride goeth!

          You forgot Nina Hagen the (East) German (punk) goddess.
          Both are past their prime, for Leica :^)

          • @Bob,
            Nina Hagen and Leica *looooooool That reminds me on Harley Davidson ‘featuring’ Marlon Brando / The Wild One … and orders dropped to zero :-)

            Otherwise,in the long run, this ‘image’ kept HD alive.

            It seems there is no light w/o shadow … and we are back on track (-> photography *smile)

            Best, Reini

  23. That hat is awesome, what a dope. Lady GaGa will be great for Polaroid! Pa-pa-pa- polaroid face.

  24. Uhh….what exactly is she talking about? The immediacy of digital? In relation to Polaroid film (which is actually immediate)?

    Anyway, Polaroid can’t do any worse than they already have, so I’m for it. Their strategy should just be to turn back the clock, though. It was a perfect product already.

  25. When I first found out about this I was a bit upset. That was the professional photographer in me. Overall I think its a great idea. Gaga has a ton of fans and if Polaroid is wanting to get back into the mass market Gaga is a good move. Few public figures combine fashion and music like she does and if she helps Polaroid grow their sales it helps us pros out.

    • @Giulio Sciorio, you said it G, this should prove to be a good move mass marketing wise for polaroid!

  26. For those of you begging for a return of type 55 film GIVE IT UP. Polaroid destroyed the factory that made it. They were ready to destroy the factory that’s making the new film but Florian Kaps stepped in at the last minute, bought it and created The Impossible Project:

    http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/12/features/the-impossible-project-reviving-instant-photography.aspx?page=all

    The only reason Polaroid has film to sell again is thanks to the efforts of The Impossible Team. Lady Gaga probably doesn’t even know what a SX-70 is or who Edwin Land was. Her hiring is just an attempt by Polaroid to hide the fact that they have egg on their faces for giving up on instant film in favor of crap-ass electronics and cheap digicams.

    BTW, T.I.P. will be selling their film directly and in retail stores so you don’t even have to give a cent to Polaroid if you don’t feel like it.

    • @Lily, I think it was the market that gave up instant film. Why would Polaroid keep making something that was losing money for the company.

      Later, when it became scarce, and an artistic throwback novelty (as well as a hipster toy), suddenly it was in demand again. Serious photographers weren’t ALWAYS shooting with old SX-70s.

      I think a lot of people are bashing a company whose instant film only re-emerged in popularity once it was gone. Who’s really to blame?

  27. Ridiculous hat – I thought is was pretty cool.

  28. At this point I am open to anything upstaging the horrible Aston Kutcher in those lame Nikon spots

  29. Ha…. a new look is born. The GaGa hat border.
    Buy my totally bitchin GaGa Hat Border plugin :)

    Congrats, Rob. You seem to have scooped PDN on this piece.

    I hope Lady GaGa can bring more to Polaroid than hype and personality.
    If she’s doing her homework and possibly reading this now…

    Please have Polaroid re-release Type 879 Sheet Film!

  30. Lady Gaga will be good for Polaroid. Its a lame move overall, and I’m sure her power and opinion is overstated. But the marketing team that made her can certainly help Polaroid.

  31. she needs to stay with what she knows and that is putting on crazy ass outfits and doing music I guess. Does she even know anything about camera / photography / and polaroids wowo.

    But the sad this is its pretty much the best thing to ever happen to polaroid but no it will make a big come back and everyone will want it. i guess we will wait and see

  32. ungaro tried to do something similar with lindsay lohan’s big fashion design debut
    http://www.fashionweeknews.com/2009/10/06/lindsay-lohans-fashion-designer-debut-for-emanuel-ungaro-panned/
    a bigger question for me regarding lady gaga’s new position is:
    what does polaroid hope to accomplish – introduce a new product? capitalize on their ‘instant camera’ legend for a new audience? create media buzz? without seeing their position paper and marketing strategy, it’s difficult to have an opinion.

  33. I thought the hat was pretty cool too. If you look at it with the whole outfit when she stands up it works great. What’s with photographers having anything bad to say about her clothes? Jeez. Get off your stodgy seats. Making fun of a performance artist? She’s also been into making short Warholish style films for herself. The girl is very visual in her thinking.

    • @Craig M, Art is in the eye of the beholder as well. We live in America folks…we are all free to have our individual opinions. Let’s celebrate that move on and keep making art.
      Shoot on!

  34. do I have to have a disco stick to buy polaroid now?

    • @shannon, Ha Ha. Funny. No. You get one with every $50 or more purchase of film.

  35. I like her accent! The hat, hey no worse that Madonna wearring her Bra on the outside of her clothes. LOL .

    Hey, it might be a desperate move, maybe not, time will tell the story. I would hope polaroid hangs around for the rest of my life time, about another 50 years, I like being able to use it is as creative outlet.

  36. Shame they didn’t go with Tiger Woods, or maybe Schwayze:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQdaR_UgRKo

    Overall I think it will be a successful move. It will always be a niche market, but I am glad to see it survive. One of the odder things I have done in photography has been Polaroid manipulations, which landed me in a few books, and a museum. While it is a strange art form, I would hate to see it totally disappear.

  37. “An artists with an MBA sounds like a powerful combination. Anyway, here’s to the decade where the artists take over. That will probably be frustrating for some people, hopefully not you.” this is not about L. Gaga, instead is about the executive “artist” at Polaroid that made the decision to bring her onboard…this is a smart strategic move for Polaroid. Well done!

  38. I am now convinced everyone commenting is 100yrs old.
    Gaga is quite the genius and performer and an excellent business woman. Good for her, good for p-roid.

    • @stikman, and that would be you too! LOL You could be right. You know what I think, the older generations are afraid to be left in a nursing home with nothing to do but watch uncreative games shows and play bingo, by the younger generation creatives.

      Not tooting my kids horns but I have one working on his MBA, daughter working on a PHD in music, son that is the designer for UFC game, an actress and the last well, he is young still.

      The younger generation definitely has it going for them even with the way things are….me I am 50 going on 27

  39. Lady Ga-Ga is such an iconic leader for all of us , but who is this polaroid everyone is talking about ?

  40. Just pull and wait sixty seconds and it will all go away…

  41. This is a totally great move for both of them and it’s a good sign that whoever is running Polaroid knows who to put in front, to bring back pop-culture relevance to a dead brand. There is no better, forward-looking artist who personifies and carries the torch of individual self-expression than Lady Gaga.

    That said, we all know that the Polaroid technology we know of today is probably not going to be the Polaroid of tomorrow, so the question is which way is Polaroid going to go?

    If Polaroid can find a way to transfer what is so good about their old technology to digital (or come up with a new technology strategy), then it’s going to work. But if they only try to use her as a marketing gimmick, then Polaroid will turn into “just another one of those digital camera companies” — good for the corporation, but inconsequential to the medium.

    I’m crossing my fingers…

  42. […] seen this popping up on photo blogs (H2H, APE, and PFI) – Lady GaGa has been name Creative Director at Polaroid. How can we bridge what is […]

  43. I think GaGa is a genius with real individuality in these days of corporation-created plastic-pop bands.
    She is as individual as Polaroid itself and it seems to make sense to use a figurehead with her global popularity to bring more clout to the marketing push.
    I’m not a huge fan of her music, having said all that – more a fan of her style and unique vision.

    Andrew

    • @andrewf,

      Gaga is as much of an individual as Marilyn Manson was 10 years ago, which is to say not an individual at all. You have fallen for the “corporation-created plastic-pop bands” reinventing itself. Best trick they play every ten years that people fall for time and time again.

      • @clovenguth, I’m hoping and praying for Polaroid, not GaGa – I don’t give two sh*ts about her or what she does – as long as it is good for the brand of Pola!

  44. I’sn’t Lady Gaga really a man? Isn’t that what this is all about anyway? She is the MAN! We are all ruled by the MAN!

  45. […] other news… I saw on Rob Haggart’s blog “A Photo Editor” Lady Gaga Named Creative Director at Polaroid – that Lady Gaga has been named a creative director at Polaroid. I am of mixed feelings about this. […]

  46. I wonder what Type GaGa’s gonna look like… :-)

  47. Polaroid doesn’t make anything I use anymore, so I’ve given up caring what happens with or to them. I wish their employees well though.

  48. Lady GaGa, ” ..to bring back the lifestyle of taking photos…”
    Wait, what? Has she never been on flickr? I think the “lifestyle of taking photos” is thriving without her help.

  49. Lady GaGa Type 79. All about it! Who cares who the face is trying to sell it to me?

    PS. 8×10 Polaroid show coming this spring. Shhhh.

  50. yea, maybe no future for type 55, and possibly no 667 for my 250 but at least we still have fp-100c… or has it been so long since i’ve used it that, that is gone as well?

  51. Based on my last couple experiences with new hire creative directors, she couldn’t be much worse- seems like a major lack of creativity in the advertising world right now. They are looking at GO-TO-MARKET approach (viral/online media buys etc) more than the actual MESSAGE or CREATIVE PACKAGING. People need to sit back and learn to be artists again rather than just product pushers… I guess the ROI dictates everything now.
    Polaroid does need to return to its instant film roots as there will always be a market for immediate image capture/print. Go on any major film set and look at the script continuity team’s board. Injet and Dye subs don’t substitute for quick and easy polaroid satisfaction. And should anyone start a petition to get type 55 film back to the market, let me know and i would be happy to sign.

  52. For people thinking this is going to bring back and sort of paper/film Polaroid we all know and miss, it’s just a dream you have.

    The new product will most likely be a micro digital print cartridge that makes really small “prints” from a digital camera. Either an all in one unit or a separate battery operated device that you cradle your Polaroid camera (with Gaga’s face and hat all over it). Think the new digital photo booths you see everywhere but something that fits in your hand. They will most likely have frames and affects you can apply on the fly to this digital print to make it look like a “Polaroid”. And you’ll get 10-15 2×3 prints out of a cartridge and then you buy another at Riteaid at the half-dress fullsize Gaga standie along with a free itunes track of her latest single. Iconic

  53. Polaroid has been through some hard times the last year or so. With just coming out of bankruptcy I think this is a smart move for them. Just about all of America is a follower of Lady GaGa. Who cares if she is a pop star? It’s a smart move for them because people are going to see her name and will want this product. It’s about making the money back they once made. It’s a good way to announce that they are back in business. Smart move Polaroid!

  54. Where the heck to begin?

    Polaroid is a twice sold trademark that used to be worth about as much as Sony or Kleenex to the general public. Nothing much more in the grand scheme of things.
    As in early video and then the internet I am sure the single greatest use was porn. Not us so called “photographers”…
    We don’t use enough. Type 59, 669, 8×10 whatever. No volume. Just like Nikon d3xs or Hasselblad H4ds. No volume. Not really.
    I’m sure you can all see where this train leads. Digital is better for home porn.
    Hence, no volume for Polaroid or Fuji or anybody.
    Yes, I’m sad. But I was sadder selling 4×5 and 8×10 Sinar P2s for squat on eBay 5 years ago.
    I still have a small stash of ‘roid material but, like our one remaining “darkroom”, it ain’t getting used.
    Neither is my Leica M2R with the 12mm. Maybe Ken Rockwell will save us all from digital with Real RAW. But I doubt it.

    What say?


Comments are closed for this article!