Paul, the "smaller vagabound type thingy" you mention... will it be small enough to attach to the AB itself or maybe rig it up to the lightstand?

Running off cyber commanders plus each AB unit having its own battery is my dream setup. Everything totally wireless and not having to worry about having all your lights tethered to a single battery makes my mouth water.

I haven't tried it, but one thought I've had is to use a UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) unit to power a small strobe. Because the computer market is so much bigger than the photo lighting market, the economies of scale make UPSes relatively cheap.

Charge it up, put it in a bag hung from the light stand, and -- if it works -- you've got a small, portable AC supply.

kenyee wrote:
.... I'd like to buy a set of color matching frosted domes (e.g., full CTO, full tough green, 1/2 versions of both) and a Bastard Amber (for warming skin). ...


Paul Buff wrote:
Unfortunately, easier said than done. I had to fight tooth and nail to get clear frosted domes affordably made. Maybe for $100 or so I might get CC domes, but would only sell a few a month.

That's a shame. I would think that even at $50 per you would sell quite a few - I'd buy at that price. $100 per would probably put them out of my range though.

Have you considered a gel holder that would sit close to the flash tube and allow existing modifiers to be used without interfering?

Does anyone make heat-resistant gels that could be attached directly to the frosted domes?

sleibrand wrote:
Have you considered a gel holder that would sit close to the flash tube and allow existing modifiers to be used without interfering?

I don't see how that could work. The flash tube is a cylindrical ring. The gel would have to wrap all the around it and cover the top as well but the modeling lamp is in the way. I guess if you take the modeling lamp out, you could take a sheet of gel and sort of wrap around the tube but I'm not sure if the tube would overheat.
As for gels...look up Roscolux. They're heat resistant and used by the video industry on blazing hot Arri lights...

I think what he means and what I first assumed would be a great solution would be to cut a piece of CTO and wedge it around the inside of the dome and put it back on. It would definitely fade over time if you left the 250w modeling lamps on all the time, but it's not a bad solution to consider.

Future Man wrote: What makes you so sure that the Alien Bees' branding is hurting the line? You go on and on an on that we don't understand marketing, we are misguided, blah blah blah.

My argument is that the branding is helping sales. They are hip, fresh, and appeal to a younger crowd. The AB units are distinctive and eye catching... For the market PCB is going after, I think he's hitting the nail on the head... The fact that Alien Bees are so damn popular makes your argument look pretty dumb.


As someone perceptively remarked -- Alien Bees sell more for their price point than their looks. I would liken this to the "last call" effect at a bar where the homely chick with the powder blue eye shadow and big hair is suddenly not the toad on the lilly pad that she was at 10 o'clock. Paul's claims of record sales in bad times is possibly due to the fact that many photographers have less money to spend and fewer options in regards to inexpensive gear. While you can boast that the Bees are damn popular and Paul is the embodiment of the successful business man, this is just an assumption on your part. These photography sites are a microcosm and don't really reflect the whole picture. I would gather Paul's rather successful, but no one but Paul really knows the complete financial picture of his own company. There's no point in guessing, and blanket statements about his company being this and that without facts in evidence are meaningless.

You claim that Alien Bees are "hip, fresh, and appeal to a younger crowd," but the issue I have with his graphics are that they probably appeal to far-too-young of a crowd, and, naturally, college-age kids are going to buy his stuff. It's the only decent brand that they can afford.

Somewhere in this dialogue some people came to the conclusion that there are only two choices: the current Alien Bees logo and all the other brands that happen to look alike. Why is it that there are not 4 or 5 different options that embody the bee image in a distinct, more interesting way?

I'm not bagging Paul's company. He makes good lights. There were weaknesses in the older AB models and the newer models are doing a lot to improve upon them. I question why he would bring out a new line of AB's when he's allegedly introducing a new digital line (Einstein). Are they one and the same? If not, one of these lines is unnecessary and will cannibalize the other, but I don't see him retiring the AB's after the new modifications.

I will leave you with this: A photo of a baby's highchair toy that's designed in the shape of a Bee, and eerily similar to the AB logo. The highchair is for babies, not the hip, fresh younger crowd. They're all wearing Ed Hardy t-shirts -- at least in LA.

Deezie wrote:
Future Man wrote: What makes you so sure that the Alien Bees' branding is hurting the line? You go on and on an on that we don't understand marketing, we are misguided, blah blah blah.

My argument is that the branding is helping sales. They are hip, fresh, and appeal to a younger crowd. The AB units are distinctive and eye catching... For the market PCB is going after, I think he's hitting the nail on the head... The fact that Alien Bees are so damn popular makes your argument look pretty dumb.


As someone perceptively remarked -- Alien Bees sell more for their price point than their looks. I would liken this to the "last call" effect at a bar where the homely chick with the powder blue eye shadow and big hair is suddenly not the toad on the lilly pad that she was at 10 o'clock. Paul's claims of record sales in bad times is possibly due to the fact that many photographers have less money to spend and fewer options in regards to inexpensive gear. While you can boast that the Bees are damn popular and Paul is the embodiment of the successful business man, this is just an assumption on your part. These photography sites are a microcosm and don't really reflect the whole picture. I would gather Paul's rather successful, but no one but Paul really knows the complete financial picture of his own company. There's no point in guessing, and blanket statements about his company being this and that without facts in evidence are meaningless.

You claim that Alien Bees are "hip, fresh, and appeal to a younger crowd," but the issue I have with his graphics are that they probably appeal to far-too-young of a crowd, and, naturally, college-age kids are going to buy his stuff. It's the only decent brand that they can afford.

Somewhere in this dialogue some people came to the conclusion that there are only two choices: the current Alien Bees logo and all the other brands that happen to look alike. Why is it that there are not 4 or 5 different options that embody the bee image in a distinct, more interesting way?

I'm not bagging Paul's company. He makes good lights. There were weaknesses in the older AB models and the newer models are doing a lot to improve upon them. I question why he would bring out a new line of AB's when he's allegedly introducing a new digital line (Einstein). Are they one and the same? If not, one of these lines is unnecessary and will cannibalize the other, but I don't see him retiring the AB's after the new modifications.

I will leave you with this: A photo of a baby's highchair toy that's designed in the shape of a Bee, and eerily similar to the AB logo. The highchair is for babies, not the hip, fresh younger crowd. They're all wearing Ed Hardy t-shirts -- at least in LA.

Awesome.

I know you don't "give a crap", Paul, no surprise at all as this is Paul Buff's motto. It just makes me sad that I own some of your strobes, and have turned some people on to them when the man behind them acts like a child when someone sends a critique his way.

Paul Buff wrote:
Cinieski - You have made your opinion of my company and products abundantly clear in past posts. We cater to the 95%, quite successfully I might add. So I guess you can say I care very much what the 95% think and I guess, if you force the issue, I don't give a crap what Cineski thinks when put in these terms.

As someone perceptively remarked -- Alien Bees sell more for their price point than their looks. I would liken this to the "last call" effect at a bar where the homely chick with the powder blue eye shadow and big hair is suddenly not the toad on the lilly pad that she was at 10 o'clock.

It's the only decent brand that they can afford.

These are conflicting statements. There are a number of other brands at the same price point, but yourself assert it's the only decent brand at that price point.

Alien Bees don't sell well only because of their price point, but because Paul C Buff, Inc provides the greatest value at that price point.

I question why he would bring out a new line of AB's when he's allegedly introducing a new digital line (Einstein). Are they one and the same? If not, one of these lines is unnecessary and will cannibalize the other, but I don't see him retiring the AB's after the new modifications.

Where did you get the idea that ABMax and Einstein are "one and the same?"

Are there not DRebels, xxD bodies, xD bodies, and 1-Series bodies being sold at the same time?

RDKirk wrote: These are conflicting statements. There are a number of other brands at the same price point, but yourself assert it's the only decent brand at that price point.

Alien Bees don't sell well only because of their price point, but because Paul C Buff, Inc provides the greatest value at that price point.

There's no conflict in my statement. In my opinion, AB's are the best option for a low-cost brand, not because of look and design, but because of their low cost. Thus, the buyer will convince themselves that looks don't matter in order to remove the pain attached to buying an unattractive product. At the AB's price level, there is no brand loyalty. People who buy cheap will simply go elsewhere if Paul raises the price of his lights. Not because they want to, but because they can no longer afford to buy AB's.

The "one and the same" comment is a question, not a statement. There was reference by Paul of a pending announcement in 10 days. I'm not sure if these are the Einsteins with a name change or not. I'm just wondering why he would release two light brands. It certainly won't build his market share. You see major corporation making these mistakes all the time.

Miller Beer is a classic example. Years ago they begin the ugly process of line-extension, where they introduced new lines such as Miller Lite, Miller HIgh Life, Miller Genuine Draft and so on. All these extra brands did little to increase market share. It went up a blip, but not enough to justify the added expenses that went along with maintaining these extra brands in the market. Their own brands began to cannibalize each other, and Canon is just guilty of this classic misstep. Don't assume that because they're a big company that they always know what they're doing. Many of these companies are too busy trying to keep their competition at bay that they lose sight of the conventional wisdom in branding.

It's no secret that your Paul's advocate, so I'm not surprised by your comment. I do want Paul to succeed at an even higher level, which is why I offered to advise him.

Deezie wrote:
As someone perceptively remarked -- Alien Bees sell more for their price point than their looks

Nothing I've said in this thread goes against that statement. You would think your opening sentence in your refutation of me would address some aspect of my argument you found incorrect. I guess not. All I said is that branding/imaging works and is not a detriment to the line as you seem to think.

you go on to say...


There's no point in guessing, and blanket statements about his company being this and that without facts in evidence are meaningless.

What it comes down to is that I think the marketing/image of Bees help sales (and once again I never said this is their main selling point), you don't think this, neither of us have any facts to back up our opinions, yet you feel it important enough to make sure I know I shouldn't be throwing around baseless statements without facts while you do the same.

Deezie wrote:
RDKirk wrote: These are conflicting statements. There are a number of other brands at the same price point, but yourself assert it's the only decent brand at that price point.

Alien Bees don't sell well only because of their price point, but because Paul C Buff, Inc provides the greatest value at that price point.

There's no conflict in my statement. In my opinion, AB's are the best option for a low-cost brand, not because of look and design, but because of their low cost. Thus, the buyer will convince themselves that looks don't matter in order to remove the pain attached to buying an unattractive product. At the AB's price level, there is no brand loyalty. People who buy cheap will simply go elsewhere if Paul raises the price of his lights. Not because they want to, but because they can no longer afford to buy AB's.

The "one and the same" comment is a question, not a statement. There was reference by Paul of a pending announcement in 10 days. I'm not sure if these are the Einsteins with a name change or not. I'm just wondering why he would release two light brands. It certainly won't build his market share. You see major corporation making these mistakes all the time.

Miller Beer is a classic example. Years ago they begin the ugly process of line-extension, where they introduced new lines such as Miller Lite, Miller HIgh Life, Miller Genuine Draft and so on. All these extra brands did little to increase market share. It went up a blip, but not enough to justify the added expenses that went along with maintaining these extra brands in the market. Their own brands began to cannibalize each other, and Canon is just guilty of this classic misstep. Don't assume that because they're a big company that they always know what they're doing. Many of these companies are too busy trying to keep their competition at bay that they lose sight of the conventional wisdom in branding.

It's no secret that your Paul's advocate, so I'm not surprised by your comment. I do want Paul to succeed at an even higher level, which is why I offered to advise him.

Dude this is just embarrassing for you. Perhaps you should also contact Miller and Canon to see if you can help advise them too. Maybe you can help turn them into successful companies. Include some of the recent ramblings you've posted on the internet....that ought to close the deal!

I'd advise you quit posting your advise on the internet. It's hurting your advise business..

Deezie wrote:...At the AB's price level, there is no brand loyalty. People who buy cheap will simply go elsewhere if Paul raises the price of his lights. Not because they want to, but because they can no longer afford to buy AB's.

Can you back up this statement with some market research? Since there are other brands within this price range, as well as cheaper brands, it seems a pretty strong statement to say there is no brand loyalty. So...prove it. Put up or shut up as the saying goes.


I'm just wondering why he would release two light brands. It certainly won't build his market share.

Two brands? Let's see, he has White Lightning, Zeus, Alien Bees; I count that as three brands. ABMax will be model within the Alien Bees lineup, not a seperate brand, just as you can buy a Ford Focus and a Ford Ranger while staying within the Ford brand. Following that analogy, White Lightning and Zeus could be compared with Lincoln and Mercury; different brands from the same parent company, Paul C. Buff, Inc.

Frankly, your poorly thought out comments don't give you much credability as a "marketing expert."

A lot of you guys can teach me many things about lighting, but of all the people offering marketing opinions in this thread, I'm probably the only one who's ever worked as a research analyst (or higher) in a business consultancy, delivered strategy presentations to multimillion $ firms, etc.

My advice: why drive away the only photo equipment CEO willing to answer questions on this forum?

If even a regional/national Canon/Nikon/Elinchrom/etc CEO started posting and answering questions here, would we all start bagging the companies marketing/product choices/etc? (Probably... )

It is all about price "points", or an "orderly" market not price, hence the need for multiple brands for some companies. While some companies choose to limit or add features and benefis on one brand to control cost and user price, others choose to market separate brands for price so as not to dilute the value of your top brand, i.e. Porsche/Audi/Volkswagen. The challenge for a manufacturer is how well their marketing department can distinguish the brands in the user eyes. Just because users know Paul Buff makes White Lightning and AB, do users think they're all the same? Maybe, maybe not if they have done a good enough job to convince the user that White Lightning is worth more or that you don't get metal casings for instance if you buy AB. AB is definitely positioned as a price competitve brand but he clearly markets it that way with features in its price point to a customer with that budget. Don't forget also that he sells direct and can eliminate some of the reatilers profit margins. Not all, becaase he still bears all the costs of marketing and inventory but it's still a significant savings for the buyer. However, that doesn't dimish the retailers value either. The point of these forums for me and particularly this thread, is they are one of the only ways you can learn about a product like AB. Without the benefit of being able to walk into a retail store you either have to buy it, take their marketing word for it, or learn from others users at places like this. Nothing wrong with a comapny having many brnads and price points and long as you the buyer know what you're paying for. I started with AB when I first learned studio lighting and when I needed more I moved to Elinchrom and have been very happy. To me Paul's new products are his way of getting guys like me back.

Deezie> As someone perceptively remarked -- Alien Bees sell more for their price point than their looks.

I'd share that opinion but then again I don't think looks has much to do with it. It seems that Paul Buff's products have three main points to draw in most of his customers: price, features and support. Most AB owners will gush over his support, something that is extremely rare in today's corporate America, so much so that it may be the most important of these three selling points.

However, price point is an important decision maker/breaker for those buying lighting gear in the hobbyist range. Please note that I am _not_ excluding working professionals from being owners of AB equipment. If Joe's only got $500 to spend on lighting gear, then better equipment from another maker that costs $700 ain't gonna be considered by Joe.

The features of AB products is pretty good, though there are a few others that should be considered as direct competitors. For the beginners who compare AB's to the cheap Chinese strobes or cheap continuous lighting, the AB's are a no brainer that will last much longer and give much more dependable service. When one is shooting as a hobby or as a part-timer, that makes it easier to follow the crowd and buy AB's.

All the above is my opinion (worth no more than $0.02 in today's economy) and I'll admit that I use and love my AB products (all black, btw).
Best,
Andy

shoebox9 wrote:
If even a regional/national Canon/Nikon/Elinchrom/etc CEO started posting and answering questions here, would we all start bagging the companies marketing/product choices/etc?

Yeah, if they posted with the same attitude - absolutely!

Chuck Westphal of Canon posts here, as does Henry Posner of B&H and Jim Doyle of Shades of Paper, etc. Many others post at more "professional" sites. They are all pretty well treated and respected.


Paul Buff wrote:
Here's one of very many extremely professional AB photographers. They just do there work instead of bragging about how much they spent on equipment.

Yeah, did I tell you all how much I spent on my Profoto/Broncolor/Elinchrom equipment? Geez, I'm cool .... with used equipment well bought and sold, the net cost is $0. It retains it's value well.

For the most part I have tried to ride a middle path and be polite over the past 2 years. Here is my take on all of this.

1) Paul does a good job at taking existing technology, copying and tweaking it, and bringing it to the entry level market with a decent feature set. Einstein will basically be a clone of a 1992 product fron Broncolor. They also had an inverter for their monolights in 1988 that attached to a car battery, like the Vagabond, etc.

2) Making lights pop - with models and naked women in front of them - is exciting for "the guys." So they come on here and tell us all about these **great** lights they bought - 2 weeks ago - and how they pop and don't break when thery crash to the floor, etc. Yeah, yeah - after 30 years I have at least 5 brands lying around that are about the same, some cheaper, some more expensive. But of course a lot of posters are using AB's, so it becomes a clique ...

3) Paul seems to think his lights are the end all and be all, and seems irritated that some folks choose other lights. (See above.)

Until he copies them that is .....

If AB's were so great, why move to digital controls with the Einstein, shorter flash durations, more powerful modelling lights, protecting glass domes, pack and heads with the Zeus, etc.

Look, after 30 years in the business, at 2,000 pops a day, I use equipment that I **love** to use every day. Just like a woodwooker - or musician - with a favorite instrument. My 10 year old's 3/4 size violin ain't no Stradivarius - but I would be a fool to buy him one, and he wouldn't appreciate it.

I'm happy as-is, just a little tired of lectures from newbies, fan boys, and ornery sob's on all sides.

I'm not sure it's just low price point. As with all things, it's a tradeoff between price, features, customer service. If everyone bought the cheapest strobes they could find, we'd see everyone running the cheapie fleabay strobes for $100
Paul offers a product w/ good features at a good price point w/ *great* customer service IMHO. If you think there's a competitive product at roughly the same price point w/ the same great CS, I'd like to hear a name. If everyone took out the price tradeoff, we'd probably all be running broncolor or photogenic setups and driving around in Porsches...

I'm still ticked off at Bogen for ignoring my messages about their tripod fliplocks clipping off enough flesh to cause profuse bleeding...good products, ok prices, sucky service

"I'm still ticked off at Bogen for ignoring my messages about their tripod fliplocks clipping off enough flesh to cause profuse bleeding...good products, ok prices, sucky service". This is one of the reasons I use Gitzo. But this is also a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Bogen owns both brands, but given the price and feature difference, some may be willing to get pinched a little. You can't have a Gitzo for a Manfrotto price.

Just from the comments in the past couple pages, we can elude that:
-Paul sells great lights at a great price
-Paul offers great customer service
-Paul's lights don't look so great, not bad enough to avoid them

Why not complete the trifecta?

Like people have said, the main selling point IS NOT looks, but that they are great lights at a great price. People with limited budgets can see that there aren't really any other options for good lights at a good price. Customer service sweetens the deal, not the colors and bee graphics.

Fred Gallico wrote: Dude this is just embarrassing for you. Perhaps you should also contact Miller and Canon to see if you can help advise them too. Maybe you can help turn them into successful companies. Include some of the recent ramblings you've posted on the internet....that ought to close the deal!


Are you seriously attempting to make an insightful point by starting out with the word, "Dude?" You've just been removed from the adult table and can eat your holiday dinner with the kids for the remainder of this discussion.

Your perception of corporate brands (Canon, Miller) as faultless seems rather naive given the recent stumbles by Bank of America, American Express, Goldman Sachs, General Motors and other well-established notables that have turned to the government for handouts to survive. And lest you forget the recent closings of venerable chains such as Circuit City, Compusa, Linen's & Things, Mervyns, I think you can get a clear picture that one never knows about the troubles of a brand until matters are quite dire.

Corporate brands hire companies like mine all the time, and we're currently on retainer with several international brands that I have relationships with going all the way back to my years at Ogilvy. It's a part of the business culture to get an objective assessment from outsiders who specialize in branding because company executives are too much in the thick-of-things to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. So thanks for the advice, Fred, but I'm already in contact with many large brands in an advisory capacity. It's what I've done for the past twenty years and have an expertise in this particular area.

BrianO wrote: Two brands? Let's see, he has White Lightning, Zeus, Alien Bees; I count that as three brands. ABMax will be model within the Alien Bees lineup, not a seperate brand, just as you can buy a Ford Focus and a Ford Ranger while staying within the Ford brand. Following that analogy, White Lightning and Zeus could be compared with Lincoln and Mercury; different brands from the same parent company, Paul C. Buff, Inc.

Frankly, your poorly thought out comments don't give you much credability as a "marketing expert."

Brian -- there's a difference between line extension and segmentation. Buff's products are all basically within the same price range, which promotes cannibalism within his own lines, which wouldn't occur if he had both a reasonably-priced product in addition to a professional, higher-priced line. If you consider that he will have the White Lightning, AB's and now the Einsteins, then that creates overlap. Sometimes this works, but generally, the brand finds itself working much harder to just maintain the same market share.

This could also be a brand misstep, such as when Jaguar introduced a line of low-cost cars. The guys paying $70k for their status car realized that they no longer had bragging rights after passing a kid on the streets who paid almost $50k less for the same brand. Jaguar soon realized that this was a misstep and retired the line of cheap cars. I don't know that this type of model will effect Paul, since his low-cost lights are his core line. But cost really is the primary motive for buying his lights. He offers great customer service, but his lights offer the most bang for the buck over competitors in his price range. If the new monolights by Profoto we're priced the same as the AB's, they'd very likely steal away most of Paul's customer base - fan boys and all.

mmurph wrote:...If AB's were so great, why move to digital controls with the Einstein, shorter flash durations, more powerful modelling lights, protecting glass domes, pack and heads with the Zeus, etc.

Because time marches on?

Why did Cessna introduce the Citation jets when their piston twins were still selling well? Why aren't we still driving Model T Fords? They were great cars at the time. Why aren't we still living in caves? They beat the heck out of shivering around the bases of trees.

It's called progress.

BrianO wrote:

Because time marches on?

You miss my point.

For the past 3+ years we have been lambasted by Mr Paul B & CO for expressing our **preference** for those types of features.

Sliding POT controls are better than digital, etc. etc.

Now that all of those features are"in house" , they are suddenly desirable and to be drooled over.

Go figure. And to think I had them 15 years ago.

Sliding POT controls are better than digital, etc. etc.

Now that all of those features are"in house" , they are suddenly desirable and to be drooled over.

Go figure. And to think I had them 15 years ago.

Actually, the question there wasn't about the switchology but about the technology. You could get digital switches, but not digital electronic flash technology at this particular price point. Now you can digital technology at this price point.

Paul Buff wrote:
BrianO wrote:
kkertz wrote:...Most photographers come to you because of the "bang-for-the-buck" not because you have cartoon aliens and skittle colored lights. The name works great, the visuals... not so much.

Hmmm. Let's see: ABs are available in black as well as in "Skittle" colors. Do all photographers buy the black models, and the colored models languish in Paul's warehouse? Nope. In fact, if you look through the "Show us your studio" thread, you'll see one of FM's own who has pink ABs in her studio.

I'd buy black ABs, myself, but I think it's great that options exist for those who want them. And those wacky colors sure do help make the AB ads memorable.

We sell about 50% Black and 50% in colors. AB sells approximately four times the units as WLX, which sells more in the USA than any competitor besides AB to our knowledge. WLX is everything some of you would like AB to be. What more can I say?


I'm pretty sure when I buy my AB's I'm getting them in White. Who gives a crap what color your lighting is, as long as the output is there, and quality components go in? I could care less about the "childish" marketing. Plenty of professionals use them and don't say about how they are going to buy elinchrom or whatever in the next shoot but use that equipment because it works for them.