Is Lomo, loco?

I have a hard time understanding the interest in Holga, Diana, and the other Lomo products. They have a fixed focal length, fixed aperture, a plastic lens, and one or maybe two shutter speeds. To me, that is a reloadable disposable camera. Otherwise, the main difference is just the price tag.

Why do people shell out $50-$100 on the Lomo? The margin on these cameras has to be tremendous. For that money, I could get a lot nicer used camera. I'm thinking a fixed lens 35mm rangefinder like a Olympus SP35 a Canonet QL17, or vintage TLR if you want medium format, a Ricoh TLR.

Lomo markets the poor quality as an advantage. From the manufacturer's product description: "Beloved Holga effects: soft focus, double-exposures, streaming colors, intense vignetting and unpredictable light leaks." These are bad things!!!!!

• "Soft focus" is a cute phrase meaning pictures are a little blurry.


• "Intense vignetting" - the low quality plastic lens makes the edges of the photo much darker than the center. Perhaps nice in some portraits, but not as a general purpose.


• "Unpredicitable light leaks" - the camera is so poorly constructed that that light hits the film through the camera back. It makes a white streak across your picture.

Is it purely marketing that tell people they will be "hip and different" if they own one?