The aim of the thesis was to analyze the marketing mix for photographers operating within the underground techno scene and formulate recommendations respecting its norms. The aim is considered fulfilled. The theoretical part uses recurring sources with limited diversity, however the content is comprehensive with a valuable perspective on subcultures and tribal marketing. I positively evaluate the analytical part — participant observation is well executed, and the dual perspective (client and end user) is valuable. The proposal part provides recommendations forming a layered structure, which is appropriate for this type of work. I positively evaluate that recommendations were validated through interviews. The outputs are of a general nature but applied for the given purpose. I negatively evaluate that figures do not include author citation. The reference list uses APA format, which is not permitted according to VUT guidelines. Observed events should include citations (event websites). The work contains few academic sources with limited diversity. I recommend the thesis for defense.

Q: How would your recommendations change if a photographer wanted to transition from the underground techno scene to commercial electronic music events while maintaining credibility in both environments? (More of a reflection than a revision of the proposals)

The presented work deals with the highly specific topic of marketing in a subcultural environment. The main goal to analyze the marketing mix of photographers in the techno scene and propose recommendations respecting its specific norms was met. The methodology based on qualitative autoethnography and the Complete Member Researcher approach was chosen logically. However, a certain limit is the high risk of subjective bias (researcher bias) and a smaller comparative sample of regular concerts. In the analytical part, the author demonstrated the ability to think logically, to connect theory with practice. The weakness is the process of validating the results. The selection of three respondents for semi-structured interviews shows a strong confirmation bias. The output itself is 8 specific, meaningful recommendations arranged into a coherent structure that correctly emphasize the need to gain cultural legitimacy. From a formal point of view, the text has a clear structure and a high language level, however, the work has fundamental shortcomings. The list of references is compiled in the wrong format and is in direct contradiction with the guideline. The text also lacks authorship for the inserted images. Despite these formal and methodological reservations, the work has good theoretical and practical value. Topics for thesis defence:

1. If you had the opportunity to supplement your research, what specific actors outside your social bubble would you approach to provide a more comprehensive perspective on your recommendations? You cite the Gemini 3 language model as an academic source in your bibliography. Can you justify this decision and explain what the methodological difference is between using AI as a stylistic editing assistant and AI as a literary source?