Pentax and capitalizing on history

rrstuff · 01-17-2014, 07:07 PM

This is what I just read on another forum:
"Pentax was never a big player in 35mm film camera, and I've believe they not going to be the 3rd big player in 35mm digital camera. Having said that, the 3rd camera big player position still open for all."

(...)

This just makes me more confident that Ricoh is doing a smart thing to put down Pentax history on their website. This seems to be severely underutilized aspect in Pentax's marketing.

**dms** · 01-17-2014, 07:20 PM

To say Pentax was never a major player is rewriting history. I don't know the numbers but (from my memory) in the 1960's and 1970's they were the equivalent of Canon or Nikon today.

**dms** · 01-17-2014, 07:22 PM

Oh, I see, that was your point!

rrstuff · 01-17-2014, 07:30 PM

I read they had some three quarters of the SLR market at one point. I would assume it included larger format cameras, not just 35mm. But yes, it's an example of a common misconception that's engrained in peoples' heads.

Blue · 01-17-2014, 09:42 PM

Whoever made that comment about Asahi Optical not being a major player in film cameras is an idiot. Canon nor Nikon knew what a 35mm slr was until Asahi Optical showed them. They were both knocking off Leica and Contax rangefinders at the time. Asahi was also the first company to sell 1 million slr bodies. They set the standard with return mirror, multi-coating as a standard feature on lenses, built the smallest slr (auto 110) and the probably the largest (6x7).

Scroll down to the milestones.

Milestones

rrstuff · 01-17-2014, 09:50 PM

Well said. I would venture that whomever said it, is not necessarily an idiot, but likely around 15 years old

. I don't blame him, you can find very little about Pentax in recent news.
Another common misconception is that pentax has a 'poor lens choice'. Last time I checked there was more glass made for Pentax (K-mount and M42) than for any other type of camera.
People are so used to having the few options pushed by canon and nikon, that 43mm or 77mm seems like a 'weird' focal length.

It is sad, however, that Pentax is not capitalizing on their history. We see that all the time in other brands, mercedes benz even has a tagline 'from inventors of the automobile'. Why wouldn't pentax say the new 'K-3 from inventors of an SLR', is beyond me.

I think they were also the first to reach 10 million built cameras too, btw.

Tom S. · 01-18-2014, 06:44 AM

Post moved to proper area. Please note: the General Section is for non-photographic topics.

jogiba · 01-18-2014, 08:15 AM

Young people are leaving Facebook by the millions because their older relatives are on Facebook now so why how would Pentax sell more cameras by saying we sold your older relatives their cameras many years ago ?

Teens flee Facebook, but baby boomers take their place | thv11.com

**monochrome** · 01-18-2014, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

Young people are leaving Facebook by the millions because their older relatives are on Facebook now so why how would Pentax sell more cameras by saying we sold your older relatives their cameras many years ago ?

Teens flee Facebook, but baby boomers take their place | thv11.com

That is the first marketing conundrum for Ricoh. WE know that 50 years ago Pentax was THE big player in SLR's - but no one outside a Pentax community under age 40 knows that. Pentax doesn't really advertise in the west. They market by word-of-mouth and a little on social media and a tiny bit in digital photography media and print photography media, which don't reach consumers.

If Ricoh was to actually advertise then, what would be their brand identity?

Would they get Tiger Woods to say, "Pentax. It's not your father's camera any more." (on golf channels, where your father is watching television) as if a Pentax is Buick? (which BTW was a great identity-changing campaign until Woods blew it up).

Would they say, "Pentax. Yes, we still make cameras!! And they're great!!!?"

Would they say, "Pentax. Tiny, but Good!!?"

Would they say, "Pentax. Once we were #1. Today we think there's room for #3, and we think it should be us?"

Though we hate to admit it, the Pentax brand might not have any value among the market demographic that buys large volumes of consumer spec'ed and priced SLR's. What little identity Ricoh could re-attach to the brand might actually have negative value to the prime volume-buying segment.

Yes, certainly, when the brand identity is established and known they can show pictures of the historic prisms and do text and voiceover historical ads. But first they have to have an identity and an advertising and marketing budget and a campaign. And the manufacturing capacity to sell all the cameras they would hope people would buy (which isn't a small part of the problem).

The second conundrum is that we expect Pentax to compete with CaNikon. Get ready. I believe I saw that Canon is a prime Winter Olympics sponsor. Not the camera sponsor, not a sport sponsor - a prime sponsor, like a car company or a cola company. For two weeks, every six minutes a Canon commercial.

All of this presupposes that Pentax wants to be a "big player," another CaNikon. In that sense the writer's comment is correct. Pentax will never be a CaNikon kind of "Big Player," Beating CaNikon at their game would be corporate suicide. Re-marketing the Pentax history only makes sense if they are trying to take a third of the sand in the CaNikon sandbox, which they aren't trying to do and never will be able to do.

But the writer's entire point misses the entire point of Ricoh. Being a big player - that isn't really the goal. They can't be another CaNikon and they know it. They believe there is room for a third camera company (meaning a maker of true SLR's along with the other products), but they do that by embracing being being smaller and exploiting being different, by being an alternative to the Big Players.

Sony is also doing this (with the former #1 Minolta mount that never gets mentioned, that they also might have just killed with the E-mount) - by being a different technology that uses a different mount than the lenses you already own (a7r). Pentax also does that - it is called Q

Ricoh want Pentax to be the third camera maker, a true, alternative complete SLR mirrored-camera system company, accomplished over the intermediate term, which is 5 - 7 years.

5 - 7 years is an awfully long time (and Ricoh damned well better get on it RIGHT NOW or #4 is a dream).

Never is longer.

**dms** · 01-18-2014, 10:42 AM

I think speaking the Pentax heritage is not the initial marketing method--but maybe as part of the Pentax camera/lens packaging a brochure that gives Pentax history, photo. firsts, nice reproduction of 1960's add. This would build brand loyalty. Post purchase one says "Boy this is a nice camera, interesting the history I did not know, . . .. "

**TER-OR** · 01-22-2014, 07:03 AM

A commercial portraying a wildlife photographer in the '60s or '50s and split screen with an adventurous type with a K3 would not be hard to do.

**monochrome** · 01-22-2014, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by TER-OR

A commercial portraying a wildlife photographer in the '60s or '50s and split screen with an adventurous type with a K3 would not be hard to do.

Technically easy to create, but unless it is intended only for YouTube release - very expensive to reach any consumers with it.

**TER-OR** · 01-22-2014, 07:50 AM

I really wouldn't want Pentax to spend the money Canon or Nikon does on advertising - I'd rather they spend it on development. But it's part of the mix, and they're underselling right now. They are kind of the critic's darling at the moment, with the recent run of flagships being so good. They just need the sales to support it - and part of that is highlighting history, based on this conversation.

**monochrome** · 01-22-2014, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by TER-OR

I really wouldn't want Pentax to spend the money Canon or Nikon does on advertising - I'd rather they spend it on development. But it's part of the mix, and they're underselling right now. They are kind of the critic's darling at the moment, with the recent run of flagships being so good. They just need the sales to support it - and part of that is highlighting history, based on this conversation.

I think part of the problem is the imprecision of language in the West today. In a conversation on this topic a media writer or buyer or sales person might say, "Well, sure, never isn't really never never, but what difference does a truth make that happened in 1967?" It would be so easy to simply write, "Pentax hasn't been a major player in the camera market since 1979 . . . ." but NEVER is shorter, easier to digest and sounds more powerful.

In this case the truth is relative to the viewer's perspective. Maybe Ricoh isn't really willing to go back and draw on that history becasue it doesn't have a lot of relevance.

Looking forward, maybe they want to create a new tradition or relevance or identity for Pentax. In 25 years there won't be many living customers who ever bought a Pentax camera when they were the market leader.

01-18-2014, 09:11 AM	#9
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by jogiba Young people are leaving Facebook by the millions because their older relatives are on Facebook now so why how would Pentax sell more cameras by saying we sold your older relatives their cameras many years ago ? Teens flee Facebook, but baby boomers take their place \| thv11.com That is the first marketing conundrum for Ricoh. WE know that 50 years ago Pentax was THE big player in SLR's - but no one outside a Pentax community under age 40 knows that. Pentax doesn't really advertise in the west. They market by word-of-mouth and a little on social media and a tiny bit in digital photography media and print photography media, which don't reach consumers. If Ricoh was to actually advertise then, what would be their brand identity? Would they get Tiger Woods to say, "Pentax. It's not your father's camera any more." (on golf channels, where your father is watching television) as if a Pentax is Buick? (which BTW was a great identity-changing campaign until Woods blew it up). Would they say, "Pentax. Yes, we still make cameras!! And they're great!!!?" Would they say, "Pentax. Tiny, but Good!!?" Would they say, "Pentax. Once we were #1. Today we think there's room for #3, and we think it should be us?" Though we hate to admit it, the Pentax brand might not have any value among the market demographic that buys large volumes of consumer spec'ed and priced SLR's. What little identity Ricoh could re-attach to the brand might actually have negative value to the prime volume-buying segment. Yes, certainly, when the brand identity is established and known they can show pictures of the historic prisms and do text and voiceover historical ads. But first they have to have an identity and an advertising and marketing budget and a campaign. And the manufacturing capacity to sell all the cameras they would hope people would buy (which isn't a small part of the problem). The second conundrum is that we expect Pentax to compete with CaNikon. Get ready. I believe I saw that Canon is a prime Winter Olympics sponsor. Not the camera sponsor, not a sport sponsor - a prime sponsor, like a car company or a cola company. For two weeks, every six minutes a Canon commercial. All of this presupposes that Pentax wants to be a "big player," another CaNikon. In that sense the writer's comment is correct. Pentax will never be a CaNikon kind of "Big Player," Beating CaNikon at their game would be corporate suicide. Re-marketing the Pentax history only makes sense if they are trying to take a third of the sand in the CaNikon sandbox, which they aren't trying to do and never will be able to do. But the writer's entire point misses the entire point of Ricoh. Being a big player - that isn't really the goal. They can't be another CaNikon and they know it. They believe there is room for a third camera company (meaning a maker of true SLR's along with the other products), but they do that by embracing being being smaller and exploiting being different, by being an alternative to the Big Players. Sony is also doing this (with the former #1 Minolta mount that never gets mentioned, that they also might have just killed with the E-mount) - by being a different technology that uses a different mount than the lenses you already own (a7r). Pentax also does that - it is called Q Ricoh want Pentax to be the third camera maker, a true, alternative complete SLR mirrored-camera system company, accomplished over the intermediate term, which is 5 - 7 years. 5 - 7 years is an awfully long time (and Ricoh damned well better get on it RIGHT NOW or #4 is a dream). Never is longer. Last edited by monochrome; 01-18-2014 at 09:29 AM.

01-22-2014, 07:36 AM	#12
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by TER-OR A commercial portraying a wildlife photographer in the '60s or '50s and split screen with an adventurous type with a K3 would not be hard to do. Technically easy to create, but unless it is intended only for YouTube release - very expensive to reach any consumers with it. Last edited by monochrome; 01-22-2014 at 08:01 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ricoh is appropriating Pentax History now.	bossa	Photographic Industry and Professionals	56	01-15-2014 03:58 AM
Japanese article on Pentax lens history, K-5 II etc	rawr	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	06-06-2013 07:48 PM
Night First time on history of Djelfa town	astrosat2006	Post Your Photos!	9	07-08-2012 03:53 PM
History of Pentax	slackercruster	Photographic Industry and Professionals	3	02-05-2012 10:55 AM
History of the Green button and differences tween Samsung and Pentax	DaveHolmes	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	11-06-2011 07:08 PM

01-17-2014, 07:07 PM	#1
rrstuff Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pasadena, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,126	Pentax and capitalizing on history This is what I just read on another forum: "Pentax was never a big player in 35mm film camera, and I've believe they not going to be the 3rd big player in 35mm digital camera. Having said that, the 3rd camera big player position still open for all." (...) This just makes me more confident that Ricoh is doing a smart thing to put down Pentax history on their website. This seems to be severely underutilized aspect in Pentax's marketing.

01-17-2014, 07:20 PM	#2
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	To say Pentax was never a major player is rewriting history. I don't know the numbers but (from my memory) in the 1960's and 1970's they were the equivalent of Canon or Nikon today.

01-17-2014, 07:22 PM	#3
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	Oh, I see, that was your point!

01-17-2014, 07:30 PM	#4
rrstuff Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pasadena, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,126 Original Poster	I read they had some three quarters of the SLR market at one point. I would assume it included larger format cameras, not just 35mm. But yes, it's an example of a common misconception that's engrained in peoples' heads.

01-17-2014, 09:42 PM	#5
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Whoever made that comment about Asahi Optical not being a major player in film cameras is an idiot. Canon nor Nikon knew what a 35mm slr was until Asahi Optical showed them. They were both knocking off Leica and Contax rangefinders at the time. Asahi was also the first company to sell 1 million slr bodies. They set the standard with return mirror, multi-coating as a standard feature on lenses, built the smallest slr (auto 110) and the probably the largest (6x7). Scroll down to the milestones. Milestones

01-17-2014, 09:50 PM	#6
rrstuff Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pasadena, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,126 Original Poster	Well said. I would venture that whomever said it, is not necessarily an idiot, but likely around 15 years old . I don't blame him, you can find very little about Pentax in recent news. Another common misconception is that pentax has a 'poor lens choice'. Last time I checked there was more glass made for Pentax (K-mount and M42) than for any other type of camera. People are so used to having the few options pushed by canon and nikon, that 43mm or 77mm seems like a 'weird' focal length. It is sad, however, that Pentax is not capitalizing on their history. We see that all the time in other brands, mercedes benz even has a tagline 'from inventors of the automobile'. Why wouldn't pentax say the new 'K-3 from inventors of an SLR', is beyond me. I think they were also the first to reach 10 million built cameras too, btw.

01-18-2014, 06:44 AM	#7
Tom S. Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 4,317	Post moved to proper area. Please note: the General Section is for non-photographic topics.

01-18-2014, 08:15 AM	#8
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Young people are leaving Facebook by the millions because their older relatives are on Facebook now so why how would Pentax sell more cameras by saying we sold your older relatives their cameras many years ago ? Teens flee Facebook, but baby boomers take their place \| thv11.com

01-18-2014, 10:42 AM	#10
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	I think speaking the Pentax heritage is not the initial marketing method--but maybe as part of the Pentax camera/lens packaging a brochure that gives Pentax history, photo. firsts, nice reproduction of 1960's add. This would build brand loyalty. Post purchase one says "Boy this is a nice camera, interesting the history I did not know, . . .. "

01-22-2014, 07:03 AM	#11
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	A commercial portraying a wildlife photographer in the '60s or '50s and split screen with an adventurous type with a K3 would not be hard to do.

01-22-2014, 07:50 AM	#13
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	I really wouldn't want Pentax to spend the money Canon or Nikon does on advertising - I'd rather they spend it on development. But it's part of the mix, and they're underselling right now. They are kind of the critic's darling at the moment, with the recent run of flagships being so good. They just need the sales to support it - and part of that is highlighting history, based on this conversation.

01-22-2014, 08:09 AM	#14
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by TER-OR I really wouldn't want Pentax to spend the money Canon or Nikon does on advertising - I'd rather they spend it on development. But it's part of the mix, and they're underselling right now. They are kind of the critic's darling at the moment, with the recent run of flagships being so good. They just need the sales to support it - and part of that is highlighting history, based on this conversation. I think part of the problem is the imprecision of language in the West today. In a conversation on this topic a media writer or buyer or sales person might say, "Well, sure, never isn't really never never, but what difference does a truth make that happened in 1967?" It would be so easy to simply write, "Pentax hasn't been a major player in the camera market since 1979 . . . ." but NEVER is shorter, easier to digest and sounds more powerful. In this case the truth is relative to the viewer's perspective. Maybe Ricoh isn't really willing to go back and draw on that history becasue it doesn't have a lot of relevance. Looking forward, maybe they want to create a new tradition or relevance or identity for Pentax. In 25 years there won't be many living customers who ever bought a Pentax camera when they were the market leader.