[jatrax]

We really don’t know what their long-term strategy is, though.

That's correct we don't know anything. And if we did 'know' that policy is subject to change by upper management at any time. So my statement is my opinion based on my observations and is just as likely to be wrong as any other guess. I have no doubt they would jump at the chance to profitably reenter the mass market. But I don't think that is possible and I think Ricoh is smart enough to know that better than I do.

[jatrax]

I call it the sports team mentality. For some reason that I can't comprehend, many people like to watch organizations "compete"

I think that is it exactly. We want 'our' team to win. But this isn't a binary situation, Ricoh doesn't have to 'win' or even compete with Canon & Nikon. All they have to do is make the customers in their teeny tiny niche happy.

[Aussie Matt]

All they have to do is make the customers in their teeny tiny niche happy.

Without going broke, and that is the tricky bit: Humans are herd followers, in the end there's only ever 4, maybe 5 brands that ever survive in a market: Pc's have been slaughtered to the point where M$ now has to build hardware. Phones have been slaughtered, who ever thought in 2005 that nokia would need to be resuscitated? GM has killed some ungodly number of car brands... etc. I'm afraid it's just capitalism and human behaviour: If Ricoh can keep pentax current, competitive, and profitable, and a small player, great: But history shows that's not how businesses, economics and marketing work.

[dbs]

There's the 'Western way ' and the 'Japanese way' and Ricoh / Pentax seem to only worry about the ' Japanese way '. If the westerners want some , yes we will sell you some.

[RobA_Oz]

That's correct we don't know anything. And if we did 'know' that policy is subject to change by upper management at any time. So my statement is my opinion based on my observations and is just as likely to be wrong as any other guess. I have no doubt they would jump at the chance to profitably reenter the mass market. But I don't think that is possible and I think Ricoh is smart enough to know that better than I do.

Well, I think we're in basic agreement there, although I'm not sure just what a mass market for ILC cameras is going to look like, any time soon, or perhaps even if the term now has any meaning in that context. I'd be happy for them to grow their presence in whatever the market is, to the point it keeps their upper management content to at least maintain it for the foreseeable future (whatever that means). I'm not totally convinced that they're comfortably in that space, yet, but recent signs suggest that they're slowly moving that way.

[RobA_Oz]

Without going broke, and that is the tricky bit: Humans are herd followers, in the end there's only ever 4, maybe 5 brands that ever survive in a market: Pc's have been slaughtered to the point where M$ now has to build hardware. Phones have been slaughtered, who ever thought in 2005 that nokia would need to be resuscitated? GM has killed some ungodly number of car brands... etc. I'm afraid it's just capitalism and human behaviour: If Ricoh can keep pentax current, competitive, and profitable, and a small player, great: But history shows that's not how businesses, economics and marketing work.

The question is: what size herd do you need to follow you? Morgan seems to survive quite well in a niche the large players find hard to address, for example. It's a well-heeled niche, mind you, but that's the one that Ricoh is shifting Pentax towards.

[jatrax]

although I'm not sure just what a mass market for ILC cameras is going to look like, any time soon, or perhaps even if the term now has any meaning in that context.

Yeah. The future is cloudy on that. My feeling is that Ricoh is playing a very conservative game. Playing to not lose rather than to win if you get my meaning. A niche that is profitable with cautious and conservative management might be a real loser for an aggressive company that takes risks and gets burned.

[clackers]

Apologies if this is in the wrong forum. Before posting, I searched the entire forum for "marketing." I found posts in 5 different fora.
Figured I might as well start at the top.

I'm will be interested in seeing how Ricoh-Pentax markets K-New when it (finally) arrives. Can anyone tell me what marketing of current products Pentax does? E.g., photography magazines, websites, social media, you-tube. Thanks in advance.

I think Ricoh's been very clever, trying to stay in the black. The big companies spent big money on marketing they didn't get back, and as their profits tumble and losses mount, they're having to cut costs everywhere, including make marketing look a lot more like Ricoh's - close to cost free.

If you look at the Youtube video updates of the K-3 successor, they weren't glib affairs with celebrities. A journalist interviewed two extremely high ranking Ricoh Imaging executives in a fireside chat. No rap music, no video overlays, but lengthy, considered conversation to which there will be others. Absolutely no superficial 19 year old would make it to the end. But an intelligent photographer with a deep appreciation of the philosophy? Yes. It really did target the niche, not the mainstream, absolutely no attempt to win marketshare from phone wielding Gen Zs.

The days of bribing big store chains, hiring lots of pros as brand ambassadors, paying for advertisments. lavish camera show exhibitions, etc seem like the Jurassic Era.

Here in Australia I remember Olympus doing a big campaign with ads in the bus shelters, even. Look what's happened to Olympus, it was money down the drain!

[Lord Lucan]

I think that is it exactly. We want 'our' team to win. But .... All [Ricoh] have to do is make the customers in their teeny tiny niche happy.

I'm not interested in 'our' team winning, I was never one for joining a crowd; but I want them to survive and continue to make new things. There are two ways for companies to cease : the more spectacular is over-spending on marketing and development (the way Olympus have gone), and the more low-key way is to lose enough customers until even your running costs are not covered. If Pentax go it would be the second way.

The big companies spent big money on marketing they didn't get back, ... they're having to cut costs everywhere, including make marketing look a lot more like Ricoh's - close to cost free.

"Ricoh marketing" seems to be an oxymoron, like "military intelligence"

Morgan seems to survive quite well in a niche

Morgan have a "frozen in time" approach which I'm not sure would work with cameras unless you go right back to film. The camera equivalent of a Morgan would be a Rolleiflex or even a walnut-and-bellows 4x5 field camera. Morgan must spend very little on development; their engines are bought in of course. Also, the niche within the niche of pestige cameras is already occupied, by Leica.

[ThorSanchez]

The question is: what size herd do you need to follow you? Morgan seems to survive quite well in a niche the large players find hard to address, for example. It's a well-heeled niche, mind you, but that's the one that Ricoh is shifting Pentax towards.

Morgan have a "frozen in time" approach which I'm not sure would work with cameras unless you go right back to film. The camera equivalent of a Morgan would be a Rolleiflex or even a walnut-and-bellows 4x5 field camera. Morgan must spend very little on development; their engines are bought in of course. Also, the niche within the niche of pestige cameras is already occupied, by Leica.

Just the other day I was thinking the new car/camera analogy for Pentax should be Morgan. Every analogy has its limits, but Morgan has many parallels to Pentax. Everyone else is going towards SUVs with big touchscreens and automatic transmissions and autonomous driving features. While Morgan makes cars that are somewhat updated but the basic plan goes back to the 1930s. Pentax is stubbornly refusing to join the mirrorless crowd, doubling down on not doing what reviewers and the masses "know" they must do. Morgan buys engines from larger companies, Pentax buys sensors from Sony. Morgan sells fewer cars in a year than Toyota sells RAV-4s a week. Pentax might have 3% market share in Japan.

Most importantly, I own Pentax cameras, and I've been quietly scheming a way to one day have a Morgan. Including going out of my way to visit the Morgan dealer outside of Harrisburg, PA. Morgan won't/can't spend the money to certify their four-wheel cars for sale in the US, so they have to import parts and do final assembly here. That seems to be a work-around that a Pentaxian wouldn't mind too much.

[Roam Redway]

Just the other day I was thinking the new car/camera analogy for Pentax should be Morgan. Every analogy has its limits, but Morgan has many parallels to Pentax. Everyone else is going towards SUVs with big touchscreens and automatic transmissions and autonomous driving features. While Morgan makes cars that are somewhat updated but the basic plan goes back to the 1930s. Pentax is stubbornly refusing to join the mirrorless crowd, doubling down on not doing what reviewers and the masses "know" they must do. Morgan buys engines from larger companies, Pentax buys sensors from Sony. Morgan sells fewer cars in a year than Toyota sells RAV-4s a week. Pentax might have 3% market share in Japan.

Most importantly, I own Pentax cameras, and I've been quietly scheming a way to one day have a Morgan. Including going out of my way to visit the Morgan dealer outside of Harrisburg, PA. Morgan won't/can't spend the money to certify their four-wheel cars for sale in the US, so they have to import parts and do final assembly here. That seems to be a work-around that a Pentaxian wouldn't mind too much.

Wow. As the OP, the conversation has come full circle for me. I had never heard of the Morgan Motor Company. I wonder how many people first discover Pentax via a Wikipedia search.

Maybe Pentax and Morgan should do cross-advertising on each other's websites. Or better yet, on each other's dedicated fans' websites.
Home - Morgan Sports Car Club
There's a lot that's been posted in this thread that makes a lot of sense to me. I don't need a Pentax dangling from everyone's neck. A lot of us like using a seldom-seen, classic brand. We think Pentax stands out; why shouldn't we? I have just always liked the cameras and the lenses (and the users). I'd like others to have that same experience--at least enough of us to keep the brand (and what it stands for) going. I'm fine in a niche; there's not much future, though, in an anachronism.

So, for K-New, I'm not expecting billboards, glossy magazine copy, Super Bowl ads or infomercials. I'm sure we all agree that the internet is where most marketing happens these days. Still, it's not enough to have a Facebook site, a YouTube channel or an active Twitter feed. Somehow, you've still got to drive (Morgan pun intended) people to the site/feed. That's the Catch 22.

Given the extent and sophistication (no praise intended) of the internet data collection and mining industry, I assume that if Pentax knows the demographics of its market, or its hoped-for-market, it's easy enough to do targeted internet advertising. Although perhaps Pentaxians are the kinds of folks who use VPNs and ad-stripping browser plug-ins to keep from being distracted by all of the Canon, Nikon, Fuji & Sony ads that we don't know are actually out there, targeting us.

PS-I drive a RAV 4 hybrid.

[RobA_Oz]

Morgan have a "frozen in time" approach which I'm not sure would work with cameras unless you go right back to film. The camera equivalent of a Morgan would be a Rolleiflex or even a walnut-and-bellows 4x5 field camera. Morgan must spend very little on development; their engines are bought in of course. Also, the niche within the niche of pestige cameras is already occupied, by Leica.

That was true a few years back. Their latest products might keep a shape reminiscent of their earlier cars, but that’s pretty much it. You won’t find a sliding pillar suspension in a modern Morgan, let alone a wet-sleeve tractor engine, not even a warmed-over Rover V8. Under the body shell (sometimes even in the body shell), it’s mostly contemporary engineering with a nod to tradition. Sort of like Pentax, when you think about it.

[Lord Lucan]

Under the body shell (sometimes even in the body shell), it’s mostly contemporary engineering with a nod to tradition. Sort of like Pentax, when you think about it.

I understand your point, but the body shell of a Morgan is what people see. (Don't Morgans still use a timber frame?) Morgan chose to stick with a 1930's/1950's body style but with nothing stopping them using up-to-date mechanics underneath - as they do, and must do to meet current emissions regs. Similarly perhaps with Pentax if they are digging in now with pentaprism OVFs : we will be talking in 30 years time about how they stuck with a 2015 style even though the sensor by then has half a million megapixels and the software can do 500 fps and 32k video. There is no technical reason whatever why pictures from a pentaprism camera should differ from those of a mirrorless (or rangefinder) because in the end it is up to the lens and the sensor, and the rest is just different ways the photog views the image at taking time.

I don't see mirrorless stopping with the sort of outlines we see now with eg the Sony A7's and Nikon Z's. They are like makeshift conversions from DSLRs. I believe in future they will get thinner and thinner until they look like a wafer on the back of the big lens with a pistol grip on it (on the lens I mean). The wafer might will be just big enough to have a touchscreen, viewfinder and an on-off switch. Maybe even the shutter will be by voice. New lens mounts all round again of course, but the sales people won't mind that

[climbmountainway]

This makes little sense. First you claim that that digital imaging tech was not available to Pentax, in spite of the fact that they had a production ready (production line was actually set up - the camera was killed at the last moment) FF DSLR long before Nikon and Canon. Then you claim that the camera was based on film body which is not true; it was designed ground up as a digital body.

The main issue with Pentax SLR line up is that Pentax put priority to P&S camera from the mid-80's on. That's where the Spotmatic customer segment was at that time. Pentax invented the zoom compact camera and was hugely successful. Subsequently their SLR line-up received less attention....

Yes, the Pentax came long after the cameras I cited, using the MZ-S body as its form factor. No, I claimed that certain digital technology was not made ready and available for Pentax. Pentax lacked the long lenses for the sports photography gear being equipped. The first Kodak digital pro bodies used Nikon and Canon carcasses. If you go back to that era and look at the ads, they were collaborating and comarketing with these logos appearing on the related bodies, electronics mostly in the space we now find the battery grips, targeted to the pros who could use such minimal MP technology for quicker publication of imagery. So these releases, which cost tens of thousands of dollars, where so targeted and named.

[Pål Jensen]

Yes, the Pentax came long after the cameras I cited, using the MZ-S body as its form factor. No, I claimed that certain digital technology was not made ready and available for Pentax. Pentax lacked the long lenses for the sports photography gear being equipped.

The MZ-D did not use the MZ-S as form factor. It was the other way around. The MZ-S was developed from the MZ-D to get some value out of the cancelled DSLR project. What digital technology was not available for Pentax? If Pentax had released the MZ-D, that incidentally performed far better then the Contax, it would have been state of the art for its time. I don't see what sport (the sport photographer market is minuscule anyway) have to do with this, but Pentax had several long telephotos available at the time like the 250-600/5.6, 600/4 and 300/2.8.