Originally posted by Class A +100
Thank you very much, Class A.
Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol If everyone lived the way you believe, we would have a much nicer world to live in. Unfortunately, that's not the world we do actually live in
I know. I'm very well aware of it. I also know there is no changing it. That's why you will often see a demoralized look on my face when I am dwelling on this sort of topic. Regrettably(???), things like this have always mattered to me (I would write all of my comments on Ned Bunnell's blog if I thought there was a chance of changing anything; but I know that would be a lesson in utter futility; nonetheless, it is fun to fantasize that someone at Pentax occasionally comes here to PF to secretly mingle with us peasants in order to gauge our general sentiments; smart corporate leaders would do that, because, for all intents and purposes, we are a cost-free "focus group").
Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol Pentax has to do what it needs to do to survive
And I'm saying people shouldn't automatically assume that Pentax needs to follow this business model in order to survive. I believe it would not only survive, but it might very well thrive, if it were to "give" (please note the quotation marks) consumers a bit more for their money in those instances in which the products it is selling aren't nearly as expensive -- perceptually or factually -- as its execs would have us believe they are. I've seen it done, and I've done it myself, with great success. Customers (and, by that, I don't mean just the usual gaggle of devoted adherents) respond very positively -- on a longterm basis -- to businesses that "give" them "their money's worth" and don't try to fool them by charging them extra for "perceived value."
Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol if Pentax adopted a benevolent, not-take-all-the-profit-it-can-get stance
"Benevolent" is not the same thing as "honorable" or "ethical." I'm not suggesting that Pentax behave benevolently. To do so would truly be naive on my part.
What I write next is 100 percent my personal opinion, although I would like to think it is based on at least three decades of observation, too: I think that "taking all the profit a company can get" -- while it can get it -- is a philosophy that frequently loses out in the long run to the philosophy of treating consumers as valued, respected and intelligent customers, or, in other words, as partners in a
symbiotic relationship in a free-market society***, and
not just as sources of profit (stong emphasis on "just"). I'm not saying this will definitely happen to Pentax, but I think it is generally true in the business world.
Originally posted by Ryan Trevisol The 18-55 WR does cost probably 1-2% more to make than the non-WR one
Okay.
Originally posted by Unsinkable II As a stand alone item, I couldn't agree more.
As part of a kit [...] the WR kit lens should be included.
I don't agree with you on your first statement (but to each his own, I guess); however, when it is combined with your second statement you make an excellent point. Pentax could have continued to charge "extra" for a standalone 18-55 WR lens, while including it as a kit lens with the K-30. Why? Because very few people would have realized that Pentax was "practically giving away" (sarcasm) the WR lens in that kit.
-----
***With regard to a "free-market society," I am speaking ideally, since very few parts of the world have a true "free-market society" anymore. Nonetheless, businesses still need customers and customers still need businesses. That's what makes it a symbiotic relationship.
[It becomes a coercive relationship when the government forces customers to buy a product from a private corporation, which the U.S. Supreme Court just did yesterday -- completely illegally, I might add.]