|
Wow. I just logged onto my B&H account and figured there must be some kind of mistake when I saw the DA* 16-50mm at $1,499. After checking a few other sites, I knew something bad was going on. I knew I'd find the answer here! I understand what Ricoh is trying to, perhaps risking the loss of some customers now to get into brick-and-mortars for the long run, and all I can say is that I hope it works out for them. I still think Pentax is the brand for me, but I can't help but find my loyalty starting to waver a bit. Pentax's system has features that make it special and unique, particularly the compact Limited lenses. It's a perfect package for my habits. I mostly shoot while traveling (which isn't too often) and around the house.
Like a lot of members, I was excited by this morning's announcement, and the K-3 joke was a bit much. I mean, not like I was ready to jump out the window after realizing it was a joke, but I had started to think about how I was going to raise the money to buy one. What a letdown.
I guess what has me doubting today is that there's more to a camera brand than technical specifications. Stability matters. We've been through a lot. We've wondered whether Pentax would survive. We've dealt with the inability to find accessories in a Canon/Nikon world. We've dealt with the condescending looks and comments from people about our 'toys'. Price for the feature set was something we had over the other makers. Now we'll still have great features like in-body stabilization and the compact lenses, but the price advantage may be gone. I'm curious to see what happens with prices, but unless they're really close to what they were a week ago, I don't think I'll ever buy another lens. I still pine for the K-5, and I'd love to have it for my vacation in three weeks. Today it's $979. If I could afford it, I'd order it immediately. Would I order it in four months, when I've got some money saved, for $1,099? No way. Actually, if the used value of some of my lenses just jumped, it tends to push me toward abandoning the brand.
Maybe it seems like good business to try to get into stores like Best Buy, and I still hear people who I otherwise think are pretty bright talking about buying some piece of consumer electronics at Best Buy, but things WILL change. They are changing. You can only sell a TV for $1199+tax while Amazon sells it for $799 out the door for so long. People reaching adulthood now are plugged in and networked. The invisible hand is really empowered now to do its thing, and the only things that stand in its way are governments and companies stupid enough to employ MAP pricing. Trying to get a piece of a dying model by forcing the model of the future to raise its prices is a cheap stunt that is pennywise and pound-foolish.
I like buying new 'big boy toys'. I can't do it if the makers poke me in the eye. You can't just raise prices to help out bad stores in a dying business model. Now it's time to take a much harder look at what the other makers have to offer, and I'm doubly sad. I love Pentax, but I need them to want me as a customer.
ETA: It would be interesting to see this litigated. Since Leegin Creative Leather Products, it's a legal practice in the U.S., but what's interesting is that here, Adorama, Amazon and B&H arguably have a lot more market power than Pentax's photo division. In other words, those three retailers could have thrown Pentax's RPM letter in the garbage, and Pentax would not have dropped them. This smacks of collusion on the retailer side. While a case against Pentax would fail, one against the largest camera retailers might not.
PS: is "Unilateral Pricing" the real name of the scheme? If so, it's kind of humorous for them to actually employ a term that sounds more like a price imposed by a government that centrally controls the economy (without critical pricing information), rather than one found in a putative market.
Last edited by Glarus; 04-02-2012 at 04:37 AM.
| 
Originally posted by JinDesu 
Post #431 by jatrax
Similar Threads 
