[Docrwm]

As un-CEO-like as it is, I appreciate when someone like Ned decides to talk with us instead of living in its CEO cloud.
And if a response will be given few days later ("can he do it that fast?" - was going through my mind when I read his message), what's the big harm? We all know you won't be satisfied with whatever he will (be allowed to) say.
I understand the built-up frustration and I can't blame you for that; but quite often, it's IMO misguided; like now, when you're punishing good intentions.

ClassA: the 60-250 is a very good example. Or the 645D. Or the 1.4x TC for which we are still waiting.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Again, do what you said you would do or don't volunteer to do it in the first place. You can't have it both ways, you can't have the respect that comes with the CEO title if you fail to behave in a way that continues to maintain the dignity of that position and actually undercuts the positions natural gravitas by behaving poorly.

[monochrome]

Yeah.... but what worries me is that if you are a large company (Hoya, Ricoh or Pentax) you make sure you have those things in place before a world release, unless as a company you dont beleive in the product yourself, which is even worse...

I don't think Pentax has the time to let USA rebuild the infrastructure before they released the K-01. This p[eriod of raising US prices to intentionally slow sales may be a time-buying move.

[monochrome]

Today I'm going to finish my taxes, take product shots of the things I have to sell to pay my taxes and take some nice pictures with my K-01 and the Traveling K-Mount (MX).

I've pretty much said my piece on this thread and the other so this will probably be my last post on this thread.

[James_R_Strickland]

We beleive we will NET the same money
We believe we will MANAGE our global distribution better
We believe we are better off having lots of smaller customers thanmw ea re having a few huge customers
We believe an astute consumer will buy when we sponsor a rebate sale, which we will do when WE want to do it

Perhaps Pentax has seen what happens when Amazon, Walmart, and Costco are your biggest customers: these megacustomers dictate prices to the company without regard for the company's survival.

-JRS

[philbaum]

Perhaps Pentax has seen what happens when Amazon, Walmart, and Costco are your biggest customers: these megacustomers dictate prices to the company without regard for the company's survival.

-JRS

For better or worse, America finds itself fully into this internet age with regards to Craigslist, ebay, online discounters and local big box retail stores. Pentax is not such a big camera maker that will cause Amazon to blink twice. Deprive Amazon of their Pentax supply, and Amazon will just stock more of the other brands = zero leverage for Pentax.

I was all set to buy the Pentax 17-70 on April Fool's day and had it in my cart at BH Photo. The next day or 2, i went to my "cart" to execute and the price had jumped to the new price. I then went to Amazon and bought it for $20 over its old price at BH Photo (new BH price was $120 over the old one). So the only effect of the April Fool's day Ricoh action on me was to shift my purchase from an east coast B&M/online seller to Amazon, who has no B&M shop at all. I'll bet i'm not the only one that did that.

[Class A]

As un-CEO-like as it is, I appreciate when someone like Ned decides to talk with us instead of living in its CEO cloud.

I don't have a problem with Ned talking to us, on the contrary. But if he repeatedly leaves his blogs unattended for months even during exciting times for Pentax and makes promises he then does not hold, it creates a sense of his audience having low priority for him.

And if a response will be given few days later ("can he do it that fast?" - was going through my mind when I read his message), what's the big harm?

The problem is not a delay. The problem is to announce and then not deliver. No one asked him to make an announcement. He set expectations on his own.

BTW, you do not know whether the message will be "a few days" late. Maybe it will never appear? Who knows.

Ned moved to the posterous blog because it supports blogging from his iPhone (amongst other reasons). Even when he got majorly distracted, what stopped him from making a quick post about being sorry that there will be a small delay?

AFAIC, if you open a dialogue with your customers (e.g., by running a blog and using it for making announcements regarding future messages) then you should treat your customers respectfully. Making a promise and then disappear in silence is not what I regard as treating someone respectfully.

We all know you won't be satisfied with whatever he will (be allowed to) say.

Absolutely not true. There a number of things he could say that would make me very happy.

I understand the built-up frustration and I can't blame you for that; but quite often, it's IMO misguided; like now, when you're punishing good intentions.

I punish?

Not being disappointed about Ned's failure to deliver his promise would mean that I do not take what Ned says seriously. I'm not sure he wants us to not take him seriously.

I think we both agree that what Ned has done isn't optimal. The difference between you and me is that I don't cut him some slack and invent excuses. I do not do that because I cannot think of a good reason not to make a quick explanatory post in case he didn't manage to compile his message in the time he intended. If a serious reason will be revealed in the future, I'll apologise, no doubt.

ClassA: the 60-250 is a very good example. Or the 645D. Or the 1.4x TC for which we are still waiting.

I have no problem with these delays.

...I see there is a strong anti-Ned Bunnell&John Carlson movement around here...

I don't see that anti-movement at all.

I do not know anyone who has something personal against NB & JC. Some are unhappy with their online behaviour, though. JC did not react professionally to some questions regarding the K-7. They were reasonable questions but JC got upset and withdrew nevertheless. NB does not seem to have the time or commitment to maintain his blog professionally.

Observing these things is not being "anti" someone.

[monochrome]

(Breaking my declaration that I was finished posting to this thread)

RE: Personal Blogs for US employees: I had earlier commented that my company strictly prohibits posting to a personal blog in any shape or form identifiable by real name, including Facebook, Linked-In and other social networking sites. I received many critical replies that I should have a right to a blog and that my company has enslaved me.

We had dinner tonight with three other adult couples. All eight of us are in our 50's and all employed by large entities; two University Department Heads, several business executives, Chair of a non-profit, public school teacher. I asked them to each describe their employer's blog policy.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is subject to an immediate dismissal rule for blogging about our industry or employer, directly or indirectly, for the reasons I ahve described in my posts - there is just too much legal, regulatory (in one case), image and message risk to the company to permit executive employees to maintain a named internet presence..

My employer is not only not unusual, it is normal.

[Blue]

(Breaking my declaration that I was finished posting to this thread)

RE: Personal Blogs for US employees: I had earlier commented that my company strictly prohibits posting to a personal blog in any shape or form identifiable by real name, including Facebook, Linked-In and other social networking sites. I received many critical replies that I should have a right to a blog and that my company has enslaved me.

We had dinner tonight with three other adult couples. All eight of us are in our 50's and all employed by large entities; two University Department Heads, several business executives, Chair of a non-profit, public school teacher. I asked them to each describe their employer's blog policy.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is subject to an immediate dismissal rule for blogging about our industry or employer, directly or indirectly, for the reasons I ahve described in my posts - there is just too much legal, regulatory (in one case), image and message risk to the company to permit executive employees to maintain a named internet presence..

My employer is not only not unusual, it is normal.

The university Dept Heads are acting like administrators and not professors if that is the case.

[Glarus]

The signals are - You are not a good market for us. you screwed up. You will no longer disturb pricing in our good markets. You are not taking us to our grave.

This. I realized it a few nights ago. It's not about US customers at all, it's about US sellers causing distortions in other markets. Between the weakened dollar and our relatively free markets leading to price competition, this was a great place to buy, even after shipping and import duties. I think there was probably a better way to put the kibosh on it, but maybe this was the fastest. You could speculate that Pentax has completely written off the few US DSLR customers it has to preserve its stronger sales elsewhere. If that's what they've actually done, it may well make business sense, and I guess I can't blame them. Before the internet you actually had to visit a place to buy from their market. That's the past now, and specialty goods manufacturers don't know how to deal with it yet. As a result, I think antitrust law is far from done evolving.

[thibs]

(Breaking my declaration that I was finished posting to this thread)

RE: Personal Blogs for US employees: I had earlier commented that my company strictly prohibits posting to a personal blog in any shape or form identifiable by real name, including Facebook, Linked-In and other social networking sites. I received many critical replies that I should have a right to a blog and that my company has enslaved me.

We had dinner tonight with three other adult couples. All eight of us are in our 50's and all employed by large entities; two University Department Heads, several business executives, Chair of a non-profit, public school teacher. I asked them to each describe their employer's blog policy.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is subject to an immediate dismissal rule for blogging about our industry or employer, directly or indirectly, for the reasons I ahve described in my posts - there is just too much legal, regulatory (in one case), image and message risk to the company to permit executive employees to maintain a named internet presence..

My employer is not only not unusual, it is normal.

Seems very US way of doing things IMO (seen from here, I may be wrong).
That would be illegal here (to enforce those rules) BUT blogging/tweeting bad things about your employer is indeed a valid reason for the employer to cancel the job. And no need to put that in the contract. Somehow this is common sense.

[Silverstierna]

We are not in the 1970-1980's any more, communication is the way to do business now. Back in the day (the way Pentax is going about things now) this was the way to do business, as consumers had a different way of purchasing and interacting with each others. If you try to do business like its 1980 in 2012..... well, then you will fail.
The consumer has evolved so why hasn't Pentax evolved with them?
It's as easy as saying: We are working on some exciting things at Pentax, pelase give us a few weeks/months to get organized and we will let you know what we are up to.
If you don't have an open communication with your consumers, regardless if it is good or bad, you will eventually loose them. (and you won't attract any new consumers to buy in to your brand)

[Medium FormatPro]

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is subject to an immediate dismissal rule for blogging about our industry or employer, directly or indirectly, for the reasons I ahve described in my posts - there is just too much legal, regulatory (in one case), image and message risk to the company to permit executive employees to maintain a named internet presence

Freedom of speech as long as it does not threaten another individual or entity.

Sure people have been fired for items such as this, but aso... The world will never quite know how many lawsuits were setted over that exact same thing.

But also, most union employees are in fact "almost allowed" to say about anything about their employer as long as they don't name names of people they are working with or for.

[glanglois]

Someone here is missing the point; it might well be me.

I don't see how a CEO blog is a problem as long as it is done properly. In fact, it could well be considered a public relations outlet like the tweets that are written by the Famous Person's staff. The difference is that the CEO should understand what is appropriate to share on that blog. If he screws up, it would be similar to a CEO who screws up an interview or speech. S/he needs more staff help.

I've always considered Ned's blog to be a personal view that is informed by and (in theory) supports his executive function. Whether the attempt is well-received and successful is another discussion entirely. But the concept sounds perfectly reasonable to me and I hope he perfects this outlet.

[thibs]

Freedom of speech as long as it does not threaten another individual or entity.

Yep, the problem is 'entity' (when, like here, not specified) since it means pretty much no free speech at all.
I know what you meant though, just nitpciking ..

[glanglois]

Yep, the problem is 'entity' (when, like here, not specified) since it means pretty much no free speech at all.
I know what you meant though, just nitpciking ..

Not picking any nits at all. The line that separates acceptable speech from unacceptable is drawn based on who is (or feels) threatened (or damaged) and the line is the basis for nearly all the arguments here and before the appellate courts everywhere - where they exist.

"Free speech unless it's bad!" is not helpful in determining what's OK. About all we know with certainty is that in the US it's not protected (under the First Amendment regarding free speech) to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.