[vonBaloney]

I can understand those being annoyed that were more or less forced to buy new lenses during this period, which seems like a precious few because they are good alternative options, but I really can't understand why anybody would have thought it was a permanent rise to those high levels and freaking out or going to extremes like selling all their equipment. It was obviously just a first step to get some more retailers on board that need that unilateral policy to justify carrying stuff in-store, and for Ricoh to make some judgements about the state of the market for the products they are now in ownership of. And they'll be adjusting them again, and they'll have rebates and sales, etc etc. They've got to compete -- they are just going to price themselves out of the market and declare "take it or leave it -- forever!".

[stevebrot]

People were selling used lenses for (in some cases) more than what they originally purchased them for. And unfortunately for those that bought second hand during this period, they paid equivalent prices of new in the months before and the months after. I wasn't personally affected by this but I can see how people would be annoyed.

I don't see the reason for annoyance. Price is one thing. What people are willing to pay indicates value to that individual and nothing more. It is safe to say that many of us has paid top dollar for something based on expediency or lack of market knowledge, or lack of impulse control. Similarly, many of us have made killer deals on highly desirable items.

At various times, I have thought that a DA* 16-50 would be a great addition to the camera bag, but the price was always too high for the lens to be of sufficient value to me. I paid top dollar for my K10D because I had the need and was not willing to wait for a better deal. I got my FA 77/1.8 Limited for $500 new because I was willing to make a low-ball offer to the dealer.

Sour grapes over market price variation...give me a break...


Steve

(...could easily sell my well-used FA 35/2 for much more than I paid for it, but why would I want to do that?)

[mecrox]

Yeah, comparing food to technology is pretty rough. The expectations for technology to evolve are different than the expectations for food to evolve. Just look at that photos that Rupert posts of his lunches.

It's not the product, don't get hung up on that, it's the way it is presented and sold. If you don't like food, look at Apple tech or, actually, at some cell phones. You don't go to Apple's web store to find that prices have doubled overnight only to find they've been reduced a month or so later, without explanation and not consistently either, so that one of the basic Mac Airbooks now costs more than a high-end lappie. Gyrations like this kill confidence. These outfits work smoothly and by increments and they are very careful to take their customers with them, if they can. That's the difference. As I said, it's unfair to pick on Pentax in this regard as so many other companies are erratic too but, to be honest, a bit of calm and consistency would certainly help. Buying any product is a risk. You, the maker or retailer, want to do all you can to reduce that in the customer's mind.

Don't forget that behind each individual product stands a system - the Nikon, Canon, whatever system. Even if individual products come and go as they do, you'd still want to convey that a customer is buying into a really big, solid system which will continue to meet their needs for years ahead. This is one of the core appeals of Canonikon (or Apple). Gyrating around doesn't help this much either.

[philbaum]

"Free markets" are rarely free of constraints, either put into place by politics, taxing policy, and/or corporate efforts to control the market, e.g. monopolies, cartels, location, restricting supply, etc. On the side of the consumer, one has consumer "unions", discussion forums, online buying, etc.

If one is locked into Pentax by the lenses one has, then to a limited degree, Pentax has control over the prices they charge. In the broader market, if the prices are too onerous, then Pentax owners can choose to move to another camera system. As long as we have sufficient numbers of camera makers, then there is competitive pricing of cameras. One has to be concerned when too many camera makers go out of business. Or too many suppliers of key components, e.g. sensors, go out of business.

While the goal behind establishing fixed profit margins to encourage local stores is admirable, there are pitfalls involved. In the process of getting more local stores to carry Pentax products, the base population may decide to move to another brand. So a manufacturer may have lots of product on local store shelves, but fewer customers to buy them. whoops

Plus, one can't change culture or build new brick and mortar stores overnight.

[lammie200]

It's not the product, don't get hung up on that, it's the way it is presented and sold. If you don't like food, look at Apple tech or, actually, at some cell phones. You don't go to Apple's web store to find that prices have doubled overnight only to find they've been reduced a month or so later, without explanation and not consistently either, so that one of the basic Mac Airbooks now costs more than a high-end lappie. Gyrations like this kill confidence. These outfits work smoothly and by increments and they are very careful to take their customers with them, if they can. That's the difference. As I said, it's unfair to pick on Pentax in this regard as so many other companies are erratic too but, to be honest, a bit of calm and consistency would certainly help. Buying any product is a risk. You, the maker or retailer, want to do all you can to reduce that in the customer's mind.

I think there were some half truths in PRICL wanting to "regularize" prices in order to stabilize perceived values. I also think that there was a window for them to mess with pricing when there weren't many new introductions into the market by competitors. They must have known that it wouldn't last. I agree with you that consistency and/or an incremental approach probably would have been easier to swallow for those affected. But, for the most part, PRICL is a follower, not a leader. There are still trying to figure out were they fit IMHO.

[7samurai]

prices up, prices down.

For me, i've placed all my purchases on hold until Photokina.
Due to all the chaos, I'm also re-evaluating Ricoh/Pentax to see if it's the brand for me. Don't get me wrong, I've been a long time Pentax shooter, however, when they raised prices, they also opened the door to go look at Canikon.
I'm hoping Photokina will be amazing for Pentax.

[Aristophanes]

I don't agree.

This is how free markets work.

Price is the mechanism by which supply and demand are kept in balance.

Ricoh is the new owner of Pentax. They wanted to know what the true market value of their lens line-up was, so they implemented a pricing policy that prohibited online retailers from discounting MSRP. Clearly, this resulted in a significant drop in sales. Had there been little or no sales decreases, the prices would have remained in place or even experienced another hike. But a fall in demand dictated a fall in prices.

Not a game at all. A real world example of how the real world works. The consumer rules the marketplace. Provide the market what the market wants at a price the market is willing to pay or suffer the consequences.

It's simple, really.

And it's the way it should be.

Not at all. Sophisticated multinationals have better tools than what Ricoh/Pentax used.

The marketing people at Pentax must be greeting this with a sense of relief. A large group of loyal customers think the brand did not stand by them and over-priced Pentax items by a large margin over the competition. That's a lot of ground to make up for a marginal brand.

And for Ricoh, double damage. Pentax has always been seen as a value brand, and to see similar items going for less from Canikon was a travesty that should have been dealt with through savvy market surveys. We saw 50% price jumps for pity's sake.

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 06-09-2012 at 05:03 PM.

[dmort]

I would like to see pentax offer a voucher or some sort of unique gift (voucher for a filter for example) or something for those who bought an expensive lens during the price increase only to find it now lowered. It could be something small, even a piece of pentax swag. I think the gesture would be enough to mollify most. Those who paid a high price for a lens during the increase might now think, "well, I was one of their test consumers, sigh. But at least they appreciate me by giving me this t-shirt. I know it isn't the same as a few hundred bucks, but at least it is acknowledgement that I exist as a pentax consumer."

[KFoto]

New Pentax user here, been looking to get a solid wide angle to fill out my kit. The 15mm for $550 is very tempting..

Pentax Ultra Wide Angle smc-DA 15mm f/4 ED AL Limited 21800 B&H

Now i just have to decide on whether the 15, 21, 12-24 or an old A series is right for me. decisions decisions

[mee]

This reminds me of gasoline prices in the USA.. price at 1 dollar / gallon.. raise price to 2 dollars (people freak out, reduce consumption).. lower price to 1.40 (people consider it 'cheap' and buy a lot).. raise price to 2.75 (people freak out, reduce consumption)... lower price to 2 dollars (people consider it 'cheap' and buy a lot)

[Class A]

I would like to see pentax offer a voucher or some sort of unique gift (voucher for a filter for example) or something for those who bought an expensive lens during the price increase only to find it now lowered.

Actually, because the retailer has made the obscene margin (not Pentax), the retailer should be offering a voucher. Will we see B&H hand out $50 vouchers now?

During all this mess we shouldn't forget that Ned Bunnell said that the UPP had not been enforced by Ricoh. It seems likely that we are just seeing Pentax USA's incompetence on display (once again) and that Pentax/Ricoh is not to blame.

[Chaos_Realm]

I am not trying to start arguments, but what I did say was that I could see how some people could be annoyed.
The reasoning behind this is: When a pricing policy is implimented where retailers have to sell at RRP the consumer can expect for the price to hold reasonably steady for atleast 6 months to a year minimum. (this is in relation to lenses as they have generally held relativley steady prices other products may can vary) As a result people accept the price will be high for the forseeable future and buy anyway.

FFS, a little over one month with the high prices - was it that unbearable?

Sour grapes over market price variation...give me a break...

? is agression toward me, just because I can see both sides of the argument and commented from an angle that differs to your own? or is toward the general sitation?

No one forced anybody to buy anything at clearly inflated prices

many of us has paid top dollar for something based on expediency or lack of market knowledge, or lack of impulse control. Similarly

You are both mostly correct here, although not everyone had better alternatives. A post on the first page indicates this perfectly, lens broke, a replacement was then needed for a wedding. Sure there was nobody forcing him but really there wasn't many viable alternatives, and they didn't have a couple of months to sit around waiting for the prices to drop back.
Again I will reiterate I am happy with the current prices generally speaking and would, if I had the money and/or need, would buy the lenses. But from the perspective of a few people I can, and do sympathise for them getting a pretty raw deal. Not denying though, its tough luck on buying in an up or down market.

[Kunzite]

I wasn't attacking you in any way, sorry if I left that impression. It wasn't you who blamed Pentax for high used lens prices, anyway.
And yes, it wasn't nice to see the prices at full MSRP, maybe it was avoidable - but it it didn't last long, and now it's over. For those who weren't forced to buy, due to circumstances - I don't see why they should be so annoyed.
Also, I see no signs they're playing with prices by repeatedly increasing them to MSRP then lowering to more reasonable levels. Yet this seems one of the hot topics around here...

[Chaos_Realm]

I wasn't attacking you in any way, sorry if I left that impression.

Narr thats fine, I was just questioning as tone doesn't transfer through text easily at times and instead of firing off some defensive comments I thought it would be best to clarify first.

Is it the actual MSRP that has come down on the lenses? or have the loosened the chain on the retailers to price a bit lower?

[Gray]

This vacillation makes PRIAC look like they don't know what they're doing. The prices shouldn't have gone up in the first place - for what? A ton of ill will and lost sales.

Loyal customers (retailers and photographers alike) shouldn't be jerked around. It's very bad for business.