[Kunzite]

In other words, when he's talking about coffee machines on his personal blog, that is the official position of Pentax Ricoh Imaging Corporation, Japan and ordered by his Japanese bosses?
Oh, yeah.

I agree with Class A and jmg257: you can't call Ned a liar, incompetent, Ricoh's puppet and so on while pretending to be polite. In fact it's terribly rude, and for what reason?

[Aristophanes]

In other words, when he's talking about coffee machines on his personal blog, that is the official position of Pentax Ricoh Imaging Corporation, Japan and ordered by his Japanese bosses?
Oh, yeah.

I agree with Class A and jmg257: you can't call Ned a liar, incompetent, Ricoh's puppet and so on while pretending to be polite. In fact it's terribly rude, and for what reason?

I never called him a liar nor a puppet.

He's in a master/servant relationship by contract and officer status in a subservient position in the corporate hierarchy.

Something as major as UPP did not get a go ahead without head office involved. It's what Pentax USA is not saying that is vital.

What's important here is that Ricoh messed up. That's it. A small brand lost a huge amount of core goodwill. Instead of trying to make the sh** flow downhill to a guy 2 levels removed from Ricoh head office, try and make it go back uphill to the head office incompetents who bought Pentax and then made a serious error.

Does Pentax make coffee devices? Moot point. His new website is called:

Ned's Photo Journal
Pentax Photography and Notes

That's pretty clear.

[Blue]

In other words, when he's talking about coffee machines on his personal blog, that is the official position of Pentax Ricoh Imaging Corporation, Japan and ordered by his Japanese bosses?
Oh, yeah.

I agree with Class A and jmg257: you can't call Ned a liar, incompetent, Ricoh's puppet and so on while pretending to be polite. In fact it's terribly rude, and for what reason?

At least the coffee pot image was made with a K-x (and probably the kit zoom) instead of his Leica. Plus, it was taken long before the Ricoh take over of Pentax. He hasn't blogged there since 2010.

[ElJamoquio]

I think one of the many points most posters are missing is that
we do not actually know the details of the agreement. we do not know for a fact that Pentax MAP = MSRP. We only know that major retailers opted for prices close to MSRP. This could have happened for several reasons other than the agreement itself. For instance, there could have been a break in production (with all the ownership change it could have taken some time to make decisions to continue to produce some items or not). In this example retailers could have been simply waiting for new stock to arrive and until this happens they could easily set the prices at MSRP, simply because they didn't have much stock left (and it seems consistent with my observation of Amazon stock). Retailers could in fact take advantage of the MAP news and set the prices at MSRP expecting Pentax will be getting all the blame.

I don't think this is a very likely scenario.

Pentax Rep, to retailer 1: "OK, you can't advertise the 16-50 for less than $1100"
Retailer 1: "I'll take this opportunity to raise my advertised price to $1499 in an incredibly cost-sensitive marketplace!"

This scenario had to then be repeated, independently, for every retailer I'm aware of that sells on the internet, basically simultaneously.

I feel this scenario is incredibly unlikely without illegal collusion. Heck, I feel it's incredibly unlikely even if it were legal.. Raising your prices to $1450 instead of $1499 would triple your sales volume and increase your profit. Hence the competitive market.

Therefore I think it is easily 100x more likely that the retailers believed that Pentax required MSRP in order to continue being a 'real' Pentax retailer - i.e. no disadvantage to their competition WRT inventory.

Anyway, one can think of many plausible explanations. The point is neither of us has that information.

I cannot think of an explanation that is more than, say, 1% as plausible as the explanation: 'retailers believed MAP = MSRP'.

So any hand waving is just BS and simply unprofessional, At least one should be less arrogant in knowing better than Pentax how to run a business like that IMHO.

I can think of no 'reasonable' circumstances under which I would've approved the UPP, had I been in a position to do so. I can think of no 'reasonable' circumstances under which I would implement ANY new wide-ranging policy on April 1.

If that makes me 'arrogant' in your eyes then we really have nothing further to debate.

---

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 06-12-2012 at 09:10 AM.

[jmg257]

I never called him a liar nor a puppet.

He's in a master/servant relationship by contract and officer status in a subservient position in the corporate hierarchy.

Something as major as UPP did not get a go ahead without head office involved. It's what Pentax USA is not saying that is vital.

What's important here is that Ricoh messed up. That's it. A small brand lost a huge amount of core goodwill. Instead of trying to make the sh** flow downhill to a guy 2 levels removed from Ricoh head office, try and make it go back uphill to the head office incompetents who bought Pentax and then made a serious error.
...
Ned's Photo Journal
Pentax Photography and Notes

That's pretty clear.

So, IF what you say is true and Ricoh were the ones who messed up (by directing the move to UPP), Ned IS a liar.

"I would also like to dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that our relationship with Ricoh is in any way responsible for our changes in retail channel pricing policies."

That is pretty clear too.

[lammie200]

What other products (specifically dSLR lenses) were introduced in the marketplace by Canon, Nikon, and Sony during the period of UPP?

[Kunzite]

I never called him a liar nor a puppet.

He's in a master/servant relationship by contract and officer status in a subservient position in the corporate hierarchy.

A puppet is a mindless servant designed to move as its master desires. Ned, OTOH, is a PRIAC employee. I feel sorry for you if you can't make the distinction, maybe your working environment is really bad? - but I'm also an employee, in a much lower position than a CEO; and yet I'm no servant.
Had you ever see overseas micromanagement? Do you honestly think it can work? Nope, if Pentax Japan would not trust PRIAC (Ned Bunnell and his people), they would have Japanese people in PRIAC, in key positions.
In this context, any master/servant theory is FAIL.

Btw, UPP is a tool - not an end in itself. Ricoh themselves (not even Pentax Japan) being involved in what tools PRIAC are using in order to meet their strategic targets is very unlikely, IMHO.

[vonBaloney]

"I would also like to dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that our relationship with Ricoh is in any way responsible for our changes in retail channel pricing policies."

That is pretty clear too.

This has been quoted a few times as being "clear", but I find it clear as mud -- business idiot-speak.

Does that mean it was not Ricoh's idea and they did not order it? Seemingly yes -- that would seem to be a contradiction.

Does it mean Ricoh did not approve of it? Unclear.

Does it mean it was a completely independent move, and Ricoh didn't even know about it until after the fact? Unlikely, but unclear.

Does it mean the plan was in-place already before Ricoh took over and they didn't stop it, so therefore they are not responsible? Technically consistent with the statement, possible but unlikely. So also unclear.

It is telling that he doesn't just come out and say "we did it" or even "Ricoh didn't do it", but that "the relationship is not responsible", which is mighty vague. That gets the "relationship" off the hook, but what the hell does that really mean? It is not Ricoh, it is not Pentax USA, it is the "relationship". Business idiot-speak.

[Aristophanes]

So, IF what you say is true and Ricoh were the ones who messed up (by directing the move to UPP), Ned IS a liar.

"I would also like to dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that our relationship with Ricoh is in any way responsible for our changes in retail channel pricing policies."

That is pretty clear too.

You have no way of proving the statements one way or the other. If "Ned" (aka Pentax USA) was solely responsible for UPP or head office made it the sole strategy.

Therefore the statement is neither true nor untrue. It's just corporate babblespeak.

If you're a shareholders it is inane because it only demonstrates that Ricoh let Pentax USA make a massive change to its channel pricing in a way that contradicted the stated head office strategy of solidifying a #3 status in market share. Pentax USA is a loose cannon.

Or did Ricoh force Pentax USA towards UPP as the only viable option in some sort of master strategy and, when it blew up, have Pentax USA take the fall?

The latter is far more plausible.

Head office is where shareholder value is analyzed and they *never* take the fall if they can offload the blame through other means.

People are reading far too much into "Ned's" autonomy. "Ned" cannot lie. Only Pentax can. There is no distinction. Pentax could both have had head office determine UPP from Tokyo AND have Pentax USA say it was all their call, through this guy named "Ned".

Both statements can be true. To gauge the credibility of one over the other, just look at the facts. Pentax announced a UPP, then back-pedalled furiously as some prices went up almost 90%.

Now, who is more attuned to the USA market, Pentax USA or Ricoh Tokyo? Who knows better the average US customer reaction to price increases? The facts would indicate Pentax USA. So in all likelihood, Pentax USA was forced by Ricoh head office through limited choices to do something to correct the distribution and pricing.

No sane USA manager is going to price US product at European levels on a consumer electronics product. And on April 1st, no less.

The whole thing stinks of head office frustration of US pricing systems driving a worldwide consumer discount philosophy, in part fuelled by grey market and overstock exporting, all while European demand is tanking. Ricoh/Pentax is not the only Japanese firm to try and control the American consumer through these structures.

All the facts point to head office insensitivity and a lack of an impact study beforehand. All "Ned" is doing is offering himself up as a messenger to be shot, because that's how head office divests itself from the perception of liability.

[Aristophanes]

So, IF what you say is true and Ricoh were the ones who messed up (by directing the move to UPP), Ned IS a liar.

"I would also like to dispel any rumors or misinformed comments that our relationship with Ricoh is in any way responsible for our changes in retail channel pricing policies."

That is pretty clear too.

A puppet is a mindless servant designed to move as its master desires. Ned, OTOH, is a PRIAC employee. I feel sorry for you if you can't make the distinction, maybe your working environment is really bad? - but I'm also an employee, in a much lower position than a CEO; and yet I'm no servant.
Had you ever see overseas micromanagement? Do you honestly think it can work? Nope, if Pentax Japan would not trust PRIAC (Ned Bunnell and his people), they would have Japanese people in PRIAC, in key positions.
In this context, any master/servant theory is FAIL.

Btw, UPP is a tool - not an end in itself. Ricoh themselves (not even Pentax Japan) being involved in what tools PRIAC are using in order to meet their strategic targets is very unlikely, IMHO.

Master/servant is a legal relationship in Western Common Law:

Master and Servant legal definition of Master and Servant. Master and Servant synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I have no problem with UPP; it's simply a business strategy.

The pricing levels set within the policy were insane and those more than UPP smack of Ricoh trying to get some of what they paid for Pentax back far too quickly, while bringin the US re-export and internet-driven consumer market to heel.

[jmg257]

Sheesh - Of course 'Ned' can lie!

Here's how:

1)...Ricoh force Pentax USA towards UPP as the only viable option in some sort of master strategy...

2) 'Ned' posts on his blog 'Pentax USA's relationship with Ricoh was not responsible in any way'.

That's it - that is a lie (assuming Ned knew Ricoh's role (if there was a Ricoh role)) . And Ned is the one who said it (or blogged it actually).

I am not trying to prove anything other then this. However, IF I was to believe that Ricoh was behind UPP, then I would also have to believe Ned is a liar.

Pentax could both have had head office determine UPP from Tokyo AND have Pentax USA say it was all their call, through this guy named "Ned".

Yup - in which case Ned would once again be lying, if stating anything to the contrary...such as 'Pentax Head Office was in no way responsible for determining UPP'.

[Kunzite]

Aristophanes: Aren't you forgetting this is about something Ned said in his personal blog? Is Ricoh forcing Ned to lie, even there? Maybe they're also forced to say the same to his friends, family... Ridiculous.
But it wasn't a lie, and people should stop making baseless acusations. Ned is a very open, honest man - this openess is clearly seen on his blog.

Sorry, but I'm listening to Master of Puppets - so I can't sepparate the fact that you're calling Ricoh a "Master" to Ned being considered a "puppet". Another untrue thing.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Available data contradicts such theories, showing that Ricoh are actually investing in Pentax. UPP seen as a tool to increase their presence in B&M stores is in accordance to Ricoh's "Pentax must grow" declarations.
UPP as a method for a quick ROI no matter what (which implies again Ned is lying - he said Pentax won't get extra money, UPP is to support B&M stores becoming profitable), well... not so much.
Anyway, I see you avoided my point about overseas micromanagement. I understand why you don't like it, but that's not a solution

[Blue]

What other products (specifically dSLR lenses) were introduced in the marketplace by Canon, Nikon, and Sony during the period of UPP?

Nikon Bodies:

D4
D800
D3200

lenses: AF-s 28/1.8G


Canon:

EOS 5d MKIII
60 Da
Rebel T4i

Lenses:

ef-s 18-135 STM
ef 24-70/2.8 L II
ef 24/2.8 IS USM
ef 28/2.8 IS USM
ef 40/2.8 STM

[lammie200]

Nikon:

Lenses:

AF-s 28/1.8G


Canon:

Lenses:

ef-s 18-135
ef 24-70/2.8 L II
ef 24/2.8 IS USM
ef 28/2.8 IS USM
ef 40/2.8 STM

Are any of the lenses that you listed closely related in any way to the Pentax lenses offered during this period of UPP?

[Blue]

Are any of the lenses that you listed closely related in any way to the Pentax lenses offered during this period of UPP?

What is your point? The only thing Pentax has done in that period dSLR wise is to announce the K-30. However, I would say that Canon's announcement of the 40mm would correspond to the DA 40 XS price wise but may compete with the DA 40/2.8 LTD performance wise. The Canon 18-135 STM is designed for movie shooting (so is their 40mm) in mind and is supposed to be matched to the new Rebel. The Nikon lens is a fast 28. The 31mm wasn't effected by the UPP PRIC pricing. Plus, Canon and Nikon have their existing Catalog still in place.