[Aristophanes]

Wasn't saying Ned's statement was clear, but that he clearly would have been lying in the example I put forth.

The relationship is Ricoh's ownership of Pentax Ricoh USA. To say this ownership was in no way responsible for going to UPP IF Ricoh was behind it would clearly be a lie.

Instead, Ned's statement would (seem to) mean going to UPP was a given, a decision/agreement made by someone/some entity besides Ricoh.

What is impossible? The agreement not being in any way related to Ricoh?
As to the rest about Ned vs Ricoh/Pentax...huh???

Hmmm..."Ned could be saying that the UPP is a Pentax USA idea" - now doesn't that sound familiar? {"...going to UPP was a given, a decision/agreement made by someone/some entity besides Ricoh"}.

So now it is a fact that price increases came from RIcoh? Well, IF that is the case, NED (in a solo performance) did lie since HE posted otherwise on HIS blog.

Whew - took a long time to get right back around to the beginning!

You're very, very confused.

Ned is Pentax. His blog is officially Pentax corporate representation. It's done that way it is as a marketing effort, to get the CEO "closer to the consumer". He's a corporate officer of a publicly traded company whose every word can alter a share price or a credit note or a distribution contract.

Nothing Ned says is separate from what Ricoh/Pentax's head office says. You state that "Ricoh was behingd it". Behind what? They ARE it.

All the facts come from Ricoh/Pentax. All of them, whether it is from Ned's blog or a press release.

You keep insisting that somehow Ned lying is distinguishable from Pentax lying.

ANYTHING Ned does or says comes 100% with the authority and responsibility of Ricoh/Pentax in Tokyo.

EVERYTHING uttered by a corporate officer comes from Ricoh/Pentax. UPP, price-setting. Everything.

Breaking it down into the silliness "...but Ned on his blog said..." is you completely falling for corporate back-pedalling doublespeak.

[jmg257]

Yeah - I'M confused! And YOU are making it WAAAYY too complicated!

Let's make it simpler...again...

1) NED posted something on HIS blog.

2) What NED posted could be a lie...you seem to think so (as you think Ricoh was responsible for UPP).

3) If what NED posted on NED'S blog was a lie, then NED lied.

Ned's Photo Journal
Pentax Photography and Notes

Lens prices and our channel strategy in the U.S.
"I realize that many..."
"I’d like to address..."
"While I can’t share certain details, I can tell you.."
"I would also like to dispel any rumours..."

The rest of the company tie-in BS is wasted space, and irrelevant to THIS discussion about Ned. Could it be Ricoh/Pentax/Rover told him what to post? Of course. Is he talking about Pentax in this entry? Certainly. But then, once again, I don't care how or why...NED posted it (as 1st person, on HIS blog) - so NED lied (possibly).


You seem to be unable to separate Ned from the company he works for. President of a major corp who apparently has someone else make up things to say and posts them on HIS blog without him knowing. Riiigghhht...


What you NEED to KNOW for THIS discussion is whether Ricoh WAS BEHIND UPP...IF their relationship with Pentax (i.e. owner) was in any way responsible for Pentax going UPP...IF it was, then NED lied when he posted otherwise on his blog (if he knew it was untrue).

You say there are facts showing Ricoh was responsible...so share them! I would believe you.

[Blue]

I don't think it was a lie. However, there was a lot of horse pucky in there.

Taken by pre-UPP Pentax body & lens

[mee]

"Repair" will being going on for long time. The amount of threads this issue has created will have a very long and timeless reach.
I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. I'm waiting for another announcement.

Such as.. Ricoh has decided to sell what bits of Pentax they didn't want to <insert company name here> or something along those lines?

[Aristophanes]

You seem to be unable to separate Ned from the company he works for.

What you NEED to KNOW for THIS discussion is whether Ricoh WAS BEHIND UPP...IF their relationship with Pentax (i.e. owner) was in any way responsible for Pentax going UPP...IF it was, then NED lied when he posted otherwise on his blog (if he knew it was untrue).

You say there are facts showing Ricoh was responsible...so share them! I would believe you.

Ned is a corporate officer.Anything he says about the products is always the official line. Always.

That's the fiduciary obligation of a corporate officer, so no, "Ned" is not separate from Pentax.

It is you who does not understand corporate organization, responsibilities, and structure.

All this fiasco has done is demonstrate that a CEO posting a blog about his product line (he mostly posts photo ops now) carries as much or more weight than some "official" line. That's poor message management.

If you are an analyst (put your hand up with mine) all that matters is not some blog, but what the company actually did. They announced UPP, blasted prices into stoopidland, and then back-pedalled while Ned "blogged" the mea culpa.

Is that the appropriate corporate response? To say one part of the company wasted brand loyalty but head office wasn't aware? Is Ricoh that poorly managed?

What likely happened is Ricoh bean-counters were looking for results, they settled on UPP as a means to control the channel, but then some idiot looking for a faster ROI from the acquisition of Pentax ramped up the prices to levels Americans would not tolerate, and set off a firestorm in poor "Ned's" backyard.

But because it's his backyard and no underling makes the mothership land in an inferno, "Ned" blogs a "relationship" cover story. There is absolutely no rational business case for a US manager to go against the grain of American consumer discount philosophy. No one's channel partners stand for this, so IMO this looks an awful lot like an idiot in Tokyo trying make money fast. He probably looked at what Sony wants per FF wafer and then phoned Ned to make the soccer moms pay.

Whether "Ned' lied or not is completely irrelevant. You look at what happened and take with a huge grain of NaCl what corporate double-speak comes out of the CEO's mouth. It's trivial to call "Ned" a liar. What is appropriate is to say Pentax made a huge error and is rife with miscommunication both to loyal customers and the channel. On an issue of major market pricing to NOT lay the blame squarely at head office feet would be a poor defence of shareholder value much less customer loyalty.

[7samurai]

Such as.. Ricoh has decided to sell what bits of Pentax they didn't want to <insert company name here> or something along those lines?

I'm confused. What are you referring to about Ricoh selling parts of Pentax?
I don't think I've said anything along those lines.
My remark regarding "repair" was referring to the way the Internet will preserve these threads.

[jmg257]

It's trivial to call "Ned" a liar.

And on that we agree! Cheers!

[mee]

I'm confused. What are you referring to about Ricoh selling parts of Pentax?
I don't think I've said anything along those lines.
My remark regarding "repair" was referring to the way the Internet will preserve these threads.

I never claimed you did.

I, however, just did. :c )

[Class A]

Ned is a corporate officer.Anything he says about the products is always the official line.

You are pretending a "company" can say something.
It can't.

It's always people making statements. In your view Ned is just enacting a company policy but even if it were true it could of course not absolve from doing something wrong (e.g., lying).

After world war two, people were sentenced for their wrong doings. Even if they only enacted orders. They were rightfully sentenced because no "abstract army" concept can cause any harm. It's always people causing harm.

To clarify again: I think you are wrong. I do not believe that Ned is a liar. You are putting forward your assumptions with great conviction as if you were just reporting facts, but you are just speculating.

[Kunzite]

To clarify again: I think you are wrong. I do not believe that Ned is a liar. You are putting forward your assumptions with great conviction as if you were just reporting facts, but you are just speculating.

+ 1000

All is based on the assumption that Ricoh has total control over everything, including Ned's private life; and somehow they're managing this overseas - by e-mail and phone calls.

[vanyagor]

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!"

Maybe I was not very clear. This is the scenario I was describing:
Product cycles started by Hoya were coming to their end
Ricoh makes decisions to continue certain prodcuts
Ricoh negotiates with major retailers, informs them of UPP as means of protecting authorized dealer margins.
Retailers make decision to order the new stock and Pentax informs them when the new stock will be shipped.
Retailers realize they have very few pre-Ricoh Pentax stock and the new stock is coming only (in May/June?). They make decision to raise the price above MAP to keep Pentax products in stock till the new stock arrives. It's better to carry stock even at a higher price than have nothing in stock at all sometimes.
Note the after-UPP prices as you have said yourself are the MSRP prices and Pentax-proper was selling at those prices for some time even before UPP (with some exceptions).

I do think this could be a very likely scenario, though I'm sure there could be many more "better" scenarios explaining anything. My point is: we do not possess any of the information RIcoh and Pentax have, we don't even have the information retailers have. + most of us are simply not qualified enough to judge.

I know it is like that in my field, you have to study for a long time (~15 years) to be able to do it well (and even then some can't) and yet there are always vocal "experts" on online forums with no education other than reading a few wikipedia articles, who always know better than all those who have invested great effort in their education. I have found the same in other fields as well, you can only be successful (qualified) if you work hard and invest a lot of time in it.

It''s fine to take guesses and discussing it, though I'm always amazed when people are adamant about their opinion being obviously the only correct one. And note in this situation these opinions are based on very little information.

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

1. This is not that many retailers
2. it is not really that much surprising the old stock (if we assume the scenario I suggested) depletes at the same time
3. the prices went up to MSRP, not some random number. It is natural for retailers to look at this number. another possible value could have been MAP (assuming it is different), though seeing the big 3 retailers opting for MSRP other retailers could have just followed suite. It shouldn't take much time to do that either. They all knew when the change was coming (hell even we knew!) and just watched what prices will be set by Amazon, BH, Adorama

Still seems plausible to me.

Raising your prices to $1450 instead of $1499 would triple your sales volume and increase your profit.

Not necessarily. Plus you can not sell more than you have in stock anyway. I do not understand why you and almost everybody else chooses to ignore this. If you know you only have 5 16-50s in stock, the next batch is coming in June and you were selling 100 16-50s per month at old prices you have all the reasons to increase the price to make max profit in the 2 months hiatus.

Of course we have no hard facts on this, so it is just a speculation as good or as bad as other ones expressed in this thread. The only difference being I do not jump to conclusions.

In science we say that a good theory should (in addition to possessing several other qualities) predict something which can be tested. My way of thinking helped me predict the price drop even though my hypotheses were pure guesses and may be still wrong.

Basically the way I see it, the discussion in that long UPP thread split in 2 possible opinions based on peoples assumptions and beliefs
1. One was the belief that Pentax is doing wrong and is going to die. Conclusion implied was to ditch Pentax and move to another brand
2. The other (and I belong to this one) predicted the unavoidable price drop as for Pentax future, it is unclear and depends on many things we just don't know.

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.

There are many things I couldn't have thought of and yet they exist. I have learned to be careful and not to assume something is impossible just because I can not imagine it. I'm not a professional CEO, nor do I possess the information Ricoh has. Nevertheless the reasoning for UPP given by monochrome (I do not remember exactly if it was him, maybe many other people said it) seem meaningful. (I'm talking about the reasoning that UPP reinforces dealers will to carry the brand and ensures dealers make profit.)

As for April 1, as the specific date, I don't see it as a significant issue, my guess is not many people care if it is April 1 or April 2, especially in the business world.

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

Actually I never thought your posts were arrogant and I was not referring to you. On the contrary. At least you make an effort to see other people points and do not call names be it another poster or Pentax management.

[Aristophanes]

You are pretending a "company" can say something.
It can't.

It's always people making statements. In your view Ned is just enacting a company policy but even if it were true it could of course not absolve from doing something wrong (e.g., lying).

After world war two, people were sentenced for their wrong doings. Even if they only enacted orders. They were rightfully sentenced because no "abstract army" concept can cause any harm. It's always people causing harm.

To clarify again: I think you are wrong. I do not believe that Ned is a liar. You are putting forward your assumptions with great conviction as if you were just reporting facts, but you are just speculating.

You are hopelessly confused.

In the law a corporation can say something:

"The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted."

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are free to disagree with the law as it stands, but in terms of this argument, "Ned" speaks only for Pentax as a corporate entity. Statements he makes about Pentax are indivisible from statements from Pentax.

And here:

"Corporations are created as legal persons by the laws and regulations of a particular jurisdiction. These may vary in many respects between countries, but a corporation's legal person status is fundamental to all jurisdictions and is conferred by statute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_governance

Bringing in a WW2 reference is akin to invoking Godwin's Law and undercuts your ability to look at the facts:

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has nothing to do with "Ned's private life". He has a blog as a Pentax officer. He would not have that blog nor position it as such if he was not a Pentax corporate officer. He spoke to the UPP implementation as an insider.

My assertion is that Pentax USA ("Ned") appears to be shouldering the blame for a radical and consumer-hostile price increase and UPP implementation, where all the evidence suggests, that these types of major policy shifts, especially in major market pricing, are, in fact, determined by head offices. That this policy was clearly formulated within the Ricoh 6 month ownership window, suggests a push from new ownership and management to return investment quickly. This is, unfortunately, common in buyouts and takeovers. The new owners don't "get" local markets, overreact, and then are forced into back-pedalling.

These channel control mechanisms have begin to crop up more often in Japanese companies as they wrestle with an over-valued Yen, competition from Korean manufacturers, the example set by Apple, and a few other factors. I gave the Toyota example earlier which was a very similar, Japan head office attempt to curb North American consumer discount pricing. It backfired, as has the more recent Pentax effort. Nikon has also been wrestling with the issue. Panasonic is another Japanese domestic that has tried to squeeze the channel in the US as LG and Samsung have eaten into their volumes and margins.

A serious major market pricing, marketing, and distribution error does not appear on the facts of rational market analysis to be a one-off goof by "Ned". Following the market evidence from peer suppliers, this has all the hallmarks of a Japanese head office orchestration. I suspect, based on the rapid back-pedalling likely caused by plummeting orders from distributors and retailers, "Ned" advised on corrective measures and fell on his sword in return for more input to avoid a similar catastrophe. Hopefully Pentax USA now has a major say on price tolerances in their backyard.

[redrockcoulee]

The reference to WWII was as I read it, showing that people were held responsible for their actions regardless of if they were acting on their own or following orders (policies) of their leaders. No reference was made to Hitler or calling someone a Nazi. Do not see how Godwin's Law applies and invoking it to dismiss Class A's point undercuts your own arguement. If I am not mistaken those polices of holding people responsible are still followed in International Law and what happened following that war are used as legal precidence.

I have no idea what happens or happened in corporate headquaters or at National offices, not do I know how the price increase or decrease affected the sales of each model of lens. Did it keep new people from buying Pentax? How would those know if the price of a Ltd lens used to be lower or do they even care? Seems like a lot of assumptions on most people's part. Speculating is fine especially for those who know or at least claim to know more about corporations and markets than I ever will but to make claims that some one is not totally honest without actual evidence just seems wrong.

[kenyee]

This up and down with the prices does not work so good for Pentax, it is a little bit confusing and for me it show that they have no clue where to put themselves on the market.

More that they probably underestimated how Pentaxians are tightwad-ish/cheap compared to Canikon users who'll throw down $5K on a long lens or $3K on a D800 body w/o much griping except to say their computer needs upgrading for the big files

[Aristophanes]

The reference to WWII was as I read it, showing that people were held responsible for their actions regardless of if they were acting on their own or following orders (policies) of their leaders. No reference was made to Hitler or calling someone a Nazi. Do not see how Godwin's Law applies and invoking it to dismiss Class A's point undercuts your own arguement. If I am not mistaken those polices of holding people responsible are still followed in International Law and what happened following that war are used as legal precidence.

Good Lord, what drivel!

The extremis of war and the actions of corporate officers selling a product are two completely different motivations and legal responsibilities. Cleverly stopping oooooh so short of Godwin's Law is the same as putting an elephant in a room and calling it a parakeet.

To invoke one while desperately trying to salvage an unwinnable position in the discussion is an ad hominem reference and silly hyperbole. And now trying to reference international law in a criminal context to something that is a civil commercial marketing matter just continues the ignorance.

The whole "following orders" in a criminal, wartime context as compared to Pentax pricing policy is childish analogy.

Spanking over. Back to bed for you.