[Kunzite]

It's easy, actually: any accusation must be proved, i.e. the accusators must bring proofs to their allegations.
I saw nothing that even remotely resembles a proof; in this case, I will believe Ned. And until someone tells me how overseas micromanagement can work, I would believe Pentax USA is not micromanaged by Ricoh (why directly Ricoh and not Pentax Japan, this is another question).

vonBaloney, I'm afraid distance does matter. Phone? Email? Videoconferencing? This means relying on reports made by the same people you supposedly do not trust (to be able to independently do their tasks). Micromanagement is a very intensive, time-consuming task which requires huge amount of information and immediate feedback; such indirect comunication methods are quite lacking from this point of view.
Nope, there is a much better solution: having someone there. Which doesn't seem to be the case.

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 06-13-2012 at 09:56 AM.

[Aristophanes]

Talk about being childish...

Talk about missing the irony

[Aristophanes]

Who is ultimately responsible for that lie? Ned the individual? Ned/Pentax/Ricoh as indistinguishable entity? IT DOES NOT MATTER AND COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT. Well, what is the point then? That the statement is not true. That's it.

You just made the point I said repeatedly.

When "Ned" speaks, it is Pentax corporate, all the way to head office.

And yes, the US Supreme Court does say that corporations can speak.

Pentax made a serious error. Head office takes the blame despite what "Ned" may have wrote.

The consumer who paid full UPP price for a 16-50 last week is just as gullible as the person thinks that Ned operated without head office shoving him into a firestorm.

[chesebert]

People need to chill on this Ned/Ricoh business. It's not clear whether Ned made those possible misstatements on his own behalf or on behalf of Ricoh. In either case, lying by itself is not unlawful (you can't sue someone for telling a lie without more).

It's not even clear whether Ned/Ricoh made the misstatement (statements may be true at the time it was made).

Even if the statements were not true, Ned/Ricoh may held actual believe that they were true (when made).

Even if they told a lie, it's hard to say they intended anyone to rely on those lies.

Even if they intended some people to rely on it, they may not intend anyone here to actually rely on the false statements. Take it to the extreme, the only people who they could have harmed are those who bought new lenses during the "lying period" who would not have bought had they known the truth.

So for everyone else, it was just a bad business decision/misstatement/lie, however you want to characterize it.

[cfraz]

It can't be — under the new pricing model and US law, they can't just drop the prices without permission.

U.S. law actually says something quite different. B&H can drop the prices without permission if they jolly well please to. But by the same token, Pentax can refuse to sell any more lenses to B&H if they jolly well please.

This comes out of a 5/4 Supreme Court decision in 2008 which had the effect of making it easier for manufacturers to control product market price. Minimum Resale Price Agreements.

Q4. What if a manufacturer asks me to agree not to resell its products below a minimum price, and I choose not to agree to the request. What are the consequences?

A. The manufacturer may decide to sell to you anyway and you are free to resell the products at any price you wish. Alternatively, the manufacturer could decide to terminate your distributor agreement (if there is one) and cease selling to you.

...
Q6. What if I agree to (or submit to) the manufacturer’s minimum resale price request and I nevertheless sell below that price

A. You are in breach of your agreement with the manufacturer and the manufacturer can pursue remedies for breach, including cancelling you as a distributor.

[jmg257]

People need to chill on this Ned/Ricoh business. It's not clear whether Ned made those possible misstatements on his own behalf or on behalf of Ricoh...
Even if the statements were not true, Ned/Ricoh may held actual believe that they were true (when made).

Even if they told a lie, it's hard to say they intended anyone to rely on those lies.

Even if they intended some people to rely on it, they may not intend anyone here to actually rely on the false statements. Take it to the extreme, the only people who they could have harmed are those who bought new lenses during the "lying period" who would not have bought had they known the truth.

The statement (1ea) in question had little to do with the actual affects of UPP implementation...UPPs affect on Pentax or their customers. It has just about nothing to do with people who paid more for lenses the last 2 months. There is little harm such a statement, even if a lie, could do...other then make the liar look bad.

Which is one reason the statement in question is interesting. It was obviously Ned's intent to make it clear that Ricoh ownership had nothing to do with the move to UPP. It seems his comment was made in a way to 'protect' Ricoh - to keep them from taking the blame for Pentax move to UPP. Yet there are those who think that Ricoh not being responsible is very unlikely, which would mean Ned (et. al.) lied.

Which to me is now what makes this dicussion enticing - WHY? Why would Ned (or anyone else - be it a person or corp.), feel any need to make a false statement (IF they did)? What would there be to gain by 'protecting' the new ownership? Does anyone who had to pay more for a lens really care if it was Pentax or Ricoh's fault? And yet he specifically addressed this - to remove rumours that Ricoh was in any way responsible.

Edit: hmm...maybe these last bits are more of what Aristrophanes is getting at(?)

[miltona580]

U.S. law actually says something quite different. B&H can drop the prices without permission if they jolly well please to. But by the same token, Pentax can refuse to sell any more lenses to B&H if they jolly well please.

This comes out of a 5/4 Supreme Court decision in 2008 which had the effect of making it easier for manufacturers to control product market price. Minimum Resale Price Agreements.

That's my concern. I am concerned B&H has decided to move their stock, no matter the consequences. Of course, B&H is also likely a large enough customer Pentax USA would be foolish to not sell to them. But Pentax USA would never do anything foolish, right?

[vonBaloney]

You just made the point I said repeatedly.

When "Ned" speaks, it is Pentax corporate, all the way to head office.

And yes, the US Supreme Court does say that corporations can speak.

Pentax made a serious error. Head office takes the blame despite what "Ned" may have wrote.

You are missing that all of that can be true and Ned can still be lying. Ned is a human on planet Earth. He has free will. He COULD have not made the statement, even at the cost of his job. But if he speaks an untruth, he is lying, WHETHER OR NOT it is *really* Pentax HQ speaking, or they are one-and-the-same corporate-wise, no matter what any court says. None of that is relevant.

The only arguments you could possibly make to let Ned off the hook (if the statement is untrue) are that

A) Ned didn't make the statement at all. Someone else posted it without his knowledge.
B) He doesn't understand the words he is saying (he is a "Chinese Room", if you are familiar with that concept from artificial intelligence).
C) That he didn't know the truth and was just repeating what he was told, or thought that it was the truth.
D) Ned is not a human being, but *literally* a puppet or machine.

Do any of these seem remotely likely?

Therefore, if the statement was untrue, then he was lying. Period. I'm quite sure you can understand this trivially simply concept? Knowingly speaking untruth = falsehood = lie. The relationship of the speaker with any other entity has no bearing whatsoever, only the truth of the statement and whether the speaker knew it to be true or false.

[vonBaloney]

That's my concern. I am concerned B&H has decided to move their stock, no matter the consequences. Of course, B&H is also likely a large enough customer Pentax USA would be foolish to not sell to them. But Pentax USA would never do anything foolish, right?

They would probably continue to do business, but haggle about the consequences in court or something. That would be a bold move however -- open revolt from the retailer.

[Rondec]

This whole discussion is silly. As far as I can tell, Ned probably did tell an untruth, but the untruth was one that made him look like he (and Pentax USA) had more power than they truly have. That's it. Ricoh/Pentax Japan have the power and Pentax USA has to do what they say and take the blame for poor decisions. If Ned would quibble at such a relationship, they would find someone else to take his place.

In the end, Ned is an intermediary between Pentax Japan and the US consumers, but one whose only power is to pass along information. Nothing else. He doesn't make most decisions and the decisions he does make have to be run by Japan before he puts them into place.

[ElJamoquio]

many of the truths we cling to... depend greatly on our point of view.

[glanglois]

I keep falling asleep as I read these so I may have missed something.

Is that why I get the idea that at least half the posts here are confusing the three entities:

* Pentax Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation - an American firm led by Ned and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ....

* Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company (PRIC), Ltd., a Japanese business and a global subsidiary of ....

* Ricoh Company, Ltd., a rather large Japanese business with a lot more on its mind than cameras?

In short PRIC, Ltd. may give Ned a lot of help. That's "help" as in "We're from headquarters and we're here to help you." - words that can strike fear into the heart of a remote manager.

But I don't expect Ricoh to give much, if any, thought to UPP. That's why they created PRIC, Ltd. And I'm certain that the managers at PRIC, Ltd. have no trouble giving Ned coaching on his USA dealer strategy, if only to approve his plan.

So Ned may have not been instructed on this subject by Ricoh (seems perfectly reasonable) but I am confident that he consulted with PRIC, Ltd.

Did this clear anything up or am I just digging a deeper hole?

[mee]

You need a nap then!

and you are also attempting to use logic in a battle of handbag duels and oneupmansship... pfffts.

[Aristophanes]

This whole discussion is silly. As far as I can tell, Ned probably did tell an untruth, but the untruth was one that made him look like he (and Pentax USA) had more power than they truly have. That's it. Ricoh/Pentax Japan have the power and Pentax USA has to do what they say and take the blame for poor decisions. If Ned would quibble at such a relationship, they would find someone else to take his place.

In the end, Ned is an intermediary between Pentax Japan and the US consumers, but one whose only power is to pass along information. Nothing else. He doesn't make most decisions and the decisions he does make have to be run by Japan before he puts them into place.

Bingo!

We have a winner.

Ned probably has a relationship with B&H and over major retailers whereby they talk...a lot.

Does anyone honestly believe that "Ned" of Pentax USA, knowing his channel partners like he does, is going to ignore the obvious, walk up to B&H, and announce an 80% price increase on the major zoom lens in the Pentax line-up, the DA* 16-50/28?!?!

You do that as a remote manager you are grimacing all the way, with an arm tied behind your back, and a letter in your back pocket from head office telling you the new price list courtesy of Tokyo bean counters.

That's why I cut "Ned" some slack on the lying issue. If he did, his bosses put him in that position, which is unconscionable management. But, since he's got to help them save face (while delivering a raspberry of an "I told you so"), he gets blame while shrugging his shoulders and making nice with B&H again. And probably gets his bonus.

In short PRIC, Ltd. may give Ned a lot of help. That's "help" as in "We're from headquarters and we're here to help you." - words that can strike fear into the heart of a remote manager.

But I don't expect Ricoh to give much, if any, thought to UPP. That's why they created PRIC, Ltd. And I'm certain that the managers at PRIC, Ltd. have no trouble giving Ned coaching on his USA dealer strategy, if only to approve his plan.

I think a Ricoh manager installed at the new Pentax came up with UPP because the guy has an iPhone, worships Apple, sees Nikon doing some form of UPP, and through it would impress everyone. He's now rolling sushi at the company mess hall. IMO

A lot of European and Asian companies very much dislike the US market because of its grey market resale options for excess stock and overall price-sensitive, consumer discount philosophy. In fact, they hate it. Some (LG and Samsung lately) use it to their advantage when they can, but others (Nikon) intensely dislike sacrificing margins in the US arena.

[glanglois]

You're right, Ari (if I may be so informal). We Americans are not necessarily a genteel lot and we have not learned deference from an early age. It might be a great deal better if it were so but here we are - reluctant to defer to Nikon's recommended price.