[Schraubstock]

But it shows exactly what the target of this marketing campaign is. The idea is to get new people into the system, casual shooters, who want a super zoom lens and a cute camera.

A lot of people still look at number of MP and the size of zoom range as a determining factor on "how good a camera is". Telling a friend about MTF scores is pointless - but tell them the camera has "6x zoom!" and they will be impressed.

Well said, you hit the nail on the head.

You can't through photographically uninformed people into the deep end. In fact, trying to sell such photographically uninformed people high end stuff or even tying to explain it to them can be counter productive, it will/might put them off. And we mustn't forget, not everybody is interested in high end camera gear either.

With this in mind, in my opinion, there is nothing "idiotic" with this ad.

[clackers]

I wouldn't be surprised if they have overstocked themselves with it and are using this as an opportunity to move some stock.

Win-win, right?

We like to think marketing people are dunderheads who haven't done any research.

But when was the last time, for example,there was a full page ad for Pentax in The Sunday Times in the UK or the Wall Street Journal in the States?

Bravo to such attempts, say I, since it's never clear that they're worth it to the bottom line.

[Schraubstock]

In Australia, for instance, both the .com.au Pentax and Sigma websites are run directly by CRK, and sell directly via CRK. That is not the case in the USA.

Or Europe !

For all those who were quick off the mark and posted "stupid and idiotic marketing" please take note.

[thibs]

Well said, you hit the nail on the head.

You can't through photographically uninformed people into the deep end. In fact, trying to sell such photographically uninformed people high end stuff or even tying to explain it to them can be counter productive, it will/might put them off. And we mustn't forget, not everybody is interested in high end camera gear either.

With this in mind, in my opinion, there is nothing "idiotic" with this ad.

There's nothing idiotic with the lens type choice. And I never said so.
I wouldn't have put a prime on it either. Not even sure I'd do it in France.

---------- Post added 17-12-14 at 07:20 ----------

Or Europe !

For all those who were quick off the mark and posted "stupid and idiotic marketing" please take note.

You're talking about Pentax Europe maybe?
Crap, it actually exists. Ouch.
What different distributers? Well, Europe is different countries until, you need'em for moving things.
Strategy is handled by Pentax Europe.

However, I never saw a Pentax ad with a third party lens.
This is the issue I'm talking about and not whatever you try to put in my mouth.

And btw, others replies have been useful. I'm still waiting for yours.

[Schraubstock]

And btw, others replies have been useful. I'm still waiting for yours.

I am sorry that you feel that way. But I can see why my posts are not useful to you, for obvious reasons. You sound like someone who painted himself into a corner and now you get nasty. Typical reaction by the way.

However, I never saw a Pentax ad with a third party lens.

And you most likely never will even if it isn't an ad of the full page ilk as in Oz. And if you are not at all familiar with local conditions in Australia or other countries, please don't be so quick off the mark and call people marketing idiots. Chances are they know more about the local market then you do.

So have a bit of a re-think, we all say things sometimes we regret later and it is no big deal to correct yourself afterwards. I have done it, it's painless.

Greetings

[thibs]

I am sorry that you feel that way.

Me too LOL, not that it is fun.

But I can see why my posts are not useful to you, for obvious reasons. You sound like someone who painted himself into a corner and now you get nasty. Typical reaction by the way.

Funny I somehow thought it was your case. But we can agree to disagree, I see no problem in that.

And you most likely never will even if it isn't an ad of the full page ilk as in Oz. And if you are not at all familiar with local conditions in Australia or other countries, please don't be so quick off the mark and call people marketing idiots. Chances are they know more about the local market then you do.

I certainly hope they know more than I do. But the stupidity hasn't has much to do with CRK than it has to do with Ricoh (in my reasoning, of course).

So have a bit of a re-think, we all say things sometimes we regret later and it is no big deal to correct yourself afterwards. I have done it, it's painless.

Greetings

I'd regret what? That CRK are idiots (in the context of this discussion)? Maybe, that may be true. The stupidity of the situation though, I'll stand firmly by it. It may not be (or not only be) CRK's fault though.
Somehow if Pentax needs to be promoted that way (no, not the full page ad but the Sigma lens), something's wrong (and btw, probably for Sigma too).

Greetings too (however the discussion may have been heated).

[arnold]

Today, another full page advertisement in the national newspaper. This time the 645Z for AU$10499

[jawsy]

That's more like it!

[totsmuyco]

There used to be a lot of camera ads in National Geographic way back in the 70s and 80s. I haven't seen much lately. I think it would be nice if Pentax had some. Probably also with Time magazine. I think this would help Pentax a lot.

[clackers]

There used to be a lot of camera ads in National Geographic way back in the 70s and 80s. I haven't seen much lately. I think it would be nice if Pentax had some. Probably also with Time magazine. I think this would help Pentax a lot.

Print magazines are dead or dying, Totsmuyco (as are newspapers, BTW)

[jawsy]

I'll preface this by disclosing the obvious; I'm no expert on marketing (despite having some qualifications.)

Magazines are not dead and whilst print newspapers are dying, online marketing for a brand like Pentax/Ricoh is not going to be effective. They have a small window to re-enter the market before all efforts will be futile.

DLSR's (and lenses) are an established technology. The longer the establishment, the more inertia is afforded to the incumbents until such time as they make a major mistake or misstep on new technology. Pentax have let themselves fall by the wayside by not marketing a product that is seen by the consumer as being a long term investment. Canikon caught the wave and kept surfing on the brand reputation. They ensured photography magazines regularly reviewed and commented on their every move, they ensured their product was up to 'pro' standards at the high end and hammered that point. It's not dissimilar to automotive companies investing in Formula 1; it panders to consumer instinct. To break into this in any serious way, Ricoh need to inform the consumer that they have a 'pro' product that is widely accepted. It can't be achieved with online media alone. The fact that the average consumer can't afford a 645Z is beside the point; they can't afford or use an FI car either.

Advertising a 645Z in the Weekend Australian is smart. It's been mentioned in previous posts that business and executive types would be attracted to the value offered in the KS-1 ad; that's incorrect. If that were true, Audi, Range Rover, Lexus and Mercedes wouldn't sell a single vehicle in Australia.

I don't know what the next technology will be, but between now and then, Ricoh need to hammer the high end product to counter the reputation that it's a second rate option. Print media is the way to go.

[Nicolas06]

However, I never saw a Pentax ad with a third party lens.

It doesn't that because YOU didn't ever seen a Pentax ad with a third party lens that:
- it never occured: there proof here it does happen
- it is a bad strategy.

Lastly if I recall it is not a Pentax ad but an ad from the distributor that sell other brand. For them it is obviously good to sell their products. Maybe they got good prices on both, maybe they have to many and want to get rid of them. Maybe they want to promote they can have very actractive deals.

Does this serve Pentax anyway? For sure, if one buy the pack, Pentax get the revenue on K-S1 meaning money and also more "Pentax" gear out in the wild. They also show the Pentax name anyway.

Would it have been better for Pentax if the offer was with a Pentax lense? Possible but maybe the price could not have been the same with comparable lenses like 18-135 or 18-270. Obviously the ads make a point on fantastic value. So the ad could not target the same segment with Pentax lenses and possibly it would have been a deal breaker and we would have seen instead an ad with a Canon Rebel and a sigma. That for sure wouldn't have helped Pentax.

We could argue a Pentax lense would have helped Pentax more. This would be true if the expected revenue for Pentax would be better this way. This is far from being certain and we are not the one that can juge that.

As if Pentax should prevent that to happen I'am not sure to understand. Many merchants feature Pentax from time to time and they even have kits including sigma/tamron lenses from time to time. I saw this on Amazon for example. Woul it benefit Pentax to alienate their channel just for "purity"... This is counter productive.

[totsmuyco]

Print magazines are dead or dying, Totsmuyco (as are newspapers, BTW)

A friend of mine has a 5 year subscription of time magazine and since she subscribed for an electronic copy she's been giving me her hard copies. Maybe printed version will be outmoded but the electronic version of magazines books and newspapers are available. I would assume that it is possible to have ads in this version. Just my thought.

[littlemoose]

there are often full page ads in the Weekend Australian newspaper for Pentax. They are posted by the local distributor Cr Kennedy and this weekend the 645 Z is featured for A$10499 ( body only) - hardly a casual Xmas stocking filler!

I am not sure what the concerns of Pentaxians is.

Cr Kennedy, a well known company, is also the local distributor for Sigma.

PS. I notice I am still listed as a new member despite having joined in Mar 2013. Can anybody tell me what is the criterion for full mebership?

[clackers]

I'm afraid on the topic of the outlook of newspapers and magazines - print or online versions - we will have to agree to disagree. I'm glad my younger stepson turned down a career at Fairfax a couple of years ago!

Nevertheless, in an era of declining revenues, advertising is currently cheaper than it's ever been.

The newspaper we're talking about is losing millions of Rupert Murdoch's cash.