[Kunzite]

With all due respect, the Panasonic/Lumix situation is entirely different. Panasonic made up the name "Lumix" to create some level of "cache" for their camera business which, to that time, we decidedly low end. They felt a new brand name would provide some kind of legitimacy as they tried to move upmarket. I would liken it to Toyota creating the Lexus brand. The problem for Panasonic, if there is one, is the Lumix name hasn't really stuck as an identifier like Lexus has for Toyota.

There are differences of course, but I'm not sure the situation is that different. One could say that likewise, Pentax is now Ricoh's upmarket brand.
Anyway, I gave them as an example of how a company could use both their company name and a brand; I'm not claiming complete similarity.

As a base line comparison in the simplest of terms, ignoring the individual histories of all corporate identities mentioned, you are correct: Ricoh and Panasonic are, (at present), company names and
Pentax and Lumix are, (at present), brand names.

I'm afraid I can only do a "simplest of terms" comparison; I don't understand those companies well enough to attempt something more ambitious. So it's Panasonic, the company which uses the Lumix brand; and Sony, the one that killed the NEX.

I'm not willing to make the jump from what we know (Pentax becomes a brand and is marketed as such) to what might happen (Pentax disappearing and being replaced with?). Ricoh used and is still using camera brands, e.g. Caplio, GR; and they acquired and maintaining a ridiculously high number of copied brands.
It's clear though that the Pentax name will play a less important role on a corporate level than initially planned (as the renaming from Pentax Ricoh Imaging to Ricoh Imaging is suggesting).

[tvdtvdtvd]

Ricoh used and is still using camera brands, e.g. Caplio, GR; and they acquired and maintaining a ridiculously high number of copied brands.
It's clear though that the Pentax name will play a less important role on a corporate level than initially planned (as the renaming from Pentax Ricoh Imaging to Ricoh Imaging is suggesting).

True enough. Ricoh may well be content to keep Pentax as a brand indefinitely. I don't actually have a
crystal ball and am making guesses as best as anyone.

I suppose I wouldn't be suspicious at all if it weren't for the immediate grab of the WG series under the
Ricoh brand. If anything, I think they create more confusion for themselves and others by maintaining
multiple badges rather than one. It would have been simpler to rebadge the GR and Theta as 'Pentax'
products as part of a Pentax camera division. And yet they clearly want us to know that Ricoh is the
name behind it all.

[reh321]

Not quite the same. Lumix has always been Panasonic. The Lumix line was created by Panasonic and
there is no other history to it. No confusion whatsoever.

A better comparison is Sony's acquisition of Minolta. Sony, being the cocky buggers bent on world domination
that they are, never once bothered to market a line of 'Minolta' cameras. You can bet Sony would have done
the same thing with Pentax, (oh the horror to even contemplate).

Ricoh has been kind and respectful of the Pentax legacy. If anything I see them as great admirers of Pentax's
place in history and eager to regain that place for themselves. But they also have pride in their own history
and identity. I'm quite certain they ultimately want the world to know that it is Ricoh who is making products
like the K-3 and 645Z and if it were not for Ricoh we wouldn't have them. Why wouldn't they want to take
full credit for their efforts?

When I first became aware of Pentax, they were sold in the US labeled Honeywell Pentax, but I believe they were sold elsewhere under their "real" name Asahi Pentax; only in later years were the cameras labeled just Pentax. Thus, Ricoh could still respect history and lineage by naming the line Ricoh Pentax

[tvdtvdtvd]

Something like this, perhaps? In the end it still says Pentax.

Attached Images

 

[Dave L]

A bridge too far! I could live easily with this, though:

[monochrome]

A better comparison is Sony's acquisition of Minolta. Sony, being the cocky buggers bent on world domination that they are, never once bothered to market a line of 'Minolta' cameras. You can bet Sony would have done the same thing with Pentax, (oh the horror to even contemplate).

1. KonicaMinolta retained the Minolta trademarks when they sold the camera division to Sony. Sony was not permitted to use the Minolta brand - and had they been permitted they very well might have used it.
2. Pentax has stated numerous times that the Pentax brand has value for their interchangeable lens cameras. They intend to retain and strengthen the brand in such a way as to build a modern image on the traditional foundation. It has been stated the Ricoh brand would apply to compact cameras, specialty lines, the legacy Ricoh brand and new technology. If I was a Ricoh fanboy I'd be pretty disappointed at the lack of attention the Ricoh brand has received since the buyout, rather than the converse.
3. Ricoh Imaging consolidated many B2B Ricoh and Pentax lines under one corporate umbrella (security cameras, for instance) to reduce corporate overhead (essentially duplicative middle-management and administrative employees). This strategy has been quite common at Ricoh Office Equipment over the last thirty years as they acquired legacy brands and folded them into the company - while retaining the legacy brand name where advantageous.
4. Pentax as a brand name will disappear only if and when it has less market value than Ricoh as a brand name. Given the success of the 645Z I think that unlikely. Ricoh has no emotional attachment to either name as a camera brand, corporate ownership notwithstanding. They'll use whatever makes business sense.

Those of us who would be offended by a change are too close to 'Pentax' to accept that, should it occur, 'Pentax' would need to have been so totally damaged by Pentax Corp. and Hoya as to be beyond restoration.

[reh321]

A bridge too far! I could live easily with this, though:

That is basically the idea.

Go to Pentax Serial Number Database - PentaxForums.com
and look at the pictures on page 1 for
Pentax Spotmatic
Pentax KX

[Dave L]

That is basically the idea.

Go to Pentax Serial Number Database - PentaxForums.com
and look at the pictures on page 1 for
Pentax Spotmatic
Pentax KX

I copied the design from my

ASAHI
PENTAX

MX!

[johnmflores]

Pentax! Ricoh! Why not just call it Sam?

As long as it has a K-mount I'm still interested.

[mee]

You guys argue and discuss the same 5 or 6 things in each thread.. have you noticed this?

[jatrax]

Pentax! Ricoh! Why not just call it Sam? As long as it has a K-mount I'm still interested.

yep

You guys argue and discuss the same 5 or 6 things in each thread.. have you noticed this?

yep

[tvdtvdtvd]

[*]Ricoh Imaging consolidated many B2B Ricoh and Pentax lines under one corporate umbrella (security cameras, for instance) to reduce corporate overhead (essentially duplicative middle-management and administrative employees). This strategy has been quite common at Ricoh Office Equipment over the last thirty years as they acquired legacy brands and folded them into the company - while retaining the legacy brand name where advantageous.

Out of curiosity, can you provide an example of a Ricoh product that shows the brand name in marked prominence
to 'RICOH', other than the Pentax line of cameras? I hunted around a bit hoping to find an example
but everything I found, (printers, duplicators, projectors, etc, etc), had 'RICOH' in a clearly prominent position and
any brand or model name in a clearly subordinate position on the product.

[*]Pentax as a brand name will disappear only when and if it has less market value than Ricoh as a brand name. Given the success of the 645Z I think that unlikely. Ricoh has no emotional attachment to either name as a camera brand, corporate ownership notwithstanding. They'll use whatever makes business sense.
[/I].

Agree, mostly. We all know Pentax has value based on their historical legacy. And the name Pentax
continues to build value as long as good products like the K-3 and 645Z bear that name. It is also quite
apparent that Ricoh wants us all to know they're at the helm. At some point, promoting Pentax may well be
seen at odds with promoting Ricoh. As I stated earlier, Ricoh have been respectful and careful with the
name thus far. They obviously recognize the value in the brand, even if that same brand had become the
butt of many a review by the time they took charge. If anything, the value of Pentax has gone up since
Ricoh's acquisition. And yet, Pentax Ricoh imaging has already become Ricoh Imaging and Ricoh
has a superior position on the packaging.....

As I mentioned earlier, the Photokina 2014 booth makes it very clear that Ricoh is being especially
careful with the 645. But I don't see the 645 as indefinitely immune. Every time a review credits
Ricoh for a feature they like in the 645, they elevate the value of Ricoh. See paragraph above...

---------- Post added 12-18-2014 at 07:52 PM ----------

You guys argue and discuss the same 5 or 6 things in each thread.. have you noticed this?

Wouldn't the post count be 1700-ish otherwise? Surely that would only be step-up ring worthy, at most,
not FA31 worthy.

[beachgardener]

have you noticed this?

Yes...

[JibbaJab]

You guys argue and discuss the same 5 or 6 things in each thread.. have you noticed this?

We could make a drinking game out of how many times a PF thread digresses into: (1) the difference between FL vs FOV; (2) the correct way to test/calibrate a lens; (3) whether there will ever be FF and if it's even necessary; (4) whether the Pentax name will disappear; (5) bacon.

When I get tired of reading post after post attempting technical one-upmanship, I go read the Clickin Moms forum.

[monochrome]

It's a derivative of Godwin's Law.