[monochrome]

Yeppers. Looks like they shipped 3000 +/- fewer DSLRs in 2014 than in 2012. Their entire change in market share was driven by the other guys' channel stuffing, which they intentionally avoided.

And they did 645z - an all out effort.

Yeah, horrible company. They have a way to go but they're not Benighted.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 02-21-2015 at 05:00 PM.

[JPT]

Their decline in market share was faster than market's trend.

This is the exact opposite of what Ricoh said in the PF interview where they said they had outperformed the market trend. So we have the word of someone in the company who has sales data versus the opinion of someone on the internet commenting on half-understood Google-translated Japan market research information.

After all the positivity at CP+, it didn't take long for Pentax Forums to return to pessimistic business as usual, did it?

[Trudger1272]

After all the positivity at CP+, it didn't take long for Pentax Forums to return to pessimistic business as usual, did it?

Sure didn't! The OP meant for this thread to be positive I thought.

[mee]

Sure didn't! The OP meant for this thread to be positive I thought.

The pot is easily stirred here.

[NotSteve]

How about we apply some noise reduction to this post?

How long does it take to bring a camera to market, be that the K-01 or the FF? About three years, seems to be the going consensus. If the camera is to come out at the end of 2015, we can say it's presently two-thirds along, meaning Ricoh definitely has more than a "pile of plastic." As they've said, they're finalizing various features and technologies. So what is your point then? I guess you are saying that Uluru/Zvonimir Tosic doesn't work for Ricoh and hasn't seen any test models of the FF camera, and so is in denial that they obviously exist. Got it.

As for the rest of the post, well, I guess you are saying that Ricoh should hire you as their customer research, marketing, engineering and long-term planning guru. OK, why not. I mean if we go by how badly you claim they are doing, how much worse could they do if they hired you?

When Ricoh comes with more than a pile of plastic, and more accurate date than "late 2015", we can thank everyone, starting from Abraham onwards and that includes Richard Butler and DPR.

But before that happens, we must only pray Ricoh does not screw up this time like they did with K-01 and K-S1 and endless FF wait, endless TC wait, endless long zoom wait, etc. Which has cost them a lot, including significant drop in DSLR market share in the last 2 years.

Despite Sony visibly getting out of the DSLR market n the last 2+ years, which gives more room for expansion there, Ricoh has even managed to lower the Pentax DSLR share by 2% in that same time ... can anyone guess why?!

This FF and thinking straight for a year is their last chance. That they are last DSLR manufacturer to be mentioned on DPR or elsewhere ... no bloody wonder!

---------- Post added 02-21-15 at 10:05 PM ----------

Yes, I agree, credit where it's due. Granted the starting point is how badly they usually do at being objective about Pentax, but still.

Big kudos to Richard Butler who mentioned the upcoming Pentax FF model at the "Gear Day" feature at CreativeLive!

During this 1h feature, no Pentax/Ricoh was ever in sight (the table was filled with Canon, Nikon, Sony, Samsung, Fujifilm, and Olympus models), but at the very end -- when reviewers were asked which upcoming model they are most excited about -- Richard Butler gave a big nod to the Pentax FF model. He mentioned Pentax as a manufacturer of "photographer's cameras" with "well-positioned controls".

DPReview receives a lot of flak from us, so this may be an opportunity to say "thanks" and drive up the popularity rating of their "CP+ 2015: Up close and personal with Ricoh's full-frame Pentax mockup" article by visiting it and leaving a positive comment.

[Uluru]

This is the exact opposite of what Ricoh said in the PF interview where they said they had outperformed the market trend. S

Yes, they had out-performed negative trend. That is, when the overall trend is negative, out-performing it means going deeper in negativity and losing extra market share, at a faster rate than a trend itself. That had happened to Ricoh. On the other hand, under-performing negative trend means doing better than the negative overall trend, or, falling down slower. In that case their market share would increase.

Their share was 7.5%. After the shrinking of the market their new relative size should be 7.5% too. But it is not. It is now 4.5% and that is calculated from new overall sales figures. Figures indicate they have lost more than an average market decline. I have explained elsewhere why that happened, but here is in short:

That happened because Ricoh was insisting upon short term profitability. That illusion of positivity was more important to them than investing more $ in marketing and technology and lineup update, to overwhelm the overall negative industry trend, and to preserve previous market share. Short term profits have created long term market share loss. I am afraid the loss is now permanent.

Only way to get extra share now is to steal some % from the leading two. 1% loss for both Canon and Nikon would be insignificant to both, but that would mean a lot to Pentax. The answer is the FF. That is why the manager in the last video interview said they want to reclaim lost customers. He did not mean customers from 10 years ago, but those lost in the last few years, who were lost, among other things, thanks to poorly done rebranding exercise that created lots of FUD around iconic brand.

These numbers confirm my previous suspicions: Ricoh was not feeding Pentax sufficiently. They did not feed it enough even to keep their previous market share. Ricoh under-perfomed and mismanaged quite miserably.

[Digitalis]

and Pentax really needs a sticker of approval from Dpreview?

[Class A]

and Pentax really needs a sticker of approval from Dpreview?

No, they don't.

However, the CreativeLive feature I referred to will have a huge audience. Given that Ricoh hardly advertise themselves, one must be grateful for any other means of informing a mass audience that Pentax

• still exists, and
• produces cameras that are worth considering.

Also, how DPReview deals with a camera through their site, will have direct impact on sales figures. If they do something right, we should acknowledge it, just like we should try to correct them, when they miss the target.

[Rondec]

Yes, they had out-performed negative trend. That is, when the overall trend is negative, out-performing it means going deeper in negativity and losing extra market share, at a faster rate than a trend itself. That had happened to Ricoh. On the other hand, under-performing negative trend means doing better than the negative overall trend, or, falling down slower. In that case their market share would increase.

Their share was 7.5%. After the shrinking of the market their new relative size should be 7.5% too. But it is not. It is now 4.5% and that is calculated from new overall sales figures. Figures indicate they have lost more than an average market decline. I have explained elsewhere why that happened, but here is in short:

That happened because Ricoh was insisting upon short term profitability. That illusion of positivity was more important to them than investing more $ in marketing and technology and lineup update, to overwhelm the overall negative industry trend, and to preserve previous market share. Short term profits have created long term market share loss. I am afraid the loss is now permanent.

Only way to get extra share now is to steal some % from the leading two. 1% loss for both Canon and Nikon would be insignificant to both, but that would mean a lot to Pentax. The answer is the FF. That is why the manager in the last video interview said they want to reclaim lost customers. He did not mean customers from 10 years ago, but those lost in the last few years, who were lost, among other things, thanks to poorly done rebranding exercise that created lots of FUD around iconic brand.

These numbers confirm my previous suspicions: Ricoh was not feeding Pentax sufficiently. They did not feed it enough even to keep their previous market share. Ricoh under-perfomed and mismanaged quite miserably.

I don't think you understand at all.

Pentax is a small player in a large market. They can continue to be a player as long as they continue to make products that sell, don't over produce cameras, sell plenty of lenses, and don't sell things for a loss. As far as I can tell, that is exactly what they have been doing.

A company like Olympus, a few years ago and maybe even Sony today, are more interested in market share than in turning a profit. They over produce cameras and then discount them fairly deeply and often are left with product sitting on store shelves when their next model is coming out. And if most of what you are selling is basic bodies and kit lenses, that's pretty bad.

Companies like Fujifilm and Leica don't even register on these sorts of charts, but they are doing quite well, because they are releasing products that sell well and sell for significantly above production cost. I think Ricoh is conservative, but I also think they are in great shape right now as a company, despite the doom and gloom you are bringing to lots of threads.

[MMVIII]

Uluru, your posts belong to the most unsubstantiated wildest speculations ever posted in this place, which by nature is a honeypot for gloomers and more diomers. Being in science and trained to use facts and logic my brain just starts hurting at your posts...
Anyway, why do some of the analysts conclude that market share is the best proxy to indicate a healthy company? Selling one 645D and some appropriate lenses will give them some good revenue, why is selling 5000 low-end dslr starter kits for the same income more desirable? Yes, you would gain costumers to sell them lenses, but again, that's what kit buyers inbCanon land obviously don't do either. Setting up a high quality higher margins model seems legit. Am I the only one who sees in the FF-lenses announced more similarities to recent 645 lenses and maybe some shared development across mounts?

[Uluru]

I don't think you understand at all.

Pentax is a small player in a large market. They can continue to be a player ..
Companies like Fujifilm and Leica don't even register on these sorts of charts, but they are doing quite well, because they are ....

Canon makes small profits because their tech has been paid off over and over again in the last 8 years. That is why new Canon cameras use basically same tech as 7-8 years ago. They put a little extra in marketing and that keeps their share in the declining market. That is possible for a company that owns 50% of the market — and for no other company.

Leica makes some money, because they are an iconic brand and keep that promise diligently. They appeal to a wholly different mindset though, because Leica is not a consumer brand — it is an exclusive brand. The operate within different parameters — despite selling 'cameras', Leica is not in the photography business at all.

Fujifilm, being a consumer brand, loses money, constantly, because they want to gain some market share. Gaining market share in the declining market is impossible without losing money. Olympus loses money because they want to keep their market share. Nikon loses money because they want to keep their market share, and maybe gain some more.

Ricoh had lost a lot of its market share because of the policy to keep some profits in the declining market.
That meant losing of the market share. They operate under the impression the decline cannot go on forever. It is true, but no one can say when the trend will stop. If it doesn't, they will continue to lose market share.

Despite what people say, market share is important because of the visibility of the brand, and securing future investment. If Ricoh drops below 3%, for example, it is a matter of time when some part of the lineup will be axed. Permanently.

[monochrome]

The blind spot (being generous) the trolls on this and the other '#3 sales volume' thread have is misstating Ricoh's business model and strategy, and thereby measuring their performance against Canon, Nikon and now Sony, then claiming Ricoh is a failure..

They're not competing with those companies.

They CANNOT compete with those companies.

They WILL NOT compete with those companies.

Pentax is and will remain for a long, long time a smaller, specialty product maker that does not need, want nor have the wherewithal to become a large, generalist product maker.

Setting up the CaNikon straw man argument and knocking it down is by-the-book trollish behavior.

Ignore it. Ricoh is doing fine. We'll have lenses and a FF body this year, possibly a surprise upgrade in late spring or summer and some Q's.

I think we need another good dose of kenspo.

[monochrome]

And wouldn't it be fun if Ricoh bought Olympus cameras and made it a brand? That would certainly add market share, plus . . . .

Instant Mirrorless.

[EDIT: Apparently . . . . . no]

[Digitalis]

wouldn't it be fun if Ricoh bought Olympus cameras and made it a brand?

no...just no.

[Uluru]

The blind spot (being generous) the trolls on this and the other '#3 sales volume' thread have is misstating Ricoh's business model and strategy, and thereby measuring their performance against Canon, Nikon and now Sony, then claiming Ricoh is a failure..

They're not competing with those companies.
They CANNOT compete with those companies.
They WILL NOT compete with those companies.
Pentax is and will remain for a long, long time a smaller, specialty product maker that does not need, want nor have the wherewithal to become a large, generalist product maker.
Setting up the CaNikon straw man argument and knocking it down is by-the-book trollish behavior.
Ignore it. Ricoh is doing fine. We'll have lenses and a FF body this year, possibly a surprise upgrade in late spring or summer and some Q's.
I think we need another good dose of kenspo.

Well, Ricoh is not doing fine. They have lost a lot of their market share. And their managers say that openly — they desperately want people back. They want to show them plastic mockup — anything! — just to show to them the are now investing.
However, that does not mean they are going to compete with anybody — they never did.
Also, pointing out that Ricoh is the only company that lost share dramatically only to tell empty stories to investors they have 'achieved profits', is not trolling — it is stating the fact. Whether someone likes it or not, it is a pure and simple economical equation of a long-term strategic loss.
If it continues, axing of many parts of the Pentax lineup will commence. You tell them what will they axe first.