Originally posted by cardnick As a manager for a Ritz Store, I have a unique view of the availibilty issue....
I hear all the complaints of, "they don't carry anything" or "They don't have what I want", but If they did, would you buy it from them? Would you just go there to look at it, handle it, and then go shop for it online?
Thanks for your perspective, which I do understand. I generally do feel that, if I have shopped at bricks and mortar store, I owe them the sale. I do not go into the store to handle the camera knowing in advance that I'll buy online. But the truth is, as somebody who's in this world up to his chest, I don't usually NEED to go to a store. I can handle a photographer friend's new Nikon or Canon camera if I want to get the feel of something. And I read so much in print and online that I am often able to make my buying decisions without putting my hands on the product. And yes, I have on rare occasions been known to return products to Amazon or KEH, although I never buy simply experimentally.
But I am sure that Nikon and Canon users are more likely to come into your store to handle the goods before buying online than Pentax users are, if only because you HAVE Nikon and Canon stuff to handle.
Traditional physical stores simply have a problem competing with online resellers like Amazon and Adorama. You sound like a great manager, really dedicated to your customers, and I really respect that. But we don't generally expect to NEED that kind of terrific service, and I don't think the occasional story of extraordinary service is enough to get people to pay more (both in product price AND tax) for products that many find pretty costly already.
I don't know if this makes financial sense, but I will say that, as a buyer, I would be willing to pay money - and fairly good money, at that - to be able to take a camera body away for 24 or 48 or 72 hours and use it on my own. That's something that the local stores could do and that the online stores cannot easily compete with.
*
As for Pentax's problem generally, I continue to believe that the company is a bit lost and has trouble getting "mind share." And I don't think that it's just because they're not marketing hard enough. The best type of mind share comes not from advertising but from "buzz," which includes people talking about products, or magazines and web sites writing about products. Canon and Nikon can afford simply to coast for a while. They're too important for the magazines to ignore, and in any case, Nikon has released exciting new products in 2008. Other companies are innovating in ways that grab the press's attention, Sigma, say, with the DP2, and Olympus, with the four-thirds system. What exactly has Pentax done lately - since, say, 2005 - that made somebody who isn't a connoisseur go "wow!"?
Pentax doesn't seem to know where its niche is. Leica's niche is rich people. Canon and Nikon market to mainstream pros. Other manufacturers market to the low-end of the market. Pentax aims for the vague middle of the market - the least interesting group of consumers - makes really good cameras in its class and sells them for somewhat less than the competition. That's great for the handful of us who really do our homework and are smart shoppers. But for most folks, that's just not enough to make the sale. I think it's absurd on its face to say that a Pentax K20D is actually BETTER than, say, a Nikon D300. What can be said (as of 9-24-2008) is that a Pentax K20D is, in most respects, just about as good as a Nikon D300 and costs almost 40% less (about $1000 for K20D body only on Amazon vs about $1600 for the D300 body only). But if you spend that extra $600, well, you have bought into the Nikon platform, and that platform has serious advantages that the Pentax platform doesn't.
That leaves Pentax selling to folks who are already committed to its brand - probably because they're already customers - or to buyers for whom price is the most important consideration (that was me three years ago). And neither of those groups make great target markets.
Will