[biz-engineer]

I know manufacturers have to make a profit, but that doesn't make my income or your pension any higher.

The problem is pricing camera and lenses as single items is not adapted in a market will lower volumes, it is that it limits how much sales and profits can be achieved. There should be a lot more kits making it more affordable, with some digital pairing between camera and lenses so that the kit cannot be re-sold as sole items at a higher price. Kit price should offer from 25% to 50% discount depending on the kit, they would sell a lot better. When I bought the K1, I negotiated a package K1 with 4 lenses in one single purchase, and I had a very good price for it, otherwise it would have been too expensive, I would have stayed with apsc. There are some kits on amazon, but the kits are 1 camera with 1 lens and the discount is not even worth bothering.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 02-09-2019 at 09:36 AM.

[reh321]

The problem is pricing camera and lenses as single items is not adapted in a market will lower volumes, it is that it limits how much sales and profits can be achieved. There should be a lot more kits making it more affordable, with some digital pairing between camera and lenses so that the kit cannot be re-sold as sole items at a higher price. Kit price should offer from 25% to 50% discount depending on the kit, they would sell a lot better. When I bought the K1, I negotiated a package K1 with 4 lenses in one single purchase, and I had a very good price for it, otherwise it would have been too expensive, I would have stayed with apsc. There are some kits on amazon, but the kits are 1 camera with 1 lens and the discount is not even worth bothering.

I recall at least one time when Adorama allowed customers to select their own kits; that is good, but uncommon. Economics theory - and actual life - teaches that choice is worth something to the consumer. A 'kit' is worthwhile only if the customer is interested in all components. For example, on Black Friday the KP bundles offered by B&H and Adorama were equally attractive to me, even though the Adorama bundle supposedly included a lens; I already had that lens and already knew I didn't like it.

[biz-engineer]

I recall at least one time when Adorama allowed customers to select their own kits; that is good, but uncommon. Economics theory - and actual life - teaches that choice is worth something to the consumer. A 'kit' is worthwhile only if the customer is interested in all components. For example, on Black Friday the KP bundles offered by B&H and Adorama were equally attractive to me, even though the Adorama bundle supposedly included a lens; I already had that lens and already knew I didn't like it.

Yes you are right. My point is that when decrease of sales volumes imply price increase it means that the marginal cost (definition: marginal cost = cost to product one additional unit), marginal cost to price difference increases, and in that case, gradual price is a better model than fixed price per item. The Kit could be 1 camera + 1 wide angle + 2 standard + short tele , at an attractive price, would also reduce the cost of sale and boost Ricoh profits by achieving higher overall revenues.

[sculptor666]

I recall at least one time when Adorama allowed customers to select their own kits; that is good, but uncommon. Economics theory - and actual life - teaches that choice is worth something to the consumer. A 'kit' is worthwhile only if the customer is interested in all components. For example, on Black Friday the KP bundles offered by B&H and Adorama were equally attractive to me, even though the Adorama bundle supposedly included a lens; I already had that lens and already knew I didn't like it.

i don't care for kits, but i do pay attention to them... only because you can sell off the things you don't need and end up getting quite a deal on a camera body. back when the k-3 was bundled with a flash and the 50mm 1.8, i jumped on it. after selling the lens and flash, the camera only cost me $350 or something. then i sold it a year later for $350. then bought a k-1... then another (used) k-3 because i missed it.

[biz-engineer]

i don't care for kits, but i do pay attention to them... only because you can sell off the things you don't need and end up getting quite a deal on a camera body.

For that, I propose to have unique lens id that only works for a copy of camera body to prevent people using camera kit as a mean to get a cheaper single unit of a camera or lens. The idea behind bundle pricing if to offer more to customers who are not greedy. Good customers are important for companies to thrive and in turn offer better products. I remember one of the marketing course at Hewlet Packard was to rank customers from top payers to worst payer and cut off services for the lower tier. In a portfolio of customers you always have customers who cost more than they make money, you should get rid of those customers and concentrate on getting more high dollar customers. For example, some Pentax customer buy 645z system new, those customers should be highly considered and offered some advantages. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the Pentax customers who spend $50 a year on old Pentax stuff from ebay, they are the kind of customers who ruin the Pentax brand, you should not help those customers. Ricoh should do a loyalty program, such as offering discounts to customers who spend more than $2500 a year on Pentax equipment. There are also those former Pentax customers who don't even take photographs but come on forum to bash the Pentax brand, Ricoh should get rid of them.

[monochrome]

But you would lose benign kit changes also. In the digitally assigned lenses kit example proposed, the owner then could not ‘upgrade’ one lens in his bag to a newer version released at a later date. The owner would be obligated to replace the entire kit, and the manufacturer obligated to release entire lens line upgrades simulataneously, which is not capital efficient.

All the idea does is draw future sales forward, then disincentivize future turnover unless there is a digital release after a certain number of months.

I suppose one could download a license update or unlock key for a fee, similar or a FW update.

[TwoUptons]

All I know is that I would be angry at Pentax if I ever mounted a lens and the camera said, “sorry, you don’t have the right license for this lens”, regardless of why it said that...

I might also be angry at whoever I bought the lens from, but I would certainly be angry at the manufacturer who invented such a system...

-Eric

[monochrome]

All I know is that I would be angry at Pentax if I ever mounted a lens and the camera said, “sorry, you don’t have the right license for this lens”, regardless of why it said that...

I might also be angry at whoever I bought the lens from, but I would certainly be angry at the manufacturer who invented such a system...

-Eric

Would you pay half price per lens for a kit of lenses, then the buyer (or seller) could pay a small amount for an unlock key - like downloading a FW update - so you could sell (buy) the lens?

[TwoUptons]

Would you pay half price per lens for a kit of lenses, then the buyer (or seller) could pay a small amount for an unlock key - like downloading a FW update - so you could sell (buy) the lens?

At that point, you may as well switch over to a rental plan.

But I don’t see that working great on lenses, at least until all of us old folks who are used to buying and using old things die off...

Maybe a “keep your kit current” arrangement, with a fixed monthly payment to use whatever the latest gear is, but even that might have unintended consequences (would the stacks of mildly used cameras you need to get rid of every cycle be sold or recycled?)

What happens when Ricoh sells Pentax to Meyer-Optik or someone? Do all of our lens licenses expire? No thanks.

-Eric

[Doundounba]

I do think, that those that were eagerly awaiting a high end APS-C body will have moved on.

This recent forum poll suggests quite otherwise. In it, and by a very wide margin (about 3:1 to the second most popular choice, the D-FA 85mm F/1.4), the most highly anticipated upcoming Pentax product is "APSC new model to succeed K-3II"...

[Larrymc]

For that, I propose to have unique lens id that only works for a copy of camera body to prevent people using camera kit as a mean to get a cheaper single unit of a camera or lens. The idea behind bundle pricing if to offer more to customers who are not greedy. Good customers are important for companies to thrive and in turn offer better products. I remember one of the marketing course at Hewlet Packard was to rank customers from top payers to worst payer and cut off services for the lower tier. In a portfolio of customers you always have customers who cost more than they make money, you should get rid of those customers and concentrate on getting more high dollar customers. For example, some Pentax customer buy 645z system new, those customers should be highly considered and offered some advantages. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the Pentax customers who spend $50 a year on old Pentax stuff from ebay, they are the kind of customers who ruin the Pentax brand, you should not help those customers. Ricoh should do a loyalty program, such as offering discounts to customers who spend more than $2500 a year on Pentax equipment. There are also those former Pentax customers who don't even take photographs but come on forum to bash the Pentax brand, Ricoh should get rid of them.

This is totally amazing!! Surely you jest! What person in their right mind would buy into a system like you are proposing knowing the restrictions?

I would think that the HP course was regarding commercial customers certainly not retail consumer customers who buy, for instance, a printer and use it several years before coming back for a new one As for getting rid of cheap customers, better be careful of what you wish for, you just might get rid of other customers too.

What would happen, for instance, if a customer were to buy $2800 one year and $2200 the following year? Would they then be be denied a discount the following year? After a few years there would be no discounts for Pentax buyers since cameras last more than a year and and lens many more years and Pentax isn't a speed demon at camera and lens production.

The problem with theories like this is they are theories and can't be proven in the real world of consumer sales.

As for those former customers who bash Pentax on this forum, @Clackers had a solution to that, a litmus test to demonstrate that you still currently shoot Ricoh/Pentax camera systems.

[reh321]

For that, I propose to have unique lens id that only works for a copy of camera body to prevent people using camera kit as a mean to get a cheaper single unit of a camera or lens. The idea behind bundle pricing if to offer more to customers who are not greedy. Good customers are important for companies to thrive and in turn offer better products. I remember one of the marketing course at Hewlet Packard was to rank customers from top payers to worst payer and cut off services for the lower tier. In a portfolio of customers you always have customers who cost more than they make money, you should get rid of those customers and concentrate on getting more high dollar customers. For example, some Pentax customer buy 645z system new, those customers should be highly considered and offered some advantages. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the Pentax customers who spend $50 a year on old Pentax stuff from ebay, they are the kind of customers who ruin the Pentax brand, you should not help those customers. Ricoh should do a loyalty program, such as offering discounts to customers who spend more than $2500 a year on Pentax equipment. There are also those former Pentax customers who don't even take photographs but come on forum to bash the Pentax brand, Ricoh should get rid of them.

I have three K-mount cameras that share my K-mount lenses. I know I don't purchase cameras very often, but Pentax had better not ignore customers like me, or they will have to get by with even fewer customers. Your scheme is what would totally ruin the Pentax brand.

[RobA_Oz]

I remember one of the marketing course at Hewlet Packard was to rank customers from top payers to worst payer and cut off services for the lower tier. In a portfolio of customers you always have customers who cost more than they make money, you should get rid of those customers and concentrate on getting more high dollar customers.

I presume that was HP Enterprise, and not the Compaqted HP Inc.

In consumer sales it’s the job of the retailer to sack a costly customer, not the manufacturer.

On the other hand, looking after high-end customers is what Canon does so well, but I often wonder if their returns on such investments are indirect, through sales to lower-end customers which arise from the associated marketing (a reverse Robin Hood situation, if they are).

[monochrome]

I presume that was HP Enterprise, and not the Compaqted HP Inc.

In consumer sales it’s the job of the retailer to sack a costly customer, not the manufacturer.

On the other hand, looking after high-end customers is what Canon does so well, but I often wonder if their returns on such investments are indirect, through sales to lower-end customers which arise from the associated marketing (a reverse Robin Hood situation, if they are).

Exactly. Ricoh's customers are the Distributors. The Distributors' customers are the Dealers. The Dealers' customers are the end buyers. The end buyers are the drag on sales.

If Ricoh desired to cull the marginal end customers themselves they should change the mount such that it is no longer backward compatible to 1952.

[deus ursus]

[...] At the other end of the spectrum, you have the Pentax customers who spend $50 a year on old Pentax stuff from ebay, they are the kind of customers who ruin the Pentax brand, you should not help those customers. [...]

I am that kind of customer. I can never afford to buy a new camera or lens of the quality I want, so I have to go on the used market. And you know what? Many of the guys I buy lenses/cameras from sell to finance new equipment, mostly Pentax stuff, so my money some way or the other go to Pentax, if not directly.