Originally posted by victormeldrew In the grand scheme of things, they're not exactly rolling in them.
That doesn't in anyway imply that they'd be doing any better listening to the advice of everyone on the forum who thinks they have a plan.
For example, the company determined that to have the exposure of 1.4 billion they could have the same exposure of Canon, Nikon and Sony. No one knows if spending that money would succeed in accomplishing enough sales to cover it. it could be an exercise in bankruptcy. It's easy to say Pentax should spend money on this that and the other. That doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean that it would in any way increase Pentax's sales.
The only thing that's certain is that more expenditures by the company would mean higher prices at least initially.
Lets ay Pentax increases the cost of each camera by $200 to create a solid network of repair centres. would that increase their revenue through higher prices and more satisfied customers, or decrease their revenue through lower sales? Same with marketing.
If through either method, they increase costs and reduce revenue they will go under. Apparently that's a chance some wish they would take, but, it's not their company, and they aren't risking their money when they make these suggestions, and they don't have the numbers Pentax execs have. What are the odds one of them is actually right?
People will always argue "I want more for my money" but that doesn't mean those things are realistic, or even possible.
Last edited by normhead; 05-27-2019 at 09:00 AM.