Originally posted by Docrwm What else is Nikon. Seriously, I see where you are going with this - place yourself between Nikon and Leica. Interesting move. Even more interesting that they feel that they can jettison their entire current customer base.
Actually, losing the cutomer base to Nikon is
the business risk, but that will happen anyway if they don't do
something. To grow you have to take business risk - and make it work.
I do think we have to consider that this is a PRAC decision primarily, not (apparently) a PRI decision. I think Ned cheapened the Brand and has made it nearly impossible to restore form or structure to the USA market without a serious capital infusion over many quarters from Japan. That may be coming - but I'd bet they want to see some progress first.
Tactically, you will see PRAC spend some money later this year on Demonstrators and probably Co-Op Advertising. It has to come from somewhere because it isn't coming from Japan.
Strategically I do believe over the next three to five years they want to be the third major brand, known for construction quality, engineering, ergonomics / well thought out controls and Image Quality. But in the USA they won't give that away any more - we'll have to pay for it.
I also believe they'll make some kind of attempt to target professional use where equipment can be leased and expensed, thus making the actual dollar price less onerous to that category buyer.
In the end the consumer of Pentax may well be limited as are the consumers of Nikon. There are affordable cameras with disabled features that people who aspire to the good stuff can buy. It probably will not be "Craptacular" but more along the lines of the DA35/2.4.
When I think about it, in 1984 I bought an MESuper, M50/1.4 and AF200S kit, which was no cheap camera, but I couldn't ever afford an MX, and certainly not an LX or M35/2 until a year ago, so what's really different about my current thesis from the way Pentax marketed in it heyday?
Last edited by monochrome; 05-05-2013 at 05:30 PM.