[clackers]

I agree Clackers. There are times when marketing efforts fail and therefor costs exceed benefits. However, as a business person, I still believe that Pentax gears should be pushed upwards one way or the other. We have to have more users. More sales mean lesser amortization of fixed costs per camera resulting to more profits.

Okay, then as a business person, you understand that since the camera market is flat or declining:

1. More users can only happen at the expense of the other brands.

2. You said it yourself, Canon (the market leader) and Nikon (the market challenger) will always have lesser amortization of fixed costs per camera and better economies of scale than Ricoh or Fuji or Olympus or whoever.

To spend to try to reduce the leaders' share is not a winning strategy.

As of now, I don't see any in my part of the woods.

You wouldn't want to pay more in the Philippines for your products because of a misguided attempt to convert Canon and Nikon owners, Totsmuyco. There can't be many Pentaxes sold there, even though that's where they're all made. BTW, my mother was from Cagayan de Oro via Carmiguin.

[totsmuyco]

Okay, then as a business person, you understand that since the camera market is flat or declining:

1. More users can only happen at the expense of the other brands.

2. You said it yourself, Canon (the market leader) and Nikon (the market challenger) will always have lesser amortization of fixed costs per camera and better economies of scale than Ricoh or Fuji or Olympus or whoever.

To spend to try to reduce the leaders' share is not a winning strategy.




You wouldn't want to pay more in the Philippines for your products because of a misguided attempt to convert Canon and Nikon owners, Totsmuyco. There can't be many Pentaxes sold there, even though that's where they're all made. BTW, my mother was from Cagayan de Oro via Carmiguin.

Yes, there are probably 15 of us Pentax users here in the Island of Panay versus thousands of canikon. I wouldn't try to win users of other brands. Maybe we can target new users. Well maybe we can win some of their users. We have only one official Pentax dealer here and I don't see any movement to promote Pentax. Go inside the store and they'll push you to canikon. I really do not see any support here. Maybe there should be staff orientation to promote whatever is inside the store or something. Not to be biased. Marketing Pentax will cost money. But there are ways to maintain presence which wouldn't be that expensive particularly as you said in a shrinking market.

By the way, nice to know you're partly Filipino. I've never been to Cagayan de Oro. I also heard have good beaches Camiguin. Maybe I'll go there someday.

[RookieGuy]

I recently (this coming Christmas) came in off the streets into photography. Getting my first camera, the k70.

We all agree Pentax could do a better job marketing. They've been around long enough that they could put together a really cool campaign. But no debate they don't put themselves out there like Canikony.

I would suggest taking a good look ago they are or should be targeting. Right now it seems to be (from a very novice viewpoint) that Pentax as a brand is set up to take phenomenal photographs. Oh, and there's a video button there too. But they are and have always made quality gear for dedicated photographers. And have done a pretty good job at it too.

I'm getting into photography as a hobby. With hobby money because of family responsibilities. I'm not the only one here facing those constraints either. But I haven't bought into a system just yet.

Canikony systems take good pics. And let's be honest, their cameras are a little more family friendly. It's much easier to get Little Tommy playing football with competitor's autofocus. And you'll be able to video Little Susy's entire ballet recitals. Plus a new whatever is as close as your nearest Best Buy.

I know it's really not that simple. But those are some real reasons you're not seeing more Pentax.

P.S. Canikony makes more sense for me, I'll admit. But every so often the heart needs a win.

[clackers]

Yes, there are probably 15 of us Pentax users here in the Island of Panay versus thousands of canikon.

Good example ... it makes no sense to spend $10,000 USD of marketing to turn that into 20 owners on Panay.

You would all have to pay an additional $500 from your next Ricoh product to pay for that campaign.

[jeryst]

Good example ... it makes no sense to spend $10,000 USD of marketing to turn that into 20 owners on Panay.

You would all have to pay an additional $500 from your next Ricoh product to pay for that campaign.

The main goal of advertising is to make people want what you are selling. The object of a good advertising capaign is to win over some significant percentage of the competition, not 5. To do that you need a strong contender, which Pentax has. No matter how good your product is, you wont sell any if no one knows about it.

[clackers]

. The object of a good advertising capaign is to win over some significant percentage of the competition, not 5.

The cost to convert Canon and Nikon users to Pentax will have been examined in great detail by the executives.

Minolta apparently did a lot if advertising in the UK then fell over.

Let me run a thought experiment by you.

How much personally are you willing to pay extra on your next Pentax camera to pay for more marketing? Need a dollar amount.

[jeryst]

The cost to convert Canon and Nikon users to Pentax will have been examined in great detail by the executives.

Minolta apparently did a lot if advertising in the UK then fell over.

Let me run a thought experiment by you.

How much personally are you willing to pay extra on your next Pentax camera to pay for more marketing? Need a dollar amount.

You are assuming that the cost of advertising will be directly added to the price of the product.
That is not the case. Successful advertising increases sales, which increases profits more than
enough to pay for the advertising, research, expansion, etc. The whole purpose of a business is to
generate profit. Advertising is a tool to help make that happen.

[totsmuyco]

Actually Clackers has a point. The higher your fixed cost the more units you have to sell to break-even or make profits. It's just cost volume profit analysis. However, my point is, there has to be some way where advertising doesn't come up to be very expensive but maintain brand awareness. The problem at times is inter-company departments would have different opinions. Finance would like to lower product costs. Since marketing is not a direct cost, marketing would sometimes spend so much that the fixed cost ends up higher. So the company needs more units to sell if contribution margins are maintained. If your going to allocate your fixed cost per unit with a high additional fixed cost and assuming the volume remains the same or the projected sales in units will be lower then, the company will have to increase its prices to be profitable.

Sad to say DSLR is a shrinking market.

[Liney]

Does anyone know if Ricoh are in any other markets / fields? Perhaps the day to day business that keeps the company afloat is in another area, and the Pentax name is a sideline.

To use an analogy, Fiat sell cars, but also owns Ferrari which is more of a sideline business. The number of Ferrari cars sold versus the number of Fiat cars sold is probably a very low percentage, but the prestige of owning a Ferrari makes people want to shell out the hard earned cash.

Are we actually the Ferrari owners of the photographic world?

[tim60]

Does anyone know if Ricoh are in any other markets / fields? Perhaps the day to day business that keeps the company afloat is in another area, and the Pentax name is a sideline.

To use an analogy, Fiat sell cars, but also owns Ferrari which is more of a sideline business. The number of Ferrari cars sold versus the number of Fiat cars sold is probably a very low percentage, but the prestige of owning a Ferrari makes people want to shell out the hard earned cash.

Are we actually the Ferrari owners of the photographic world?

They are in office photocopiers, I mentioned a couple of days back. One, not silly, strategy might be to try to go to business customers who buy the other products and services associated with them to bundle cameras for about cost price. That way more people would see and handle the products, and touching is a good marketing strategy for a product which is, and feels good. Many business have occasional need of cameras for such things as events, not worth getting professionals in for and also documenting things in the business. Very small business owners also often use the business as a way to buy assets that the owner of the business takes home for private use.


The business impediment to this would relate to Pentax marketing in most countries being companies independent of the old Ricoh supply chain.


The challenge is always getting the first sale of a camera body. Once someone has the body, their next lens will be one that is compatible. Then the flash will be ne that fits, and then the next body will be one that fits the lenses and the flash, unless the case to change the whole lot is absolutely convincing, and in business that means cheap.

[Alex645]

Does anyone know if Ricoh are in any other markets / fields? Perhaps the day to day business that keeps the company afloat is in another area, and the Pentax name is a sideline.

Are we actually the Ferrari owners of the photographic world?

Ricoh's main business is business office machines like printers and photocopiers. However, I wouldn't say that camera and lens manufacturing is a sideline. Ricoh has been in the camera making business since at least the 1950's, long before they acquired Pentax in 2011.

If you want to make a car analogy, I'd suggest Subaru. Loyal fan base, rugged and special features not found on most cars, but not the largest, fastest, glamorous, fuel economic, cheapest or top selling cars. But definitely a car (like Pentax cameras) designed for use in all terrain.

[darkviking]

Just a latest example in my case - recent photography workshop.
Total number of participants - approx. 30.
Canons ≈ 12-15
Nikons ≈ 10-13
Sony ≈ 3-4
Pentax - 1, me ))

[clackers]

You are assuming that the cost of advertising will be directly added to the price of the product.
That is not the case. Successful advertising increases sales, which increases profits more than
enough to pay for the advertising, research, expansion, etc. The whole purpose of a business is to
generate profit. Advertising is a tool to help make that happen.

I didn't ask you how much of each dollar of advertising would be returned, Jeryst, I actually asked you a much simpler question that is within your power to answer ... you don't need corporate sales figures for it ...

It was: "How much personally are you willing to pay extra on your next Pentax camera to pay for more marketing?"

[clackers]

Does anyone know if Ricoh are in any other markets / fields? Perhaps the day to day business that keeps the company afloat is in another area, and the Pentax name is a sideline.

It's true. Look at the corporate financial returns ... Pentax cameras are a tiny part of their 'Other' division.

Ricoh and Canon are the two powerhouses in the global photocopy business.

[normhead]

Are we actually the Ferrari owners of the photographic world?

In a word , no.
If there are any Ferrari owners here, speak up, prove me wrong.

If advertising doesn't cost anything, why are Nikon and Canon entry models such crap compared to what Pentax offers? Marketing costs money. The cost may be offset by increased sales, but it can also be wasted.

There have been a few false starts in Pentax marketing. Personally, I think Pentax looks at those costs and how it's sales numbers do in affected areas, and evaluates on an on going basis if it looks like more marketing could help. But I also think their marketing department is on a pretty short leash. They run a few adds in targeted areas an give it a few months to see if it makes any difference. You can market until the cows come home, but if it doesn't lead to increased sales.then current customers have to bear the cost.

There are two sides to the marketing thing,. The circumstance where marketing pays for itself, and the circumstance where it's money down the tube. I know it's in marketers best interest, because they like working and having a job, to imply marketing could solve every problem of small market companies. That's nonsense. Marketing is one small facet of product sales, and there are many more factors in profitability of which marketing might be the least important given that pentax is not spending zero dollars on marketing. It's a situation where one has to look at the numbers, and what's been done in the past and deciding whether it's worth spending more money on marketing.

We don't have the numbers. No one on this forum has information to comment on those types of decisions. The first problem with expanding marketing is you could create more product than your production lines can produce. A lean company like Pentax would have to invest in a lot more than marketing if they rapidly increased their market share.

Folks will swear on a bunch of bibles that better marketing would be good for the bottom line, but that's speculation, and those guys are a bunch of hucksters. In essence they are pushing "marketing" as if it were a product. It's like any other product, buying it may or may not be a judicious decision based on circumstances. Those who blindly say "Pentax needs more marketing" don't know what they are talking about. They're guessing. The reverse could also be true "If Pentax invest too much in marketing they could go bankrupt." is also clearly true." This is all about "how much is too much" Clearly Pentax thinks what they are doing now is sufficient. Those who say it isn't don't have the same numbers Pentax marketing does.

Guesses promoted as facts leads to endless discussion of irrelevant information.