Originally posted by kevinWE I think actually numbers would need to be seen before making such a broad and bold statement. Pentax would only need a couple bodies in sight and maybe a kit lens or two for their brand to be seen. But as I stated, I'm not a marketing expert but what I do know to be fact is the marketing of the Pentax brand is sub-par if not non existent.
But Ricoh executives *do* have the numbers, Kevin, that you and I don't. Their decisions about which way to go are always based on research, they could never get their superiors to sign off on anything without models and evidence.
We might like to think ourselves as knowing more than they do - that CCTV of their boardroom table would show it to be occupied by The Three Stooges. But a modern corporation is entirely driven by quantitative analysis.
A 30 second SuperBowl ad costs $5 million. In less than a minute, Ricoh North America would probably be finished as an entity - the whole global corporation, premises, IP, stock, was worth $124 million when bought from Hoya. And there's no proof that people munching their hotdogs or swilling their Bud Lites would do anything but shrug their shoulders.
Here in Australia a couple of years ago, Olympus ran a big campaign that included signs in bus shelters, etc, but as far as I can tell they just blew that money, it's had no impact on their losses, in fact probably accelerated them.
Originally posted by kevinWE Are you stating that if Pentax prices become more like Nikon or Canon that Pentax would no longer be worth buying?
Yeah, I would say if the price of some Pentax version of the D500 was greater than Nikon's, ordinary consumers not already committed by lens ownership
should just buy the D500.
There are some specific advantages to the Pentax brand that favour shooters such as myself, but fair's fair, others can definitely say that of Nikon, too.