At 15:37 2/8/01, you wrote:
At 08:43 AM 2/8/2001 +0000, Thomas Clausen wrote:
In that case, I don't give crap for MBA's. No offence, but teaching
"Loosing customer loyality" doesn't seem to be that good of an idea. Let
me explain below...
Well, as a guy with several degrees (one of which is an MBA), I
just had to respond.
"Planned obsolescence" (which I assume is what John Lind was
referring to) was a product development strategy used primarily by
the automakers from the 1950s through the 1970s (and emulated by
lots of other companies, of course) to support their massive
capital spending. In every marketing course I ever took, it was
*not* held up as some "shining example" of good marketing strategy
or customer relations strategy, but was rather thoroughly lampooned
as being short-sighted, wasteful and alienating. It may have been
thought a good idea in the 60s, but hey! -- as one wag has so
eloquently put it, "The 60s are *over*."
[snip]
It still exists . . . but not as blatant as the examples you (and I)
were given and lampooned in the classroom. My thought was
incompatibility creates a barrier to competition in lens sales from
a supply of used OM lenses. That it might be an inconvenience for
Tom Clausen, et alia, doesn't matter to a large corporation. In
brand loyalty, it's sheer numbers that count; there would have to be
enough Tom Clausen's. The strategic direction chosen will be the
one predicted to maximize the bottom line revenue and profit.
Not considering technical feasibility, the basic business tradeoff is this:
On one hand:
There is a large base of used OM lenses. If we sell bodies that are
compatible with them, we will sell fewer new lenses; some will seek
used OM lenses and those transactions do not generate revenue for
us. This is opportunity lost. Incompatibility creates a barrier to
competition from the used market!
On the other hand:
There is a large base of used OM lenses. If we sell bodies that are
compatible with them, we may sell more bodies. Some who might not
buy our body may do so if it is backward compatible. This is
opportunity gained. Compatibility expands the marketing base!
The business question:
Which of these two strategies will generate more revenue (profit)?
I would not dare to attempt answering this question and very likely
nobody else on this list is qualified to either.
This is a simplistic presentation of first order considerations . .
. there are some second order ones such as "public good will," not
from an individual or a few, but by the mass market as a whole. Are
there a sufficient number of OM system owners interested in digital
to satisfy a business case for it? Some list members might be, and
may even be passionately interested. That doesn't matter; it's the
numbers (how many) that count and _don't_ underestimate how high
that number might be.
[This is not intended to pick on Tom Clausen. To a corporation, an
individual does not matter unless it influences a tremendously huge
number of other individuals who would otherwise be customers. Is
that rather cold? Yes, but it's also reality.]
-- John
I may have missed part of this. If so, sorry.
It seems to me on further reflection that if the MBA types(meaning, I
suppose, the accountants and "bean counters" we usually demonize)
were in complete control the OM would be long gone.
Even though a digital camera does not much interest me, at least not
yet, it would seem the height of folly for any camera manufacturer
to design and build a manual focus digital SLR for a 25 year old
range of lenses. Whether we agree or not the market has moved on.
Such a camera could not be sold to someone who was interested in the
latest, most high tech design. Not a big percentage of owners of
older equipment with compatible lenses who are used to buying bargain
used equipment would pop for the couple of thousand dollar price tag
such a low production item would cost. Also considering that the body
would be technologically superceded within the year, and perhaps a
joke after three years, even fewer would be willing to buy it. One
nice thing about film cameras is the film technology keeps advancing
without your having to buy some new hardware.
It doesn't seem to me that anyone has been successful in building a
viable autoeverything SLR that is also backward compatible with
manual lenses unless you count that unlovely honkin' moose of a
Contax that already has a successor. I think it is just difficult to
put all that stuff and conflicting design goals in the same sized
envelope, not planned obsolescence.
Usually people have bought a camera and lens initially and then
added more lenses and accessories over the years. Canon is gambling
on the fact that people will be willing to also replace their aging,
obsolete, formerly high tech body every 3 or 4 years like they do
their computers, only throwing everything out when some technology
comes along that is seen to be so urgent that the lens system has to
be changed to take advantage of it.
Who knows? With diffraction grating lenses now, the next step could
be some sort of electronic variable diffraction grating lens that
would make removable lenses museum pieces.
Winsor
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|