Chrysler is part of DaimlerChrysler, but it's the same company. I've
worked for them and written about them for a quarter century. You don't
know what you're talking about. But it's all beside the point. My point
was that badge engineering to stimulate sales can produce profit. It
appears to be working for Pentax.
Paul
On Jan 28, 2006, at 3:08 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
If you lose two generations of people to another maker that's good?
Didn't you notice that Chrysler is no longer an independent
manufacturer? True the big losers are currently Ford and GM, but
that's only because Chrysler already lost big.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Last time I looked Chrysler was racking up big profits. The minivan
was a K derivitive, and it was hugely successful as were a number of
other K derivitives. The first Ks were admittedly nothing special,
but they did save the company. Toyota was going to get defections
with or without Chrysler's badge engineering. By the way, Toyota does
a masterful job of rebadging the same car, as do the other Japanese
makes.
Paul
On Jan 28, 2006, at 1:22 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Ah, yes, Lee Iacocca, father or was that step father of the Chrysler
K car. I know people who used to buy American until their first K
car, now they buy Toyota, and so do their children and I expect so
will their children's children. That kind of marketing only works
in the short run, for the company that engages in at least. Well
to keep the analogy going Pentax better have a light simple sheet
metal chassis with a high volume Hemi V8 in it waiting in the wings.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
It's not a shell game, it's just smart marketing. Getting the most
return on your development money is a good thing.
There was a fellow in Detroit who was an expert at that kind of
marketing. His name was lee Iacocca. He worked for Ford in the days
when they were really number two. He had this car called Falcon
that had been only mildly successful and whose development costs
had never been recovered. He decided to give it some different
sheetmetal and reintroduce it with another name. I believe it was
called "Mustang." It generated enough profit that the company was
able to develop some rather nice follow-ups to that original. Later
he played the same game for even bigger stakes for Chrysler with a
car called the "K." The same basic 1980 platform was used to build
at least twenty cars, all the way up to the 2003 Chrysler Town and
Country and Dodge Caravan minivans. It saved the company from
almost certain bankruptcy and set the stage for what is now the
only profitable US car company. Rebadging a product to stimulate
sales is almost always a good idea. Frankly, I'm surprised that
Pentax plays it as smart as they obviously do.
Paul
On Jan 28, 2006, at 12:30 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
If they're all variations of the same model then it's just a shell
game.
Pål Jensen wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Shell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Interesting analysis:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/19/bloomberg/sxpentax.php
This part is quite interesting:
""We'll shift focus to more profitable single-lens reflex digital
cameras, to offset price declines in compact types," Urano said.
Pentax plans to raise the pace of new model introductions to
three per year from two, starting this year, he said."
--
When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and
shout).
--
When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and
shout).
--
When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
