The way Nikon and Canon got to be recognized is by giving equipment away to the wire services and major news media. Then you see their "pros" using the equipment and say. "Wow, look all the pros are using Nikon and Canon, they must be the best".
Information source: a former Nikon Rep who serviced the Washington, DC area doing just that. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Pentax prices > A "pro" body, in and of itself, won't do much good for image and increased > sales. Witness the Maxxum 9, which hasn't changed the perception of Minolta as > being a maker of mass market/amature cameras. Contax certainly makes cameras > that some pros use, but that hasn't given them widespread name recognition > among non-enthusasists. The way that Nikon and Canon have gotten pros to use > their equipment is by making a suitable product and by supporting pros. This > takes a solid product, an extensive product line (lenses), good repair > facilities and the budget for the maker to pay for it. Even when Canon game out > with their far advanced AF they had to spend a small fortune, up front, to get > pros to switch. It's tough to get a sizeable portion of the 35mm pro market > (Minolta gave up on it). A company may be able to sell a lot more non-pro, > amature bodies, because they have the right name on it, but that's just cashing > in on your investment. Pentax persued the 35mm pro market the same way they did > the MF market by making a good product (LX) and letting it sell itself: doesn't > work in the 35mm market. > A highend "image" body, that's not widely used by pros, will be mostly noticed > by people already using that camera brand. It won't get you many new customers. > To the general public, all you need to look like a pro is a SLR, a big lens and > flash and a camera bag. I am sure that there are people with the means who > decide to get a camera, want the "best" and buy a $3,000 Nikon system with > little idea of how to use it well. I'm sure Pentax would like to sell to that > customer too: sales are sales. It takes a lot of time and money to establish > that kind of reputation. > > --- frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Your post got me to thinking, however. Could it be that the lack of a "pro" > > 35mm camera is the reason? I don't want to get into what a "pro" camera is > > (please!), but let's face it, when we see a PJ in a media scrum on the news, > > or > > on the street, he/she invariably has an F5 or an EOS. I'm sure that the > > public > > sees that as well. > > > > I think that the fact that Pentax really hasn't catered to "pros" (PJ's at > > least) since the LX has hurt Pentax immeasurably. Or, maybe the converse is > > true: the fact (or at least the perception) that PJ's use C**** and N**** > > almost exclusively is a huge marketing coup for those two companies. > > > > As wonderful and capable a body as the MZ S is, PJ's aren't using it - not > > surprising, because I don't think they are necessarily who it is aimed at. > > But > > it's also not surprising that the public thinks, "Wanna look like a pro? I > > will > > if I buy C or N." > Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! > http://mail.yahoo.com/ > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
