----------------- >The size is a deliberate marketing ploy. Big sells. It looks expensive and >desirable. The unsuspecting consumer thinks he get more for the money if >the product is larger.
Doesn't he? I think he does... >The Z-1p lack of success was due to the fact that nobody could figure out >why they should buy one instead of a Canon or a Minolta or whatever. And who was responsible for talking the consumers into buying it, huh? I think Pentax was - but for some mysterious reasons wasn't able or didn't want to do it... And as the Z-1p model growed older, even the market competition was against it. >Yes, if by marketing strategy you mean the marketing strategy behind the >camera design. The Z-1's design philosophy and market ploy was "automation >with photographer control" which happens to be completely identical to >canons design and marketing strategy. No, by proper marketing strategy I mean the ability to convince customers that the own product is better than the others and that they should buy it. A firm may rely either on advanced technologies (like Canon, Nikon) or on fame of being "classic" (like Leica). Pentax used to be among the former but lost its place - it cannot, however, claim to be "classic". Minolta is in a very similar situation but, unlike Pentax, it was able to begin succesful restoration with the introduction of Dynaxxes 9, 7 and 5. Mind that I also notice a beginning of the same restoration on the Pentax side and I hope it will prove succesful... >Why should they update a camera that didn't meet their sales goal and whose >market position wasn't appreciated by the consumers? Ah, yes:) They probably thought the same way... "Why should we do anything to convince the customers to buy our cameras if they don't want to? OUR market position wasn't APPRECIATED! We are offended" Other producers, however, weren't offended and exploited the chance... Pentax don't do cameras for a charity purposes but to profit by them, remember?:) Why should they have updated the camera that didn't meet their sales goal? To finally meet it. And they should have let all the people know that they updated it and that they care for their customers... >I don't think they should make a camera similar to Nikon and Canon because >the world don't need more Nikon and Canons. I do not either subscribe to >the theory that if a camera is not like Nikon or Canon then it can't be >"professional". I DON'T mean they should make clones of EOS-1v or F5. And no, the world doesn't need more Nikons and Canons. But Pentax proved that it has it's own style and features and I assure you that such a pro Pentax camera would be still unique. You seem to fear that it wouldn't be, though, which means that you don't believe in Pentax abilities. Think it over... >The MZ-S is just as much a pro level camera as the Nikon F100 and more so >than the Canon EOS3. I'd rather compare the MZ-S to EOS5 and something between F100 and F80. But OK. > >Claiming the Z-1p is pro level camera and the MZ-S is not is with all >respect silly. The Z-1p was neither designed or marketed as a pro grade camera. > >Pål Oh, but it was... Here in Poland as well as in other places, as it was written in another mail. Greetz Artur - 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 .
