> From: Stan Halpin <s...@stans-photography.info> > On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Tom C wrote: > >> >> I've never paid MSRP. MSRP has always been artificially high so that >> anything below that looks like a discount. >> >> In fact if Pentax had demanded MSRP for their products, my association >> with Pentax would have been over at the time I was choosing between a >> PZ-1p and a Nikon 8008s. >> >> I specifically DON'T buy expensive items in the local camera store >> BECAUSE they attempt to sell it at MSRP or close to it. Yeah, go ahead >> and knock $50 or a $100 off MSRP. What are they taking me for, a fool? > > Just to point out that there is another side to the story, I have paid MSRP > (minus a small "good customer" discount") for all of the camera bodies I > bought from the PZ-1p (3) through the MZ-S, (2) and *ist-D (2). After that > the local guy could no longer get goods from Pentax. I paid MSRP because I > wanted a place to go and touch and feel the merchandise, I wanted a place to > take care of my photo processing (and then later my scanning), I wanted Mitch > to stay in business, and it was worth a few hundred bucks "extra" on my > purchases to help keep him in business. I also don't shop Wal-Mart. I think > the drive to the cheapest possible price on everything is a reflection of the > unmitigated greed that consumes such a large portion of the population. We > want to have all of the "stuff" that we can get, and rather than prioritizing > and choosing what luxuries we will have that we can afford at a reasonable > price, we go for cheap low-quality stuff just to have it. Pentax has been > extraordinary in providing high quality goods at low prices; at some point > the only rational options for them are to lower quality or raise prices; I am > comfortable with the latter. It probably means I will only buy one K-3 rather > than my preferred two, but I can deal with that. > > stan
I don't disagree with much of what you say Stan. Is that local guy still around? I hope so, not that it matters for the sake of this discussion. I think back in the pre-WWW/digital boom days many of us would have paid closer to MSRP. For one thing, items were not disposable as they are now. When a person bought a film camera, they could reasonably expect to get 10+ years of use out of it, if not more. Now I view most, if not all, digital items I buy as more or less disposable. Likely I'll have stopped using them in 2 - 3 years because technology has advanced. The resale value is a small fraction of the original price, so even digital cameras that old are for enthusiasts or pro's, essentially paperweights. That's an incentive to pay as low a price as possible... do I pay the premier grocery store price for razor blades or the Walmart/Costco price? I agree somewhat with the greed statement, but I also think the blame lies with the corporations and manufacturers. I'm generalizing here - they have shown employees and customers that they are primarily in it for themselves. Cut costs and maximize profits. There's job outsourcing and H1B-visas, etc. That's a downward pressure on both jobs and pay. So what is the average consumer to do? Basically they have only one choice, maximize the value of every dollar they earn and spend. I'm not saying it's desirable, just that it seems to be a natural consequence of our modern society. Let's not equate it to greed. Instead consider this scenario. I have the funds to 1) purchase a new camera body at close to MSRP and put food on my table for a month, or 2) purchase the same camera body at a substantial savings, with that savings purchase an additional lens for that body, and put food on my table for a month. Which should I choose? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
