Artur wrote: >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.
That seems like a hopeless task. You need something to convince them with. Not even those with large pool of Pentax lenses were convinced about the Z-1p. Now that fact alone probably killed Pentax wish to sink more money into marketing of the camera. In '92 Pentax had a limited selection of AF lenses and those who really wanted to switch to AF felt better served by other companies. In fact, the big flee from Pentax happened after the release of the Z-series and I believe this happened because the Pentax users who wanted to go AF couldn't see any reason not to switch. > 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... I'm nor sure Minolta qualifies as successful. They suffer from many of the same problems Pentax do. They have fewer lenses in their line-up and Minolta loose more money. >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... That's naive. Updating a camera means tweaking basically the same product. Nobody has ever updated an unpopular product and I don't want Pentax to be the first to try it out. They could have replace it though. > >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. You did in a previous post.... >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... Sure, but what have this to do with Nikon and Canon? See you previous posts. > >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. You think you need to go farther into the bush than Poland to convince anyone. A professional camera sold at a third of the price of other professional cameras. Not even canons marketing department have tried that stunt. Pål - 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 .
