Quick
Links & Comments
News and commentary of interest to Nikon and Nikon F-mount users
Cameras as Objects II
Nov 18 (commentary)--Well, I knew what was coming when I wrote my original piece (below). By the way, neither Canon nor Nikon had a camera ad in that issue of the magazine, so those of you who interpreted my comments as a criticism of Nikon are wrong. But let's go through some of the responses I got and deal with the points they bring up:
- Popular Photography isn't exactly where serious photographers would go, and it's not much about photography any more. I'm not 100% sure I'd agree with the latter part, though the latest redesign and editorial shift has me rethinking this. But that's besides the point: you advertise a camera in that magazine because you want to sell it to potential customers. Even if we accept the premise that the magazine is now mostly about selling things and describing the latest and greatest, the bottom line is this: what do you expect that new camera will do for you? Let you take nice pictures of it?
- Images can be faked. Well, yes (though I'd tend to say phase it that they can be manipulated to better show what you want to show). But advertising text can be misleading too. Thus, I dismiss this assertion out of hand. The viewer of an advertisement always has to come at it with some skepticism, regardless of whether it is an image or text. Egregious manipulation or overstatement is eventually called out, either by neutral third parties (e.g. consumer organizations) or by competitors.
- Most people who buy cameras aren't actually all that interested in how good the pictures are. There's some truth to that, of course. And some people just want the latest and greatest, even though it might not make any large contribution to their image quality. We buy new vehicles long before our old ones wear out, after all. But if all you need to sell cameras is to put a "new and improved" sticker on the replacement model, then we've gotten to a very dark place. I believe it is incumbent upon a product's maker to tell me why I need it. Show me the benefit. Yeah, louder. Show me the benefit! Yes, but brother, you got to yell that ****! Show me the benefit!!! (Yes, that's another movie reference.).
- Without photos in the ad, the implication is that the camera can do anything. Right. And without roads in the ad, the implication is that a car can go anywhere. Sorry, I don't buy this argument. The ultimate reduction of such logic is that a plain white box with no markings must contain a better product than a box that actually highlights or describes the product, because obviously, the plain white box could contain a product that does anything. Call it Schrodinger's Camera.
- Cameras as objects has been a common theme for a long time. Yes, it has. Indeed, it's now to the point where it's a cliche. Do cliches really sell products? One of the most effective ad campaigns for cameras recently were from Nikon. First, there was the "we gave a D40 to everyone in a small town and this is what they did with them." Then we got the D80 follow up: "we gave a D80 to a group of photographers on Flickr and here's what they did with them." Both campaigns provoked discussion and new buyers coming into the store. Indeed, my next door neighbor got so hooked by the D40 campaign--she figured that if Joe Average in small town could take such nice pictures, maybe she could too--that she acquired a D40. Then there were the Sandro ISO 6400 motorcycle posters with the D3 that proved the camera could (a) shoot big and (b) shoot fast. It's no coincidence that most of Nikon's market share gains came during the period when they were doing such direct "here's what it does" ads. These we so contrary to all the "look at this nice camera" ads that they stood out. As much as I've complained about various aspects of Nikon's marketing, they got their advertising right for an extended period and it helped. Canon, too, has been successful with benefit ads. Indeed, their original rise with the original Rebel came about due to showing cameras at sporting events and implying that you could get pro results, too. Canon's long had a successful ad campaign in National Geographic where they show exotic or endangered animals caught with those big white lenses.
- It's the advertising companies' fault, not the camera companies'. Sorry, no winning argument here. The marketing message comes from and is controlled by the manufacturer. If you buy an inferior product (ad) and get inferior results (no gain in market share) then you either hired the wrong advertising firm or approved a poor campaign or both. I'd say that the real issue is economics: the camera makers aren't spending enough to get really good ad campaigns. Indeed, this gets back to one of my common themes (why do I feel like I'm turning into a Lou Dobbs-type character?): most of these companies aren't top tier in terms of their marketing abilities, and they also fail to act both globally and locally as well as they should. It's not a coincidence that there were no Nikon or Canon ads in the issue I was looking at. The slip of the dollar against the yen has cut into margins and the knee-jerk response of these two companies has been to cut back on marketing costs (Canon isn't going to PMA 2010, for instance).
- Any camera will give great image quality. True to a point, but there are still plenty of differences that show up in images. Frame burst rates, autofocus accuracy and speed, tilt-shift abilities, large optical range options, high ISO capability, fill flash capability, the list goes on and on. And most of those things were mentioned at some point in the text of the ads I was looking at. Not really shown, just written about.
- Foreign ads are sometimes different. True. Though as several International readers pointed out, also often lacking a clear benefit display. One wrote about an advertisement in a European magazine for the Panasonic GF1: sexy, fashionable lady holding a GF1. As he pointed out, the message was about a different kind of image: "If you're cool, if you look good, if you're in sync with fashion, you should get a GF1."
Finally, one email statement resonated with me: "The camera makers aren't selling cameras any more. They're selling lifestyle." Yep. And a lifestyle that actually doesn't seem to include taking any pictures (though it'll allow us to shoot movies if we want ;~).
Cameras as Objects
Nov 17 (commentary)--So I'm browsing through the latest issue of Popular Photography last night, still trying to shake a head cold that's plagued me for the last couple of weeks when I notice something. Pentax (page 8), Sigma (p 11), Sony (p 24), and Panasonic (p 36-37) all use the same approach: picture of camera(s) + text. Only the Fujifilm (inside front cover) and the Pentax ad on the back cover had images in them, and even then, only the Fujifilm ad had examples that spoke to image quality I might get with their product.
Compare this to the lens makers: Tokina (p 4), Sigma (p 12), Tamron (p 19, 27), and Tokina (p 61) all at least use an image representative of what you could do with the lens as well as a shot of the lens itself. (We won't get into how well those images are in illustrating the unique properties of the product being advertised--that's another can of worms. At least they used images that connected to what the product can do.)
Given that the purpose of these products is to take images, you'd think that images would be important in marketing them. But the camera makers are getting to be like auto makers were for awhile: it's all about the bling of the object, not how it performs (which is another reason why really ugly autos, like the Pontiac Aztek, didn't do so well).
Not that I'm hoping that the camera makers can ever aspire to great ad campaigns, but you'd think that they'd be a little better at selling what it is the product will actually do for you.
For example, let's quickly conjure up a basic ad for the D3s. Text at top: "Problem: Dimly lit gym requires ISO 6400." Text at bottom: "Answer: D3s. Any Questions?" And in small text: "more answers can be found at WebURL." The rest of the ad would be some impressive sports photo taken under those tough conditions with the camera in question. Simple, straight to the point, and offering up a result, not the object.
Throwing text at users that is basically just specifications expressed in sentences instead of bullet points seems, well, pointless. More to the point, the magazine itself tends to be running plenty of specifications about products. How much was the copy writer paid that wrote this gem: "All of the control of a DSLR--shake reduction, lens flexibility and aperture control--in stunning HD video quality." Or this perfectly vague line: "takes its dedicated image-processing engine to the next level." What level was it at? What level did it achieve? And are we talking levels in a parking garage or image quality?
The ironic thing is this: when professional photographers get together these days we talk about having to scramble harder to get meaningful money from our work. Magazines still pay the same day rate they did 20 years ago but want all rights in perpetuity. Stock sales are way down. And camera companies aren't even bothering to use images in their ads. I guess cameras aren't for taking pictures any more. Excuse me while I go to my gear locker and admire my bling collection. Maybe I should build some lighted pedestals and put them out where everyone can see them...
Zeiss Updates Lenses
Nov 16 (news)--Zeiss has added CPUs to its line of Nikon F-mount lenses, making them compatible with more Nikon DSLRs. The new lenses are marked as ZF.2. Users of Nikon DSLRs that don't have a NON-CPU DATA setting, such as the D3000, D5000, and D90 will now be able to meter with this new version of the Zeiss lenses. Users of Nikon DSLRs such as the D300s, D700, and D3 series will no longer have to set NON-CPU DATA lens parameters manually before shooting.
The 18mm, 21mm, 35mm, both 50mm, and 85mm updated lenses will be available in late November. The 28mm and 100mm updates will be available in spring. The 25mm lens is being completely reworked and has no set timeframe to appear.
Overreaction
Nov 12 (commentary)--We need to do a better job of teaching financial information in our educational systems. Every time Nikon posts a loss and I write about it, I get a string of emails asking "is this the end?" or "who's going to buy Nikon?" or "I guess I should switch now, right, before I get stuck?"
There's a big difference between posting a loss and being in financial difficulty. Indeed, even the mainstream press business writers seem to be getting confused with profit and loss gyrations lately. First, to answer all those that wrote me: I don't see Nikon in any particular financial difficulty. Much of their loss is in write-off of assets. In the camera business, which is 72% of Nikon's business now, they are profitable and holding market share. The underlying financials--debt ratio, cash flow, etc.--all are not critical at the moment, though they could be better (as in no debt at all and plenty of cash on hand). Nikon is not going to go out of business tomorrow, nor is it really a takeover candidate.
Nikon's big problem is a tough one, though: where does growth come from? I suppose a rebound in the semiconductor equipment marketplace might quickly bring in critical additional revenues and large profits, and this could turn the weaker part of Nikon's financials around faster than you could blink an eye. But that would only restore Nikon about to where it should be. It's not "growth" if all you do is return to previous levels of sales. (I'm sure the business press will report it as growth, though ;~).
The Imaging division is getting growth in unit volume, but not in sales and profits. That's the critical issue for not just Nikon, but the entire camera industry. In other words, the market is mature. Even in good times (no worldwide recession) the strong companies in a mature market have a difficult time achieving growth. To truly achieve respectable growth in a mature market, you need one or more of several things: (1) disruptive technology that invalidates previous products; (2) entirely new product lines (e.g. video cameras for Nikon); (3) a close connection with current customers that you can use to leverage into additional, related sales (e.g. lenses and accessories); or (4) acquire businesses.
Historically, Nikon has relied upon #1. They're a technology-driven company, after all. Interestingly, despite tough times on the bottom line, Nikon's R&D spending has not changed a lot: it's slightly down from it's peak but still historically high as a percentage of sales. The numbers say Nikon is betting on #1. Traditionally, #4 is the easiest to do, but very difficult to get right. But personally, looking closely at where Nikon is today and what they need to accomplish to keep from getting relegated to a niche company with no large potential future gains, I think they need to do all four things. And they need to do it soon.
The end of the current Great Recession is going to give the camera companies a short bit of a respite, I think. They'll see sales inch upward and pricing pressures ease a bit, and all that accrues pretty directly to their bottom lines. They'll think everything is copasetic and business-as-usual. The only problem is, it isn't. We're still at near saturation on camera sales, there can't be price rises without technology breakthroughs, the overall market is still low-growth, and none of these companies is exactly customer friendly, so they're not firing on all cylinders to start with.
What Not to Do
Nov 12 (commentary)--We have a couple of DSLR companies pushing colored bodies as some sort of new wrinkle to try to goose sales. The trend is very visible in Japan, which is a faddish country to start with. Apparently if you can't sell a black DSLR body, you can sell a red one. Or a white one. Or a pink one. Hello Kitty?
Really? When markets start producing different results on purely cosmetic changes, then you're in a different business than the technology business. You're in the fashion business. Heaven knows how many companies have missed turns in fashion. Now combine the two: miss a turn with fashion and miss a turn simultaneously with technology and you're...well, standing about five feet beyond the edge of the cliff and you're about to have one of those Wile E. Coyote moments.
We've already had one interesting illustration of this. Panasonic apparently brought near equal quantities of black, blue, and red G1 bodies into the US at launch. While blue and red DSLR bodies might be selling in Japan, they aren't in the US. What happened was that the black bodies sold out and the blue and red ones had to be discounted to sell. Moreover, having only blue and red bodies available actually lost potential G1 sales here in the US. By the time a black G1 was again readily available, other cameras had come to market. Cameras, like most tech products, have short half-lives. If you don't optimize the sales on day one, you never optimize the sales. Lost sales on day one due to a mistake (not enough brought into the country, wrong styles brought in, etc.) are never fully made up by subsequent moves.
Some of the high-tech style fad is driven by successful products, such as the iPod Nano, currently available in nine colors. But the iPod is a ubiquitous product. When everyone has one, yes, people want to differentiate their's from yours. When you sell 11 million of something in a quarter, you probably ought to have more than one style. I seem to remember a study about this from my MBA program, but my memory isn't serving it up at the moment. Basically, below a certain market penetration, don't differentiate; above a certain market penetration you have differentiate to fully realize potential sales.
My point is that DSLRs simply don't fall into a high enough volume worldwide to try color and paint schemes as a way of producing more sales. Curiously, the Japanese culture may be getting in the way. They differentiate by buying the same thing, but customized in some way. That's one way they show their individuality in a group culture. But as the US Panasonic G1 sales showed, that doesn't play everywhere. Here in the US we'll take our Model T's in basic black until the point where everyone has one. Then, and only then do we think much about differentiating cosmetically.
I've written this before, but the camera companies are just not global companies yet. They sell things globally, but they don't act like global companies.
Just a Reminder
The short articles on the front page of this site change as often as every couple of days, as little as once every two weeks. Right now, however, we're coming into a period where there's been rapid change. So if you're not checking the site often, be sure to check out the Archived 2009 link, below, as there may be a handful of items you missed. (Yes, I know about RSS. But I won't offer that until the site redesign is done.)
Archived Front Page News and Articles
Archived 2009 byThom comments and news
Archived 2008 byThom comments and news
Archived
2007 byThom comments and news
Archived pre-2007 byThom comments and news
Nikon announcements summary 2001-2009
|
These are long-form workshops are taught with my assistant (max 6 or 7 students per instructor). They are not inexpensive, but they are meticulously planned, intensive, and as engaging as any workshop you've ever encountered. At present, these are the only workshops I plan on doing through the end of 2010. If you're interested in any of these workshops, click on the link for the workshop to get the PDF file describing it. Follow the directions in the PDF to sign up for the workshop. At present, the Botswana and Patagonia workshops are full and wait list only signups are being taken.