Apparently. My In Box is overflowing with comments on several of my recent posts, as are some of the Internet fora. Heck, even Ken Rockwell decided to drop me a line. So, I thought I'd give you a little peak into my In Box the past couple of hours. Italics are a phrase from an incoming email, while the non-italics are my response:
- "Why on earth would a company with as successful a history as Nikon be dropping the ball on things as basic as communicating with customers?" I've answered this before: it's the culture they've created. Apparently intentionally. If Nikon only looks at their sales numbers, then they see no reason to change (yet). But this is one of those problems like those that the American auto industry ended up facing: they didn't recognize that they needed to change something until after it was too late. And once they did change it (e.g., quality issues), they couldn't get those customer's attention back.
- "In the last years I interacted with Japanese companies and got the impression that usually Japanese engineers are very conservative and rarely start something risky and totally new because if it doesn't work the first time, their entire career is compromised and they don't change job as often as in the USA." Yes, there definitely is a cultural component to the problems I see. As long as the other camera companies all were doing the same thing, that wasn't a particularly large issue. But Sony and Samsung see this from more of an entrepreneurial challenge, and are willing to take chances. Olympus and Panasonic now are targeting a different course, too. Other than Olympus, these are huge companies that have the potential to buy markets, if necessary. Nikon does not have that luxury: Nikon needs to get everything right from here on out. That's even more true because:
- From a company that makes equipment for DSLRs: "it has become apparent that Nikon's reps are absolutely dismal at keeping [us] in the loop. For example, they let [us] know about the new D300s, D3000, and lens announcements AFTER dpreview and others had already published the announcements and specs online. This is just pathetic. Canon by contrast keeps [us] appraised of at least the shape of the roadmap, as well as internal changes within Canon USA." Customer support comes at all levels. It's a cultural and systemic thing, whether done right or wrong.
- "I belong to a local user group that happens to
be affiliated with a large retailer that happens to sell a lot of Nikon cameras. The Nikon rep was invited to present to us. Having never met the face of an iconic camera brand, I was looking forward to his presentation. His talk was fairly interesting but he made several obvious misstatements and it became obvious to me that he knew less about Nikon cameras and photography in general than I did. He could not get live view to work in the D700. Basically admitted that he was a compact camera photographer. Very surprising that a company would let someone like this represent them." I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard a variant of this story. Simply put, the face of Nikon that the public sees is not very good, especially here in the US, where we account for over a third of Nikon's sales. I'll bet that Nikon is losing 25% or more of its potential sales here due to its customer handling ineptitude. As one well-known Nikon user put it to me recently: "They get along solely because they make great stuff. They have no idea how fast we'd all move on if they didn't." - "Why don't you suggest that Nikon set up a US-based design shop like the automakers did, and why don't you offer to head it up?" Nikon themselves needs to recognize that they need such a thing and then find the person they think can lead it. With the Japanese, you can't do it the other way: culturally they are averse to outsiders coming in and saying "you need to do this." The Japanese auto makers didn't do this until their initial attempt to break into the US market failed. Right now the camera companies don't think they've failed, so why try anything different? But I'll point out there are different levels of failure. One is outright failure, and that's not happening to Nikon right now. Another is failure to achieve what they should, and Nikon is failing at that and has been for some time.
- "It is unbelievable to me that Nikon, or some other major camera designer has not hired you as a consultant." I have worked with other camera companies on occasion, though none in the last three years. Nikon's documentation group approached me a couple of years ago about working on their manuals to make them better. The offer they made worked out to less than minimum wage, no credit, and would have impacted my ability to write about Nikon independently.
- "I think that Nikon could [dominate] Canon. They have everything going for them technically, it's just that they don't seem to be brave enough to push the boundaries out a bit further." See above. I basically agree. Nikon needs to be the BMW of cameras. But to do that, Nikon would need better marketing and customer outreach. It's never been the technology that has held them back.
- "True or not, it seems like Canon is listening. And that matters." (This was accompanied by a list of things that are things customers have expressed they wanted.) Nikon listens quietly. Perhaps too quietly. I've been surprised several times when things I mention in footnotes in my books--like a poor wording choice in the menus--become exactly what I suggested in the next camera iteration. But the most important word you used is "seems." To the average Nikon user, it doesn't appear that there is anyone doing any listening. Every day I get a complaint about some issue at a subsidiary where the bottom line is "Nikon didn't listen to me and just did what it pleases." Simple things like "I asked them to clean the sensor and it came back dirtier than when I sent it in." That sounds like not listening (even though it might be a simple miscue in the repair shop). Impressions matter. Brands have value. Nikon should have a better-than-size-indicates value, like Apple or BMW. They don't.
- "Why the %^%$$# are we stuck at 12-megapixels?"Well, one answer might be that we don't have the lenses to support much more. I always get a kick out of someone showing me their 20+mp image from another brand's DSLR but apparently not noticing how poorly the corners are faring in their photo. Those of you with long memories will remember that I started harping on missing or less-than-perfect lenses well before we got to 12mp on DX and 24mp on FX. As much as I like my 17-35mm, I don't like it on my D3x.
- "[I often discover] 'motifs within motifs' sitting at home, after the fact, viewing the images I got. This makes me wish to be able to crop more aggressively than a 12MP image will cope with happily." I'm a big fan of getting the images right in the field, but I understand this sentiment, too. It may be the thing that's really driving the demand for the D3x sensor in D700 body. The only thing I'd say is that, without high-end lenses, the value crowd isn't going to like cropping out of the corners of a 20+mp image. And the really big f/2.8 lenses seem a bit out of place on a D700-sized body for more casual use. In other words, if a D700x type body existed today, we'd be scrambling to find the right lenses to use on it.
- "Something in the 16-18 mp [FX for D700x] would be fine." I'd tend to agree. The only problem is that this means another new sensor, and probably a Nikon home grown one. Not that I don't think they could make such a sensor, but it would need to be in other bodies if Nikon were to keep its practice of minimizing parts inventory (see next story). New sensors mean R&D costs need to be recouped, and if the repayment is attempted with only one body, that means higher costs for the body.
- "Delaying the 'D700x' is stupid." A common complaint, but not necessarily an accurate one. Could Nikon have come out with a D700x at the same time as the D3x? Absolutely. It wouldn't have had sensor cleaning, it wouldn't have had video, and the 24-120mm isn't up to the sensor's capabilities. So the more likely scenario is that Nikon is trying to address things that they think would be seen as vulnerabilities to competitive products. The more accurate complaint would be to say "the D700x is [about to become] overdue."
- "The 150 dollar iPod Nano has more advances than
Nikon can show me." Apple sells 22 million or more iPods a quarter, Nikon sells 4 million cameras in that same period, and more than three-quarters of those are Coolpix. With quantity comes the ability to iterate. But there is a point to be made here: Apple successfully made the transition to being a high volume consumer products company. Nikon has not. - "Too busy selling 32 buck 77mm lens caps [that are] six cents of Chinese plastic." Don't get me started on accessories. Nikon's accessories line has long been a confused, random mess. It's almost as if they keep forgetting that people are buying a system, not a camera. I don't actually have problems with anyone making a reasonable profit off of accessories, but you are right, US$32 for a 77mm lens cap is too much. So let me send you to a better place (US$7.99 generic, or US$21 for original Nikon).