johnbuckley Posted June 6, 2012 Share #1 Posted June 6, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) One supposes there is benefit to Leica somewhere in the piece linked below, and surely it is a good thing a) that Leica is generating this attention, and that Leica's communications operation is leaning into such stories. But one can only roll one's eyes about the depth of cluelessness exhibited by the journalist. Leica was losing market share to Costco? Leica's history was as a maker of "compact cameras"? Still, better to have attention paid to it than not, and communications people don't get to choose the writers assigned to cover their companies... Leica Debuts Own U.S. Shops With $27,000 Digital Camera: Retail Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 Hi johnbuckley, Take a look here Maddeningly Clueless Bloomberg Article On Leica. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
chris_tribble Posted June 6, 2012 Share #2 Posted June 6, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blindjock Posted June 6, 2012 Share #3 Posted June 6, 2012 I think you misread the part about dealers. The article was stating that Leica lost dealers due to competition (for the dealer, not Leica) from online suppliers. (ie, their dealers went out of business). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted June 6, 2012 Share #4 Posted June 6, 2012 One supposes there is benefit to Leica somewhere in the piece linked below, and surely it is a good thing a) that Leica is generating this attention, and that Leica's communications operation is leaning into such stories. But one can only roll one's eyes about the depth of cluelessness exhibited by the journalist. Leica was losing market share to Costco? Leica's history was as a maker of "compact cameras"? Still, better to have attention paid to it than not, and communications people don't get to choose the writers assigned to cover their companies... Leica Debuts Own U.S. Shops With $27,000 Digital Camera: Retail So what is so clueless about following statement, IMO it is written without rose tinted glasses. For the camera's maker, Leica Camera AG, the challenge is compounded by the fact that it has lost more than a third of its U.S. dealers to competition from the likes of Best Buy Co. and Costco Wholesale Corp. So, at a time when many brands are moving online, the German camera maker is opening stores. Conventional camera stores are loosing to warehouse type consumer electronic or supermarket stores. In my little corner of the world food retailers ASDA/Sainsbury/TESCO, can't be bothered listing other white goods retailers, stock more digital P&S and disposable film cameras than combined Jessops & Peter Rogers, independent retailer. Even ASADA lab services beats local Jessops lab on quality and price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 6, 2012 Share #5 Posted June 6, 2012 Leica's history was as a maker of "compact cameras"? Umm - yes. Leicas were more compact than the general run of cameras throughout their history. When the Leica was introduced, the other cameras generally available were medium-format roll-film folders or Rolleis: Vintage Photography/ Camera Ads of the 1920s (Page 8) Pros, of course, had compact cameras called "4x5s" - their "regular" cameras were 8x10s. That was pretty much the case for the first 30 years of the Leica's existence, until 35mm really became the common format in the mid-1950s. Once SLRs took over as the predominant 35mm form-factor, Leicas were back to being the relatively compact alternative for interchangeable lenses. There were some exceptions (there always are) Olympus OM, Pentaxes. Even in 2001, when I switched to Leicas, it was because they were so compact compared to most SLRs. Certainly today if one compares a DSLR to the M9: http://fama.net/genefamaphotos/09/IMG_2041.jpg If you're conflating "compact" with "point & shoot" - why would you do that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share #6 Posted June 7, 2012 I found it odd that Costco would be viewed as a competitor to Leica's usual distribution channels, since the only Leicas I have ever seen in U.S. stores were in high-end specialty camera stores, and the only cameras I've ever seen at Costcos were the most mass-produced. And in the current context, a "compact" camera is, yes, a point and shoot. I'm genuinely glad others had less of a visceral response to the story, and perhaps my response reflects my (overly) long tenure working in corporate communications. Just seemed like a wasted opportunity, by Bloomberg, not Leica, to have someone who could write a business story with historical detail mostly right, but without any sense of Leica's real value, publish the one story many people will read about Leica this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted June 7, 2012 Share #7 Posted June 7, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello Everybody, I would say this is a very nice story & Leica should be very happy w/ it. Don't forget this is not written for photographers. It is an introduction to Leica written for a generalized group of people whose background is not photography but rather an interest in money & return on investment. It has some mildly sophisticated "glamour" coupled w/ some "romance" about Leica's history. Think of it as the beginning of an investment prospectus for a generalized audience. That a detail was missed or inacurate here or there is nothing new in journalism. All & all very nice. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 7, 2012 Share #8 Posted June 7, 2012 I agree with Michael. It's a business-trade rag. The relevance of the story is that it gives positive profile to Leica in a group that may never have heard of them, and who almost certainly have no experience of a Leica-M film camera, and have only vague idea of who HCB, Magnum and many of the famous Leica users of yore are. The story could as easily have been of the death of the basket case from Solms which failed to capitalize on SLR in the 1960s, surrendering the field to Nikon, and who failed to recognise the significance of digital. Thankfully, they saved themselves from the second mistake just in time. I liked the article, and I thought it was reasonably accurate, considering how it might have read ... The Economist article was also a good read. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 7, 2012 Share #9 Posted June 7, 2012 I didn't know that the first camera sold at the DC store was film. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted June 7, 2012 Share #10 Posted June 7, 2012 Leica is absolutely correct in their decision to open stores. Read the following news articles and BCG Report. If this is indeed the target market, direct sales is the preferred sales model. [/url]http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC120607-0000049/Worlds-richest-looking-for-new-ways-to-spend Wealth shifts to emerging countries - Business - NZ Herald News https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/financial_institutions_corporate_strategy_portfolio_management_global_wealth_2012_battle_regain_strength/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted June 7, 2012 Share #11 Posted June 7, 2012 Another Bloomberg article written by a novice. Probably takes photos with his/her iPhone. Lately many Bloomberg articles are less than stellar. Recently the Header was something like-- 16 Spanish Banks Downgraded. So I wanted to see which banks they were. The actual article mentioned one bank and never discussed the 15 others. I emailed the author about this and never heard a comment. These ill-informed, sensationalist writing, journalists will make Bloomberg a Polaroid sooner than later. I have often frequented Best Buy and Costco and do not remember seeing one Leica in either store, but they do have also too many models of your ever popular Nikanons. Heck, for tax reasons alone (especially on Leica gear) it is often advantageous to buy on line. Why not just cite the ever increasing online sales of all consumer items instead of mentioning Best Buy and Costco which to a Leica owner is like mentioning in an article that Porsche sales have been hurt by the closing of many Chrysler dealerships in 2009. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 7, 2012 Share #12 Posted June 7, 2012 Leica was losing market share to Costco? I imagine the point being made is that the dealers who sold Leica equipment alongside the likes of Canon and Nikon have gone out of business because of the competition from Costco selling those Japanese manufacturers. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. We've had a chain in the UK that sold Leica go bust in the last week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfgang Esslinger Posted June 7, 2012 Share #13 Posted June 7, 2012 Some of the article's wording might be a bit unfortunate but overall I think it is quite good. Leica need stores so potential customers can touch and feel the product and listen to the stories from the past Opening and running a Leica-only store however is a rather risky business for the shop owner - just remember when Leica did not have a competitive portfolio for years. And once Leica introduce an interesting new model they are unable to produce it in sufficient quantity. A Leica dealer needs good nerves to sleep well I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted June 8, 2012 Share #14 Posted June 8, 2012 Another Bloomberg article written by a novice. Probably takes photos with his/her iPhone. Lately many Bloomberg articles are less than stellar. Recently the Header was something like-- 16 Spanish Banks Downgraded. So I wanted to see which banks they were. The actual article mentioned one bank and never discussed the 15 others. I emailed the author about this and never heard a comment. These ill-informed, sensationalist writing, journalists will make Bloomberg a Polaroid sooner than later. I have often frequented Best Buy and Costco and do not remember seeing one Leica in either store, but they do have also too many models of your ever popular Nikanons. Heck, for tax reasons alone (especially on Leica gear) it is often advantageous to buy on line. Why not just cite the ever increasing online sales of all consumer items instead of mentioning Best Buy and Costco which to a Leica owner is like mentioning in an article that Porsche sales have been hurt by the closing of many Chrysler dealerships in 2009. Saying that Leica's decision to open Leica specialty shops is a "high risk strategy" is akin to proclaiming that opening a Bentley dealership across the street from a gated community that is packed with NFL and NBA stars is a high risk strategy. The fact that the author of this article considers Best Buy, Costco and Leica to be competitors clearly shows that he he (1.) did little or no research on Leica before writing his article, and (2.) he clearly has no understanding of the world of Leica photography or those who are dedicated Leica connoisseurs in general and M camera users in particular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 8, 2012 Share #15 Posted June 8, 2012 He didn't day that Costco were competitors with Leica. What he said was that dealers had closed because they couldn't compete on price with Costco - think Canon and Nikon. We're seeing exactly the same thing happen in the UK as retail shops can't compete with online vendors. A chain went bust last week. Another - Wildings - went bust last year, and Jessops are on the brink of going bust. Leica's shops will be a risk given the economic climate and the fact that they'll have very little to sell that is available from stock. Risk isn't the same as failure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 8, 2012 Share #16 Posted June 8, 2012 ...the point being made is that the dealers who sold Leica equipment alongside the likes of Canon and Nikon have gone out of business because of the competition from Costco selling those Japanese manufacturers. Seems perfectly reasonable to me... +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted June 8, 2012 Share #17 Posted June 8, 2012 From page 2 of the Bloomberg article: The company still makes film cameras, though digital models generate more than 90 percent of sales. Interesting that film camera sales are in the neighborhood of "less than 10 percent." My guess would have been far smaller than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted June 8, 2012 Share #18 Posted June 8, 2012 Hello Howard, Don't forget: "less than 10%" can mean 7 cameras. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 8, 2012 Share #19 Posted June 8, 2012 Hello Howard, Don't forget: "less than 10%" can mean 7 cameras. Only if Leica sell something like 100 cameras per year (unless you mean that "less than 10%" is a euphemism for "much less than 1%"). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted June 9, 2012 Share #20 Posted June 9, 2012 Hello Ian, More or less #2. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.