Subscription Model?

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you look around you more and more of what we use seems to be headed towards a subscription model: software, vacation homes, and cars to name but a few.

 

Is there an opportunity for a company like Leica to develop a subscription model for photographers? Depending on what might interest you - X days with a C-Lux, Y days with a TL2, Z days with a Q. Add another tier that includes lenses.

 

You can be flexible according to your needs/wants - so a vacation camera for X amount of time, and a daily point and shoot for weeks when the weather is nice. This isn't in anyway thought through so don't get hung up on the details - consider the idea itself and whether it might be of interest and worth developing.

 

Thoughts?

[ianman]

I don't like to change my camera body very much, I prefer to get to know it, and live with and use it for as long as it works... so I wouldn't be a very good customer for such a model.

 

But I'm not too keen on the subscription model for software either.

 

What you describe seems me suited to renting.

Edited July 25, 2018 by ianman

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[otto.f]

Yes they do that with cars in my country too, it’s called Green Cars or something like that. But for me a camera is even more personal than a car, so I wouldn’t like that; sticking my nose in camera’s where other people have stuck their nose in... not my cup of tea.

[jmahto]

If I understand correctly, cine lenses are mostly rented and not owned. It depends on the usage.

 

Even in normal usecase, there is rental model for camera equipment which will continue for specialized usage. But it won't fully take away the personal ownership.

[pico]

If I understand correctly, cine lenses are mostly rented and not owned. It depends on the usage.

 

Even in normal usecase, there is rental model for camera equipment which will continue for specialized usage. But it won't fully take away the personal ownership.

 

When I was a pro, renting lenses was ordinary, and when working under contract renting was economical.

Edited July 25, 2018 by pico

[Le Chef]

One of the reasons for asking the question is that Millennials a) use their phone for most pics are less inclined to own anything than previous generations. If Leica is to continue to sustain production levels it will need to attract this generation and make it easy for them to buy into Leica. A subscription model is one way to do that. Are there any Millennials (born 1977 - 1996) here who have a point of view on this?

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I understand correctly, cine lenses are mostly rented and not owned. It depends on the usage.

 

Even in normal usecase, there is rental model for camera equipment which will continue for specialized usage. But it won't fully take away the personal ownership.

This is exactly what I see with my son, he’s from 1994. Renting for professional cine work, but owning a film camera for himself. This does not seem different to me than 40 years ago.

[schattenundlicht]

One problem would be that contrary to smartphones, with cameras there would not be a cellular provider to cross-subsidize high turnover models (like „get the latest shmoophone every year)...

[Le Chef]

I'm still not sure how many of the respondents are Millennials - any of you care to confirm?

[papimuzo]

It takes to me so much time to master one device that I don't see what could bring to me the possibility to put my hands on several If needed, I can get one after one a camera and use it up to the time where GAS is acting...

Of course YMMV

Happy fictures to all.

Edited August 26, 2018 by papimuzo

[wattsy]

I'm not sure in what way the subscription model differs from renting the gear? With the subscription model do you pay £x per month for an agreed period and then have access to a certain level of equipment to borrow when you need it? Sounds complicated.

 

What might work would be some kind of leasing programme or PCP financing model for Leica cameras. With the cost of a new M body approaching that of a small car, it doesn't strike me as odd if the camera industry adopted similar practices to the motor industry. With a scheme like PCP, Leica dealers could sell an M10 for something like £100 per month (amortising the depreciation over, say, a couple of years) for a fixed period with an option at the end to make a final larger payment to buy the camera or give the camera back and move on to the next model. In essence, this is what many people do anyway but this kind of scheme takes away the hassle of selling the camera after 2-3 years. It's proven to be a popular scheme in the motor trade (at least in the Anglo-saxon debt loving world) allowing many people on modest incomes to swan around in the swankiest of cars.

[Ouroboros]

GAS gone mad.  If it hasn't already.

[AdamSinger]

If you look around you more and more of what we use seems to be headed towards a subscription model: software, vacation homes, and cars to name but a few.

 

Is there an opportunity for a company like Leica to develop a subscription model for photographers? Depending on what might interest you - X days with a C-Lux, Y days with a TL2, Z days with a Q. Add another tier that includes lenses.

 

You can be flexible according to your needs/wants - so a vacation camera for X amount of time, and a daily point and shoot for weeks when the weather is nice. This isn't in anyway thought through so don't get hung up on the details - consider the idea itself and whether it might be of interest and worth developing.

 

Thoughts?

This is a deep and profound question, and deserves thought, rather than the usual reaction.  Any change in technology changes the economics, and one's personnel views are seldom relevant. A truth seldom acknowledged is that if one wish's to stay au courant with Leica models then  you are following a  variation on a leasing model. If  you  went M8 M9 M240 , M10 , then roughly every three  years you may have  traded in one camera and acquired the new model. This works out at a roughly £700 a year subscription.  (£5000 for the new  body, three years later trade in say £3000 =s £666ish). This is an informal subscription model. Of course you can change the numbers by  keeping the camera, changing the time periods but every time you sell a digital Leica to buy a new one you are into  informal ‘ leasing. The pedants will quibble over my use of language  but at 50,000 feet this is  the correct view. This was not  true in film days as a Leica M7 gave you no technical image quality improvement over  an older M3. Moore’s law (predicted to end soon but as yet still going ) implies we  will  continue to see some significant technical improvements to digital photography  for a while. 

 

As the tech gets increasingly homogenised, there is little  major difference in pictorial out put between major brands.  Yes one has personal preferences  I do for Leica but I understand this  is my personal/emotional  choice,  I shoot with a lot of cameras and note that my images are boringly similar regardless of the camera I use.  Many will respond with  assorted flavours of 'the only way you will get me to give up my Leica is to prize it from cold dead hands', but this is emotional, religious, personnel preference, and ignores the macro economic forces affecting any model in a market. Which in this case is that for major brand  facing constant technical change then the  subscription model has an appeal, as it is a more formal way of locking you into the brand.  After all as lenses become more interchangeable across mirrorless platforms, it becomes easier to swap platforms. Leica SL to Sony A7 to Z7 or what ever.  Yes there is the issue that things work less than perfectly when they are not native to the platform , but this gets less at each iteration.

 

There fore, the strategic question becomes how do the digital product corporations, ( of which Leica is now a very minor one )  lock us into brand. This is the essential issue in the  IoS  V Android wars. Don’t kid yourself,  at  Blackstone or who ever the current owner is ,  Leica is not a camera it is a brand. The product in this case for  image recording is merely the tools  of the brand. I know this is deeply unpalatable but it is  a  crucial factor in the digital world. As digit products become more ephemeral the brand  needs to seem more solid.

 

So  it makes sense for me to pay Leica £5000, for the a body then pay £750 a year  to be upgraded for ever. Many will not like  this, but the many on this forum may not  the generation Leica needs to win, and lock in.

 

We are living in a world where changes in tech have meant changes in business model,  who buys CD when you can use Tidal or Spotify,  or DVds when there is Netflix,  an then there is  Lightroom, and so on, my daughter has relinquished car ownership for Uber, and   it would be naive to think that we will not see some one try a subscription model/leasing model  on camera platforms.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by AdamSinger

[Le Chef]

Thanks Adam, I’m glad you understand the issue. I don’t have data but would expect the total number of camera units has been falling since the early 80’s in mature markets like USA, EU, Japan etc. It’s not to say the market isn’t profitable as emerging markets will help fuel volume growth. The issue is changes in behaviors with fewer camera enthusiasts/capita buying and seeing a rationale for using something separate from their phone. Millennials are the watershed generation and companies like Leica need to figure out how to attract them. My thought was subscription as it lowers the barrier to entry, but Millennials need to understand what a more suitable fit for purpose tool like a Leica can do for their self expression as well.

[mmradman]

What about lenses? 

 

Camera bodies may come and go every 3 or 4 years but even a low cost 35mm or 50mm M lens which can be carried over from generation to generation until upgrade comes along is substantial cost.  Do you buy or lease from Leica, what if you fancy 3rd party offering?   

[ramarren]

I'm old and I don't really care much what Millenials do, or for that matter what Leica should do to maintain their profitability. That's their business, not mine.

 

I rent cars or equipment when necessary, pay subscriptions for some software and news services, and so on, depending on the specific value proposition. I own a nice car but don't feel like driving it to Boston from California, for instance, just to have it there for a three day visit: It's not economically sensible nor time sensible either. I'll rent a medium format digital camera if I feel I need it now and then because most of the time I have neither need nor desire for one, and they're too expensive to leave sitting on the shelf most of the time. If I lived in a city and had decent transit available without need to own a nice car, I'd probably just rent one when needed. Et cetera.

 

Can manufacturers like Leica or Mercedes make enough profit just by renting equipment for use? I doubt it. But service industries can, and they buy equipment from Mercedes or Leica, et al. There's a whole different model of operating costs and capital needs for a service industry compared to being a manufacturer. Do I want Leica to become a service industry? Only if it is profitable and doesn't impact the funding, development, and operation of their manufacturing business, the products of which are what I like and pay for.

 

Not all solutions fit all problems...

[AdamSinger]

What about lenses? 

 

Camera bodies may come and go every 3 or 4 years but even a low cost 35mm or 50mm M lens which can be carried over from generation to generation until upgrade comes along is substantial cost.  Do you buy or lease from Leica, what if you fancy 3rd party offering?   

Lenses ! Good point,—— dunno ---- this is of course a speculative rumination. My thought would be that the techno economic forces working on lenses are different from those working on digital camera platforms. Lenses so far are optical not electronic devices (leaving aside autofocus motors )  thus the speed of chip development affects them less.  Also there is no shortage of  lens alternatives at myriad cost points , (a 1973 Zorki to name but one , only joking ) but any Leica lens from  the 1930s will work. My approach is to trademy  digital cameras as they cease to be state of the art but never sell glass,  as it will always  work and be relevant though the alternative looks it bestows. ( I love shooting 1950s Contax  lenses on My M10  just for the look).  Underlying the question is  that the young are being trained in modernsubscription models to  be non-owners.  ………..So Its not a question of if it works for us,  or if we like it.  I for one don't like my high/main street vanishing as old shops are replaced coffee emporia, but its part of the same trajectory in that the market is moving; too  clicking to acquire things and  physical shopping for experience. Thus I get my washing machine by clicking on the Best Buy or John Lewis site, and buy experience on main street by going to the one of the growing number of eateries, or one of the burgeoning plethora of  nail bars (if one is inclined I am to old to benefit from  multicoloured nails !).  Traditionally  one of the first  canaries down the new market mines is music,  which has had to shift from a  high margin thing model, records/CDs  to a low margin subscription model supplemented by increasing values in  live concerts. (Yes I know  many are happy with their 78s but they no longer make a market).This does not directly translate to cameras,  but the direction of market travel is relevant, across the board we are seeing changes in acquisition habits, especially among the sub 40s,   and the over 60s become increasingly  irrelevant as with each passing day they are more of  the past than the  future.   To make the point let me quote an article  from last year. "A couple of weeks ago, Ford Motor Company  somewhat quietly announced that next month, it’s beginning a leasing pilot programme  in Austin that will enable three to six people to lease a Ford Vehicle together. Audi is similarly trying out a fractional car  ownership in Sweden  called Audi Unite that allows up to five people to own a car together.”  Of  course fractional ownership makes little sense on a camera, but that is not the point  which is that the business models are changing and the question is  will Leica's  traditional model of selling  digital things  continue to work  in a world  where digital tech is becomes less owned.   I haven’t a clue,  we don't know but it is a good ‘gedanken'.

Edited August 30, 2018 by AdamSinger

[AdamSinger]

I'm old and I don't really care much what Millenials do, or for that matter what Leica should do to maintain their profitability. That's their business, not mine.

 

I rent cars or equipment when necessary, pay subscriptions for some software and news services, and so on, depending on the specific value proposition. I own a nice car but don't feel like driving it to Boston from California, for instance, just to have it there for a three day visit: It's not economically sensible nor time sensible either. I'll rent a medium format digital camera if I feel I need it now and then because most of the time I have neither need nor desire for one, and they're too expensive to leave sitting on the shelf most of the time. If I lived in a city and had decent transit available without need to own a nice car, I'd probably just rent one when needed. Et cetera.

 

Can manufacturers like Leica or Mercedes make enough profit just by renting equipment for use? I doubt it. But service industries can, and they buy equipment from Mercedes or Leica, et al. There's a whole different model of operating costs and capital needs for a service industry compared to being a manufacturer. Do I want Leica to become a service industry? Only if it is profitable and doesn't impact the funding, development, and operation of their manufacturing business, the products of which are what I like and pay for.

 

Not all solutions fit all problems...

The  main model for car econimics is not ownership but lesasing, which is exactly how Mercedes or GM  makes thier money.  It is not  about classic renting, but  the rise of leasing , fractional ownership and subscription models.  (which are of course evolved renting models but the operative word is evolved) That you  'really dont care ' what millenials do , is a  feeling I often share but the  purshasing power  of those millenials is in one form or another  the future of Lecia , sadly I suspect you and I are not.  The macro, stress macro question is how does Lecia harness that spedning power in a world where the acquistion models are changing.  If Lieca are merely a  camera version of Rolex  then may be they dont have too. You are right leasing may have no relvance to Lieca,  but in a world where the models are shifitng it is a legitimate debate, the issue for Lecia ownership will be what  builds the most brand value.  As an aside If I were them I would be following the Aston Martin floatation with more than idle curiosity. As though you can't  hold an Aston to your eye and take a picture, Leica and Aston  are strikingly analogus in their repsective sectors.

Edited August 30, 2018 by AdamSinger

[Exodies]

Lenses ! Good point,—— dunno ---- this is of course a speculative rumination. My thought would be that the techno economic forces working on lenses are different from those working on digital camera platforms. Lenses so far are optical not electronic devices (leaving aside autofocus motors )  thus the speed of chip development affects them less.

 

I for one don't like my high/main street vanishing as old shops are replaced coffee emporia, but its part of the same trajectory in that the market is moving; too  clicking to acquire things and  physical shopping for experience. Thus I get my washing machine by clicking on the Best Buy or John Lewis site, and buy experience on main street by going to the one of the growing number of eateries, or one of the burgeoning plethora of  nail bars (if one is inclined I am to old to benefit from  multicoloured nails !).

Another thing lenses have going for them is that compromises have to be made and it is inspired design choices here that make the difference; provide a signature look or simply go into production with whatever the computer calculates.

 

As for nails, you’re never too old. My hand recently (with splint)...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

Thoughts - remember that the original question was, "Is this of interest to ME?"

 

A Leica is many things: a camera, a digital device, but also a luxury item. How many people "lease or share" - a Picasso original; a Fabergé lamp, a Rolex watch? Does Jay Leno (among others) lease his car collection? (For me personally, Leicas are just tools for work, but I recognize their position in the general marketplace).

 

I learned long ago that renting or leasing anything amounts to paying money for it for a period of time, after which one no longer has either the money, or the item. Short-term thinking. The Millennials (and Generation Z) will eventually grow up, and realize that. Or, come the next crash (and there will always be a next crash), they'll find themselves with a heavy load of recurring "rental" payments, and no or reduced income to pay them.

 

I buy my cars - usually for cash - and then keep and use them for 15-20 years. This gets me comfortably through events like the 2008 Crash and a layoff - very low recurring monthly expenses. Same for cameras - I kept my M9s for 7¹/₂ years, and I'm sure someone will be taking pictures with them for years to come. With a residual value of $1500, my amortized cost was $700 a year each (actually a bit less, since I bought one of them used).

 

Control of my tools is important, also. If I wake up and suddenly decide to go shooting at 6 am on a Sunday - what good is a "shared" camera that someone else has in their possession at the moment?

 

Renting works for the occasional, incidental, and unimportant things in life - a bike or car ride here, a tree to fell with a chainsaw there. What is the benefit to Leica to position their brand as "occasional, incidental, and unimportant?"

Edited August 30, 2018 by adan