Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: stephe_k on 26 Mar 2010 23:30 Neil Harrington wrote: > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>> Apart from the fact that that's not a loss leader product, I >>> must assume your "marketing people" include every CEO and member >>> of the board --- for no mere marketing person has the power to >>> decide company strategy. >> I wrongly assumed people here would understand my point was: that this is >> a money losing product to get people into the store. Like like a super >> fancy car (corvette, NSX etc)gets people into the showroom to then sell >> them a midrange sedan. > > You still don't seem to understand what "loss leader" means. The Ektra > certainly was never sold as a loss leader and neither is the Corvette. > Are you always such a bone head? OK it's not a "loss leader" I used the wrong term but I just described what I meant in this last post for the third time and you continue to argue semantics without answering the question. So you think the marketing people had nothing to do with putting a money losing product in the showroom as a tool to get people into the store to then sell them the cheaper mainstream product they do make a profit on? I could give a flip what you want to call this high end money loser, it's a marketing tool just like a "loss leader" is. Stephanie
From: tony cooper on 27 Mar 2010 00:26 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 23:30:55 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Neil Harrington wrote: >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>>> Apart from the fact that that's not a loss leader product, I >>>> must assume your "marketing people" include every CEO and member >>>> of the board --- for no mere marketing person has the power to >>>> decide company strategy. >>> I wrongly assumed people here would understand my point was: that this is >>> a money losing product to get people into the store. Like like a super >>> fancy car (corvette, NSX etc)gets people into the showroom to then sell >>> them a midrange sedan. >> >> You still don't seem to understand what "loss leader" means. The Ektra >> certainly was never sold as a loss leader and neither is the Corvette. >> > > >Are you always such a bone head? OK it's not a "loss leader" I used the >wrong term but I just described what I meant in this last post for the >third time and you continue to argue semantics without answering the >question. How can anyone intelligently deal with a question or a statement when the semantics present the question or the statement in a manner that the meaning is entirely different from the meaning the speaker has in mind? Of course the semantics - which is the "meaning" - have be cleared up first. You have to be able to present your statement or question in such a way that we understand your meaning. > >So you think the marketing people had nothing to do with putting a money >losing product in the showroom as a tool to get people into the store to >then sell them the cheaper mainstream product they do make a profit on? >I could give a flip what you want to call this high end money loser, >it's a marketing tool just like a "loss leader" is. > OK. I agree that adding a high-end item to the product line solely for the purpose of attracting attention to the brand is a strategy advanced by the marketing people. I read a few of your previous posts, and I can't figure out what your point is. You say your point is "that this is a money losing product to get people into the store", but you don't seem to be taking any position on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Where are you going with this? What *is* the question? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on 27 Mar 2010 00:55 On 2010-03-26 20:30:55 -0700, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> said: > Neil Harrington wrote: >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>>> Apart from the fact that that's not a loss leader product, I >>>> must assume your "marketing people" include every CEO and member >>>> of the board --- for no mere marketing person has the power to >>>> decide company strategy. >>> I wrongly assumed people here would understand my point was: that this >>> is a money losing product to get people into the store. Like like a >>> super fancy car (corvette, NSX etc)gets people into the showroom to >>> then sell them a midrange sedan. >> >> You still don't seem to understand what "loss leader" means. The Ektra >> certainly was never sold as a loss leader and neither is the Corvette. >> > > > Are you always such a bone head? OK it's not a "loss leader" I used the > wrong term but I just described what I meant in this last post for the > third time and you continue to argue semantics without answering the > question. > > So you think the marketing people had nothing to do with putting a > money losing product in the showroom as a tool to get people into the > store to then sell them the cheaper mainstream product they do make a > profit on? I could give a flip what you want to call this high end > money loser, it's a marketing tool just like a "loss leader" is. I don't buy that Corvettes, other high end cars, and high end cameras are money losing products. Car buyers aren't drawn into a dealership to look at a 'vette, and then buy a Malibu. They aren't pulled into a camera store by the allure of a D3X and when their budget only allows them to buy a P&S. Car buyers and camera buyers might have their fantasies, but the great majority of them are realistic with regard to their personal budgets. I might be attracted to a Mercedes E63 AMG, or a D3x, but realistically my wallet will only stretch to an E350 and a D300s, and that is a long stretch. ....and the Corvette or the E63 AMG are certainly not high end money losers. For the most part they are sold for premiums in excess of sticker, and there is an irrational demand for them. I don't know if the D3x, or D3s has been discounted yet. I can just see the sales pitch. "Sir I would love to sell you this $6000 DSLR, but I think you will find the $250 Canon or Coolpix more to your liking." Now there is a way to draw them into a store to sell them a mainstream product. Though I will admit there will always be the idiot who will buy beyond his means. > -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Neil Harrington on 27 Mar 2010 09:54 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hoju68$gsh$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Neil Harrington wrote: >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:hoj778$fg6$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>>> Apart from the fact that that's not a loss leader product, I >>>> must assume your "marketing people" include every CEO and member >>>> of the board --- for no mere marketing person has the power to >>>> decide company strategy. >>> I wrongly assumed people here would understand my point was: that this >>> is a money losing product to get people into the store. Like like a >>> super fancy car (corvette, NSX etc)gets people into the showroom to then >>> sell them a midrange sedan. >> >> You still don't seem to understand what "loss leader" means. The Ektra >> certainly was never sold as a loss leader and neither is the Corvette. >> > > > Are you always such a bone head? OK it's not a "loss leader" I used the > wrong term YOU used the wrong term so I"M the bonehead? > but I just described what I meant in this last post for the third time and > you continue to argue semantics without answering the question. "What you meant" is still wrong. What on earth makes you think a Corvette is "a money losing product to get people into the store"? > > So you think the marketing people had nothing to do with putting a money > losing product in the showroom as a tool to get people into the store to > then sell them the cheaper mainstream product they do make a profit on? I > could give a flip what you want to call this high end money loser, it's a > marketing tool just like a "loss leader" is. Again: What on earth makes you think a Corvette is "a money losing product"? Some Corvettes sell for over $100,000 and yes, they do sell them at those prices. And no, a Corvette isn't "a marketing tool just like a loss leader."
From: Neil Harrington on 27 Mar 2010 09:59
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:fnlqq5h01rjqaf1daruvtog2nh1aoikg51(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:23:51 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> > wrote: > >> >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:37bqq5lae5qlj25ta76s28bm5aa6jq51ou(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:01:05 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" >>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>tony cooper wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> However, this part of the thread pertains to the ridiculous claim that >>>>> NASA constitutes a market for space shuttles. NASA does not shop for >>>>> space shuttles. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Which has no relevance whatsoever into the discussion of why a >>>>manufacturer would DISABLE hardware that already exists in a cheaper >>>>model in their lineup. To even insinuate that anyone other than the >>>>marketing people would do this is silly! >>> >>> Thread subjects are not cast in concrete. Any point of a discussion >>> can be addressed. What I'm addressing is the ludicrous example of >>> there being a market for space shuttles. >> >>There probably isn't NOW, because the space shuttle as we know it is >>getting >>long in the tooth. But when NASA was *in the market* for space shuttles, >>ipso facto that market existed. >> >>Your position seems to be that a market cannot exist if there's only one >>customer, i.e. if other countries and/or agencies needed space shuttles >>then >>there would a market for them, but since only NASA bought them no market >>existed. I don't see how that logically follows. NASA's being the world's >>largest consumer of space shuttles I think makes them a market. If someone >>else were able to produce a significantly better, safer and more capable >>space shuttle at a much better price, presumably NASA would have bought >>it, >>wouldn't they? Doesn't that in itself make them a market? >> > No, my position is that NASA didn't go to the market and purchase any > space shuttles. The space shuttles were NASA'S product made to their > specifications by sub-contractors. Rockwell didn't produce a space > shuttle and then look for a market for it. There isn't a market for > space shuttles, and never was a market for space shuttles. > > NASA was a producer of space shuttles for their own use. The fact > that the actual production was done by outside vendors doesn't alter > this. The outside vendors supplied the product only at the behest of > NASA and under contract to NASA. Without that contract, no space > shuttles would have been produced. Very well. You're right. |