Hasselblad news

[janm]

The Swedish business paper Dagens Industri (like Financial Times or

Wall Street Journal) has an article about Hasselblad today, based on

an interview with Hasselblad's CEO Göran Bernhoff.

It's pretty long, so I'll just post some interesting points:

 

- There was a substantial loss during 2001, 16 Million SEK during the

first 6 months. They don't say how much for the entire year, but the

second half of the year was worse than the first. Total sales 623

Million SEK during 2000.

- Construction of the new factory will start this spring. It will

cost 175 Million SEK. It will open in 2003, 350 people will work

there. More outsourcing in the future.

- The MF market in the US was down 50% during 2001. Hasselblad sales

down 30% in the US.

- USA is 20% of Hasselblad's total market.

- Sales in Europe down 10%, and the total MF market in Europe also

down 10%.

- Sales in Asia increased during 2001, in particular in China (up

25%).

- 50 people have been laid off during 2001.

- R&D costs increased by 50% during 2000, to 36 Million SEK.

- Several R&D projects are in progress, in particular digital.

Cooperation with other companies important.

- Hasselblad's management don't think the company can survive on its

own, looking for someone to buy them.

 

10 SEK = 1 USD, roughly.

[eric friedemann]

Why aren't as many people buying Hasselblads? Perhaps these prices from B&H offer an explanation: Hasselblad 905SWC w/38mm f/4.5 Biogon Lens $5,537.00; Hasselblad FlexBody CP $2,425.00; Hasselblad 500mm f/8 CF lens $5,699.99.

 

Hasselblad equipment is absurdly overpriced given that most of the Blad line has changed little in 50 years. The company grudgingly rolls out inovations at a glacial pace.

 

It is hilarious that Hasselblad spent $3.6 million U.S. in 2000 on research and development. What was this money spent on- figuring out what new colors to put on their same old bodies or developing better ways to gold-plate body parts for collector edition pieces?

 

Hasselblad has failed to react to changes in the MF market. Mamiya, Bornica and Pentax are constantly introducing new products based on the actual needs of their customers. Hasselblad's motto appears to be, "(b)uy our camera because of the nameplate."

[jeff_drew4]

Thanks for the news, Jan! I appreciate it! All flames aside, many industries took major losses last year. I think the recession is world-wide, and later this year things will level out. But, as we will look upon the vistas of business, there will be carcasses left over! What you posted is not surprising. Perhaps serious Hassy collectors should skip a body or 2 and become investors? Just kidding! . . .

[peter_ochmann]

I think the whole MF market has gone down. People are investing in digital cameras.

Your statements regarding Hasselblads reputation seem to stem from Mamiya sales people. I don't crop 6x6 to 6x4.5 and I don't want to carry those giant Mamiyas up to Everest base camp as I did with my Hasselblad.

[patrick_drennon]

Great response Jeff. I hope to not fan the flames but would like to

offer a perspective.

 

Could it be that the huge drop in US sales (which make up such

a significant portion of the total) is due to the tightening of

descretionary spending? If you take significant fraction of the well

to do non-professionals who buy Hassy gear and rubber band

their wallets it would easily account for the sales drop. If so,

they'll be back as soon as a recovery releases the funds (with

their wive's permission of course). I'm not a Hassy user but

retain a great deal of respect for the system. I appreciate their

tendency to be somewhat staid and IMHO their current situation

is likely (note I said LIKELY) not a reflection of their lack of

innovation but a result of current market realities.

[janm]

Eric, I think they are doing something. The increased R&D spending will hopefully result in new products, and the new factory will supposedly lower production costs (I didn't translate that part).

One interesting thing is that Hasselblad, although in trouble, seems to be doing better than their competitors (at least in the US). If the MF market in total was down 50%, but Hasselblad "only" lost 30%, they have actually increased market share.

[squareframe]

as to the question, I am sure Hasselblad management understands their situation much better than any of us sideline CEO's. it is a dynamic market that will take some innovation, leadership, and luck to pull them through. I also believe, in this Enron era, that they are telling us only what they want us to hear, and forging new strategies as we speak. best of luck Hasselblad.

[richard blau]

It is with some hesitancy that I jump in here, but just a few comments. I fear the speculation

in this thread is intriguing but a bit exaggerated.

 

First, however, to Roger: thanks so much for the post about Hunt�s photo in Melrose

Mass. I thought they had sold all of their Hasselblad inventory out a month ago (the last

items were supposed to have been purchased by another dealer). I got a great deal on a

110FE, something I have lusted after but couldn�t really justify. I still can�t justify it, but it was

cheaper .

 

However, I think there may be other plausible explanations for Hunt�s situation. My

favorite theory goes like this:

 

1. When it comes to medium format, buyers tend to be a little more sophisticated than

those who buy 35mm (also better looking and more intelligent but we won�t get into that

here ;-) ). Combine this with the existence of web shopping, which is fine if you know

what you want. [To be honest, I�ve had as much luck getting advice on the telephone from

B&H (who have been great) as I�ve had getting help at stores. ] The result is a higher

percentage of buyers will go for medium format at lower prices. They derive no benefit

from shopping locally.

 

2. Hasselblad equipment is expensive. Owners also will shop where they can get the

components they need with minimum trouble. Unless you do a large volume, the costs of

carrying a full line of Hasselblad products costs a fortune. You will not attract customers

to pay higher prices to special order goods you don�t have in stock.

 

3. Hunt�s is in Massachusetts. That means it costs 5% more to shop here instead of

ordering by mail. Buyers know this.

 

4. Therefore, my take is that this is more a Hunt�s (or Levine�s ) problem than a Hasselblad

problem. They can�t compete with B&H, Adorama et. al. The cost of inventory, as well as

the cost of salespeople who know enough to add value may be too high for what has

always been a small market.

 

I don�t think this necessarily suggests Hasselblad�s imminent demise (although with my

luck�.)

 

And, for the record, Hunt�s will continue to carry basic Hasselblad cameras and lenses

(501s and 503s), at least according to the salesman I spoke to today.

To some extent, the prevalence of web and telephone ordering is putting a strain on all

local retailers of high cost, high margin goods. Modern communications foster

competition. I keep hearing about the wonderful service and advice you get at a local

store, but I don�t see it at the high end (I won�t go deeper into this �� another rant for

another day).

 

I wouldn�t be surprised if the medium format market were contracting. But, historically in

other specialty markets, the company which survives to cater to the few surviving die-

hards is the one perceived as having the best quality and service.

 

Finally, as an owner of a 35mm film camera and a Canon D-30 in addition to the

Hasselblads, I have one last opinion. All of these cameras do some things beautifully. But,

when I scan a 6x6 with a Nikon 8000, I can get a 250 megabyte file. That�s a lot more that

I get scanning 35mm or using the D-30. It will be a long time before a portable digital set

up will compete with medium format for large images.

Sorry about the length.

[kevin_kolosky]

One must remember that Hasselblad is made in a free country, but also a country that has very high social costs attached to its labor. the costs of the camera itself is a small part of the the total cost. do not forget that when you buy a hasselblad you are also buying plant overhead which means health and dental insurance, unemployment insurance, maternity insurance, etc., as well as other taxes. that is why may companies that make great products try to outsource to other countries to find lower labor costs, etc. Take a look at the Browning firearms company in the USA. They made most of their guns in Belgium until costs became so great that they moved all of their production to Japan.

Moreover, as has been noted, I am sure that demand is falling off becasue the company does not produce its own digital backs.

What Hasselblad needs is more inovative management who really cares about the company and not about their own pocket books. Just the opposite of say an Enron management team.

 

Kevin

[andrew booth]

<i><b>MODERATORS NOTE:</b>

<p>

I have deleted a number of off topic postings to this thread. If the original posting had not been interesting, I would have removed the whole thread.

<p>

There are many archived pro/anti Hasselblad, Leica, Nikon v Canon etc. threads already in the photo.net archives. I will delete new threads of this type - there is NO resolution to these arguments, and they invariably yield no interesting new thought on the subject.

</i>

[roger_michel]

people frequently observe here at the MFD that blad gear is "overpriced." i'm never sure exactly whether this means: (a) that the gear is not competitively priced; i.e. other companies offer more for the money, or (b) that blad charges more than it needs to in order to imbue its goods with snob cachet. the latter approach is the one openly adopted by rolex (and many other luxury goods mfrs). rolex creates false scarcity for its watches by choosing to produce far fewer watches than the market demands. as a result, demand, prestige, and resale value are kept artificially high. at the same time, the company fails to reap the benefits of the economies of scale that higher production would yield. and so, rolex watches are far more expensive than they need to be -- or than they would be in an efficient market. i don't think blad has taken this approach. i think it builds as many cameras as it thinks it can sell, builds them as cost effectively as possible, and markets them aggressively. i think the cameras are costly because their build quality is superb (as a rule of thumb, the retail price of cameras is ten times manufacturing cost -- adding a $100 to construction cost = an additional $1000 in final retail price), the company does not (at least until xpan) have mass market lines to support its pro lines, demand is small and so production is low, and the company operates in a country with astronomic labor costs and high taxes. for these reasons, blad cameras can never be competitive -- ON A PURE COST LEVEL -- with MF products from the japanese comglomerates. and so blad has made the wise decision not to compete on price. instead, they offer a product that is unique in the market in terms of construction quality, finish, and level of mechanical performance. this approach creates an even wider price gap of course, and so means that the cameras will never be selected by those to whom cost per performance is a major selection factor. instead, the cameras are designed to appeal to those to whom cost is less of an issue; i.e. pros and wealthy amateurs. blad cameras really are different in terms of build quality. it's just that to many, the difference is not great enough to justify the inevitable HUGE difference in price. as for the performance of zeiss lenses, the story is a little different -- and this i think is the reason blad may be doomed. there is a great article on lens manufacturing in the current issue of that shameless marketing rag, leica photagraphie. it describes how leica (and zeiss), until the early 90s, were way ahead of the japanese in the development of new types of optical glass. the contributions of these companies were extraordinary, and their products really were head and shoulders above japanese production. however, since the early 90s, both companies have pretty much abandoned the field of glass design, since advances in technology have largely mooted the old approaches to glass formulation (read the article if you want the specifics). as a result of these changes, zeiss and leica have lost a large part of their edge over the japanese competition. in addition, new developments in the manufacture of aspheric glass elements, etc. -- and the wide availability of this technology -- has further eroded the performance difference between companies. as a result, the optical performance of the german cameras is simply not much better, if at all, than lenses from the larger japanese companies. in the end, blad cameras are a pleasure to use, and represent the zenith of optical and mechanical design. however, the blad edge is smaller than ever, and the cost differential is greater than ever ($7500 for a 205 body at b&h!!). this is not a good thing for the company. hopefully there will be those who choose to support the marque. but i'm just not sure. rollei made more cameras in 1956 than it has made in the twenty one years since 1980. the mighty can fall.

[raymond_valois]

Andrew Booth ...

 

A wise decision ... thank you soooooomuch!

 

I've been flushing them from my e-mail inbox without even a glance.

 

Ray

[squareframe]

I was on vacation, downed a stiff drink, and wrote a few careless lines defending Hasselblad from an internet cafe. I must have missed quite a show, and would love to have someone forward me the post-discussions.

 

when Hasselblad figures are up, does that mean they are genius and underpricing their products? remember the commercial about the guy looking for a great razor so he bought the company. perhaps we can all pool collectively, and make an offer?

[richard blau]

As long as we are going to discuss business and economics, let''s stick to the facts. I am

afraid that Roger's comments about Rolex are incorrect.

 

I think you will find, if you dig a little (I suggest timezone.com as a start) that Rolex, in fact,

produces a very large number of watches per year (hundreds of thousands). Prices are

actually kept high in the United States by a strict (even ruthless) enforcement of

agreements with "authorized dealers" to maintain MSRP. Rolex will jerk a dealer's

authorization if word gets back that they are selling at a discount. That and advertising,

not scarcity, maintain the price. Of course, there have to be people willing to buy the

watch (Rolex believes that knowing one can't easily buy them at a disount, maintains

product image among customers). Many continue to argue (if you think this thread is bad,

try the love/hate Rolex thread on timezone) that you can do much better for the money.

Either way, Rolex is an extremely well made watch. Rolex charges what it can get,

keeping in mind the prices of those it sees as its competitors.

 

Sorry about the correction, but if we want to argue by analogy, I'd really prefer to keep

the facts straight. Perhaps a car analogy........

[richard_freedman1]

What a shame a number of us were censored on this thread. I'd like to think that this forum is where both pros and serious amateurs can seek real-world advice that they're just not going to get in a camera store prior to buying; in fact, I've always likened the forum to a bunch of guys (and gals!) sitting around the pub after work chatting on their personal opinions of techniques and equipment over a good pint--sometimes the talk gets a bit hard and heavy, but it's always in good fun and rarely vicious. Naturally, a press release revealing negative facts on Hasselblad is going to bring the "anti's" foreward, resulting in us pro-Bladders giving our defence. There's a lot of good information on both sides that the potential new buyer would want to read; I personally have found pricelessly handy information from non-Bladders despite being a devoted user; and I was looking foreward to reading the responses to my (deleted) reply, which certainly was not in any way malicious towards anyone. This is a great forum, both informative and fun; I recommend censorship be approached with caution and reserved for attacks of a malicious nature.

[andrew l. booth]

Richard. This is a moderated forum. Very little moderation goes on; what moderation there is is usually carried out to prevent abuse, and to improve forum quality by deleting repeated questions and off-topic posts. This isn't intended to be a chat forum either - new questions/topics should be raised and discussed, but the archives should be used instead for repeat enquiries. Moderation is not censorship; and it's something you've accepted by posting - it's clearly stated on the 'ask a question' page.

 

Most folks here probably haven't used the internet long enough to have seriously used the usenet bulletin boards - they're an example of how unmoderated forums eventually degenerate, and one of the reasons why the photo.net moderated community was set up.

 

Please exercise self control in your postings. I would prefer not to delete anything, but blind brand fanaticism is not interesting, we've been there before, and it's not the subject of this thread. Please email me if you'd like to discuss further.

[mark_mitchell5]

I disagree. I posted a thought several days ago that was both germaine to the topic & not a repeat, yet deleted. Exactly the reason I'm tired of photonet - opinions expressed, sometimes valuable & then deleted. Why not delete the whole damn thread?

[juan_mateos_hernandez]

This is a response to the moderator:Andrew Booth concerning his taking off some postings supossedly "anti-Nikon,Contax or whatever".

The comentaries I did about Contax645 were not in any way against the brand. I was just stating some points which i had the opportunity of suffering and were completely based on things that actually happened to that equipment. So I can´t see the point of such censorship as everybody is supposed to argue pro or against any brand or material

[roger_michel]

this is not a watch forum (of which there are many) so i will keep my response very brief. rolex certainly does create artificial scarcity with a number (if not all) of its watches. to take a couple famous examples, for years the explorer 1 and daytona models have purposely been produced in small numbers to ensure high demand and price. diito the nondate sub and the mini yachtmaster. even if you don't believe that rolex engages in these practices (go to www.timezone.com and raise the issue on the rolex forum -- you will get an earfull), the basic concept is well known in the world of luxury goods. need i say more than "debeers?" anyway, whether you believe that kind-hearted merchants would engage in such tactics or not, it is largely irrelevant to my comments about blad -- the real issue at hand. as for the moderator's decision to edit this thread -- i am all for it (even though my own totally benign remarks were censored). i think any and all uncivil comments should be deleted immediately, regardless of their substantive value. i think there should be a zero tolerance policy for flames. i have gotten into beefs here before and always regretted it later.

[richard_freedman1]

Meanwhile, back at the Hasselblad news article...

While it would be pretty devastating to see Hasselblad fall from grace and enter receivership, and let's all pray it never does, imagine the cult status these cameras would take on. Ever talk to a hardcore Kowa affictionado? I was one for seven years, and found it so cool to be part of this unknown clique (and they were pretty amazing lenses; too bad about the cameras themselves). Since Hasselblads rarely die, the used market would be abundant for years (decades?). Will digital kill off medium format? I doubt it, especially with those 16-megapixel digital backs ($20,000+ - who are they kiddin'!). What's really irking me about this article is the drastic overnight drop on only a year: from 623 million down to 16 million? This sounds sorta suspect; you'd expect a decline in annual sales to be much more gradual.

[janm]

Richard,

You're mixing up the number. Sales during 2000 were 623 million. They didn't reveal sales for 2001, but they lost money: costs exceeded sales by 16 million during the first half of the year.

Sorry if I was unclear!

[studio jb]

I've just talked to Hasselblad Northern California rep., he said despite the economy they did pretty good about 90% of their sales quota, which they were down about $ 1,000,000 in USA. They were low in Europe because European economy got hit harder. But also the others were down. Maybe Mamiya did better because of the value of Yen last year. So I don't think Hasselblad is the only one got effected from the economic turndown. BTW, Hasselblad is own by United Bank of Switzerland now, so they are not alone financially. The bank is the one made the decision to sell the old building and move to a new one. Because old building is located by the Goteborg docs which was pretty expensive property. Bank sold the old property this way they already made their money from Hasselblad.

For me thinks are still looking optimistic for the company.

Cheers to all!