The further adventures of Pentax and Hoya

[wayne_campbell]

<p>The further adventures of Pentax and Hoya</p>

<p>http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUST15448620090818</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Wayne: I just read the article from the link you just posted.<br>

This is almost scary:<br>

<em>Hoya's Pentax unit posted an operating loss of 11.6 billion yen ($122.3 million) in the year ended March 31</em><br>

<em>"I'm afraid it will need some sort of alliance with another company in the long term."</em><br>

<em>Suzuki said he aims to turn Pentax operations profitable in the current financial year as the company presses ahead with cost-cutting.</em><br>

So, let's hope they will beef up rather than cut down on new DSLR products ... especially when we look at the new lenses and the K7 just out recently.</p>

<p> </p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>I'm not surprised DSLR sales are down for Pentax. Those of us who buy Pentax are generally quite conservative with our money, and in these financial times we are even more so. I wonder if Pentax lost a larger percentage of sales than did Canikon or any of the others.</p>

<p>Does Hoya want to strengthen its alliance with Samsung? The vibes I've been getting lately are quite the opposite. Is Samsung even releasing a GX-30? They already severely cut ties with Pentax when they designed the NX without help from Pentax, and without a K-like mount.</p>

<p>Who else can Pentax form an alliance with that will boost sales? I have no idea.</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>PentaKonCa?</p>

 

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Here's a thread discussing this topic at dpreview:</p>

<p><a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=32712890">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=32712890</a></p>

<p>This one is one of my favorites from the thread:</p>

<p>>>>"</p>

<p><strong>Re: Hoys seeks partner -- explicit admission NEW</strong> <a href="http://search.dpreview.com/?scope=ForumThread&sort=date&q=Hoys+seeks+partner+%2D%2D+explicit+admission">[sIMILAR]</a><br /><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/members/?User=hjivieimhuik">Tom Reynolds</a> - 10 hours ago</p>

 

 

 

<p >Since Hoya is already the partner, this is "business speak" for:</p>

<p >"We do not really want to risk putting a lot more money into the Pentax digital camera business and we would like to find a partner that is willing to take this risk and add their money instead of us. We are willing to transition this ownership change over time and support our current investment the best we can, hence the term partner. The skill set and experience of developing and selling a consumer product is not really a strength of the Hoya organization because we have never done this much in the past. Things like creative consumer based advertising, marketing, customer service, warranty work, working with retail stores, etc. are not what we are good at. Filters do not really require much creative marketing or warranty work. We are better at more mundane industrial and commercial products. We would love to continue selling glass to the new owner/partner."</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><<<"</p>

 

 

 

[r.t. dowling]

<blockquote>

<p>"Who else can Pentax form an alliance with that will boost sales?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Panasonic would've been a great choice if they weren't already tied to Four Thirds. :-\</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p><strong>Pentax & Kodak.</strong></p>

<p>They need to form an alliance with Kodak. Kodak wants to do cameras; and has an international market presence. Pentax does cameras, and needs more attention. Kodak's cameras have never really broken beyond the Brownie-type market share that they've enjoyed since the beginning. Pentax never really did well with cameras other than an SLR frame.</p>

<p>Kodak does chemistry well. Pentax does optics well. Their technical people will be able to speak the same language, because both of those sciences are right-brain thought; they're about balance and instrumentation; those types of people have to regard the whole in order to solve the problem with a part. </p>

<p>A Pentax & Kodak partnership would allow the strengths of one to bolster the weaknesses of the other. Their common strengths would allow them to build plans they could carry out, without creating an overly competitive internal culture. I think it's obvious; Pentax and Kodak.</p>

<p>Now, if I only had a briefcase that held a few hundred million. Then, of course, we'd have a 2010 K1000.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>A Pentax and Kodak partnership would scare the hell out of camera makers worldwide. It would be very competitive.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>i agree with john!</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>Kodak seems to be motoring along okay with their own line of compacts, and to date hasn't expressed any interest in SLRs. So, what's in it for Kodak? An opportunity to go head-to-head with Canikon on SLR AND compact cameras? Can't see Kodak relishing that prospect.</p>

[mithrandir]

<p>Kodak owns a boatload of sensor patents. Maybe Kodak still relishes the old film production model but updated with digital sensors. It would make sense to sell top-class sensors to Pentax.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Well, the news is not very surprising considering that Pentax sales have been troubled for a while, even without a deep recession. I'm actually more surprised that Hoya was able to execute the release of several higher-end lenses and the K-7. That's a commitment to me. I'm also surprised that the Hoya leader had to go public re: the search for a partner of some sorts. My total amateur guess is that the private talks with Samsung and whomever else went nowhere as the market value of Pentax declined by the week.</p>

<p>So now we can play at being virtual yentas.</p>

<p>I also really like the Kodak idea, as they have a strong retail presence, a five-star photographic brand name and heritage, and plenty of technological smarts.</p>

<p>Ricoh has also been mentioned. I don't know much about them besides their very good P&S and their line of popular office products. Intuitively, this too makes a lot of sense if Ricoh wanted to get into the prosumer market. One of the emerging Chinese electronics brands could swallow Pentax. Sometimes the right decision is not made too. Dell has a lot of cash.</p>

<p>This will be highly entertaining. There will also be lots of anxiety for many who will seek comfort switching to or starting off with camera brands with more perceived stability. The sky will be falling a whole lot more.</p>

<p>ME</p>

 

[jpo3136b]

<p>Pentax and Kodak: What's in it for Kodak? Kodak does want to do cameras, specifically, digital cameras. They want the prints. The materials that are used to build the prints are based on chemistry; it's an adaptation of the successful science that they used to make a profit with film. It's natural for the film company to switch to printing. <br>

Kodak knows that they cannot survive on film sales. They have to do printing; that means they need many users. Many users either directly want, or know they will want later, a DSLR. Pentax does DSLRs.</p>

<p>Pentax does DSLRs well. Their cameras last for decades. Kodak cameras appear, and then leave the market rather quickly. My guess is that this is solely because people associate the name Kodak with film, and not the camera. A Pentax & Kodak partnership would allow each company to maintain its successful niche. </p>

<p>Kodak has tried to do DSLRs before, in a partnership with Nikon that didn't go too well. Kodak fed Nikon parts, but when they tried to put out a camera body with their name on it, they began to stumble.</p>

<p>I think that a Pentax and Kodak partnership would go over much better; both have, well, not been targeting the Gucci crowd, no offense. Though, a look at the used lens market shows the value of some Pentax lenses. I think that people will pay extra for Nikon equipment; people don't pay extra for Kodak or Pentax. I suspect that this difference in the way a company expects a customer to pay would have caused problems for a Nikon/Kodak deal. I don't think it would occur with as much influence with Pentax and Kodak.</p>

<p>Pentax and Kodak both have a long history in being a little more blue collar in their price points and product quality. Sound products; reasonable price; affordable by the common man. </p>

<p>I think their people would get along intellectually on a technical level; and, there are probably many millions of previous users out there who have run Kodak films through Pentax cameras. In selling the way they have in the past, they really have lain a fair groundwork for getting people to know who they are.</p>

<p>Check out my use of "lain." ;-)</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>The 122 million dollar loss in a year suggests to me that Pentax is selling the individual objects at a profit, but not at enough of a profit to cover payroll costs of a modest company. I suspect that if you started adding up annual salaries of all the people involved, it'd be plausible to cough up a 122 million dollar loss; particularly during a time of restructuring; alignment would have its costs. </p>

<p>I don't know how profitable Kodak is, but I suspect that they've got similar concerns; and probably a similar pattern. I'd bet they're doing okay, item to item, but not well enough to pay their people as they should (including investors). </p>

<p>So, despite the shock of the bulk numbers, my guess is that what both of them would need would be a little of a financial boost. Two buddies working together are worth five individuals operating alone. <br>

<br />We could also use a nice big Kodak sensor in that 645D.</p>

<p>Pentax and Kodak. </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>OK, it's settled then: Kodak. When, where and what kind of food at the reception?</p>

[shaloot]

<p>let's have Ned read this post and get it (Pentax and Kodak) going...</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p><em>Many users either directly want, or know they will want later, a DSLR.</em></p>

<p>As I look around my circle of family and friends, this is clearly not the case. When they ask about my DSLR, I take the time to explain the differences, advantages, and price points, and they are all underwhelmed. They like their small, fairly cheap compact camera and don't care about the things that make a DSLR a better tool for photography. A few years ago they were happy with a film compact and didn't buy a film SLR - and nothing that's happened since has changed their minds.</p>

<p>Re prints: Kodak doesn't need to manufacture DSLRs in order to sell prints, all they need is for people to upload their pics to kodakgallery.com or bring their memory cards to one of the many Kodak printing kiosks around town. There is no technological or marketing linkage between selling DSLRs and selling prints.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p>Zane: <em>As I look around my circle of family and friends, this is clearly not the case</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So true here as well. They like the pictures I take sometimes but are not that interested in the bulk or expense themselves. My sister and her husband sprung for a D40 when their son was born, and my Aunt still sometimes shoots her old Minolta Maxxum 5000i with 50/1.8 (as well as a Kodak digicam) from time to time but that's it for SLR's. P&S for everybody else--most gave up film SLRs in the 80's as the P&S film cameras improved.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Agree with you Zane. DSLRs are for strict photo geeks these days.</p>

[martin_vanmeter1]

<p>another thing Hoya is not telling us .... was that a true division operating loss, or a loss when all the expenses and loan payments of the acquisition piled on top of any operation profit or loss. When a firm is acquired, as a division of the new company, it may be profitable, but when you pile on ALL the costs of the acquisition, something many companies do, there is no way they can cover all of it.</p>

[stemked]

<p>Robin (and others)<br>

If you want pull P&S shooters over to the 'dark side' (aka DSLR users) all it takes are active kids/grandkids. After they have missed several of those cute shots waiting for the camera to decide it is ready to take the shot they pine for an SLR. So far I have two converts back into the land of DSLRS thanks to my daughter.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>True, kinetic kids are a big selling point. I've mentioned that to my family/friends, but it doesn't seem to be a big enough draw. I think part of the "problem" with DSLRs is that they look too complex, and people have enough complexity in their lives already. I've pointed out to them that DSLRs have an easy "green" mode as well, but still no go. Cost, size, and weight put people off.</p>

<p>They <em>do </em> like the photos I get in low light or with bounce flash, though. They see the difference.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>I have said it before and will say it again. If Pentax wants to sell DSLR's they need an ashton kutcher to promote them. Not a photographer, but a celeb that will apeal to regular folks...Nikon's move was brilliant...</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>I've never been impressed with Kodak's sensors. Olympus used them for a while in their Four Thirds cameras, and they weren't that great. When Olympus switched to Matsushita (Panasonic) sensors, the improvement in image quality was dramatic. If I recall correctly, the sensors in Kodak's Nikon-based DSLRs weren't amazing either. Not "bad" per se, but not as good as the competing sensors from Canon and Sony.</p>

<p>Who knows, maybe Kodak's sensor technology has improved since then. But I would be very hesitant about Pentax going down that road. The last thing they need right now is to take a great DSLR and put a crappy sensor in it.</p>

<p>If Fuji wasn't already in bed with Nikon, that would be another great alliance. I'd take a Fuji sensor any day of the week over a Kodak sensor.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>It will be near impossible to beat Jennifer Connelly though...</p>