It's not a shell game, it's just smart marketing. Getting the most
return on your development money is a good thing.
There was a fellow in Detroit who was an expert at that kind of
marketing. His name was lee Iacocca. He worked for Ford in the days
when they were really number two. He had this car called Falcon that
had been only mildly successful and whose development costs had never
been recovered. He decided to give it some different sheetmetal and
reintroduce it with another name. I believe it was called "Mustang." It
generated enough profit that the company was able to develop some
rather nice follow-ups to that original. Later he played the same game
for even bigger stakes for Chrysler with a car called the "K." The same
basic 1980 platform was used to build at least twenty cars, all the way
up to the 2003 Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge Caravan minivans. It
saved the company from almost certain bankruptcy and set the stage for
what is now the only profitable US car company. Rebadging a product to
stimulate sales is almost always a good idea. Frankly, I'm surprised
that Pentax plays it as smart as they obviously do.
Paul
On Jan 28, 2006, at 12:30 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
If they're all variations of the same model then it's just a shell
game.
Pål Jensen wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Shell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Interesting analysis:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/19/bloomberg/sxpentax.php
This part is quite interesting:
""We'll shift focus to more profitable single-lens reflex digital
cameras, to offset price declines in compact types," Urano said.
Pentax plans to raise the pace of new model introductions to three
per year from two, starting this year, he said."
--
When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
