Last time I looked Chrysler was racking up big profits. The minivan was
a K derivitive, and it was hugely successful as were a number of other
K derivitives. The first Ks were admittedly nothing special, but they
did save the company. Toyota was going to get defections with or
without Chrysler's badge engineering. By the way, Toyota does a
masterful job of rebadging the same car, as do the other Japanese
makes.
Paul
On Jan 28, 2006, at 1:22 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Ah, yes, Lee Iacocca, father or was that step father of the Chrysler K
car. I know people who used to buy American until their first K car,
now they buy Toyota, and so do their children and I expect so will
their children's children. That kind of marketing only works in the
short run, for the company that engages in at least. Well to keep
the analogy going Pentax better have a light simple sheet metal
chassis with a high volume Hemi V8 in it waiting in the wings.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
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).
--
When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
