Did the long name hurt Konica-Minolta marketing?

[JKirbs]

OK, here is the proof that the new long name hurt.

1. When you type the name, what do you type? Answer - 'KM'

2. When you talk about the camera, what do you say? Answer -'Minolta'

3. What does a Sony camera owner say? Answer -'It's a Sony'

Nuf said!

Nail. Head. You got it Rick. Bloody brand marketer's nightmare.

Think about it this way, no matter what SONY do, someone will always cry, "But Minolta would have done better".

Touche! This is why i think KM has got some smarts! (and someone else to carry the can LOL)

very best from me,

• kirbs

--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================

 

[David Kilpatrick]

PhotoTraveler wrote:
Real cameras have nice clean simple

classic names.

Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Pentax... They all have a nice
classic feel to them, and give you a sense of quality.
Konica-Minolta sounds like something on sale at K-Mart.

Zeiss Ikon, Thornton Pickard, Sands Hunter, SOM Berthiot, Taylor Taylor Hobson, Wallace Heaton, Agfa-Gevaert - good few double or more names out there in photography in the past.

But... mainly in the past

David

 

[Prognathous]

Zeiss Ikon, Thornton Pickard, Sands Hunter, SOM Berthiot, Taylor
Taylor Hobson, Wallace Heaton, Agfa-Gevaert - good few double or
more names out there in photography in the past.

But... mainly in the past

I think you're on to something. I knew it had to be the name! ;-)

Prog.

 

[MinoltaDrew]

I can't see it helping, but I doubt it really mattered.

From a marketing standpoint, they should have kept the cameras as Minolta, even though the company is Konica-Minolta. It's simply not a selling point. Think of Exxon-Mobil. They kept gas stations named Exxon and ones named Mobil because they had brand value (to some, at least). Did Ford rename Saab (or Volvo)? No, the name has value, even if the company/corporate parent is different. And did the name bring people into the Konica line of anything? I doubt it.

That said, Minolta faced the same problems regardless of the name, and we'd probably be here today still even if it had been teh Minolta D7.

 

[Iggy1965]

I think that discussions like this one are useless because we can't change these kind of situations. I think this discussion is better placed in a marketing discussion group.

--
Best regards

Iggy

 

[bsmg]

I think it could happen but only to some extent. Its not secret that people often buy brands they trust and I think its especially visible in case of photographic equipmet - i have no explanation why is it so but i strongly believe it.
To make a test you should think if you would like to buy the following brands:

Agfa Canon
Fuji Nikon

or even more crazy ones like:

Casio Leica
Apple Olympus

or really funny (any example would fit here):

Logitech Sony
Creative Pentax
Kingstion Samsung
Sandisk Kodak

Does anyone like them?

 

[Peter Gregg]

Did the Konica name on the label lessen the reputation/credibility
of Minolta cameras?

I think it hurt it enough to suck the business right out from under them. It all comes down to "the shelf" at Best Buy or whereever they are sitting side by side. Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Leica, are names that have been sitting in househoulds as the current generation grew up. Then management comes along and gives no weight to what was built upon in the past.

Kodak is changing their logo. FTD was the second most recognizable logo in the world at some point, now I would have a hard time finding what it looks like today.

What I really object to is the new crop of management and the way they do business at too many companies. young chip that gets into a high spot may change the Mercedes logo and has no clue the weight it carries because he can barely wipe his own butt because momma has babied him all his life. Now these mama's boys have grown up and are running companies - into the ground.

The BEST thing Sony can do is revive the Minolta brand AND at the same time compete with it's own brand under it's own name. They get both sales. They build on the name Minolta has built, and also they have "the keys to the vault" to take a camera and rebadge it like Panasonic and Leica do. How would like to see Panasonic-Leica on a future camera?

Peter

 

[thegoodhuman]

What marketing? I didn't even know KM had any marketing...hehe!

 

[john farrar]

Too right about the new bean counters' demolition job!

"To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. "
Sir Winston Churchill
(1874 - 1965)

--
John.
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr

 

[shoot123]

KM wasn't a law firm -- just because you merge companies doesn't mean you use all the names on the product.

The evidence is overwhelming that KM didn't have a clue about marketing their products. They were probably so busy trying to integrate the two companies, that they failed to deal with the realities of the market.

Typical of many mergers - bigger is rarely better if you're dealing with corporate egos.

 

[Andrew Cruickshank]

If you have a brand it's stupid to dilute it.

Very few SLR buyers would be aware of the Hexar RF cams.

It moved Minolta's name in alpabetical listings. Confuses
searches for accessories and used equipment.

The brand name became smaller and near illegible on the
kit due to the cramped fit for the letters.

It cost money to rebrand.

In summary it gained them nothing, cost them something, and
probably lost them a small amount of custom.

--
---------------
Andrew.

 

[José B]

It seemed like ages ago but I kept on referring to that interview done with one of KM's upper management about the collaboration of the Minolta and Konica teams to get that famous color and skin tone rendition.

Overall I have to agree that the Konica name had a negative impact on the reputation of Minolta cameras.

José

Did the Konica name on the label lessen the reputation/credibility
of Minolta cameras?

I think the answer is YES to both questions, but I don't think it
was their main mistake. A well chosen name can only take you so
far, and a badly chosen one should not be the end of the day.

Prog.

--
Images of beautiful women anyware-----Canon DSLR system
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d

 

[Jim Cockfield]

I have no history with Minolta at all, film or digital.

But, I did buy a Konica Revio KD-510z when it was first introduced (I got mine in July 2003, before it was shipping in the U.S. as the Minolta G500).

It's got it's faults. But, I'll give it this... the photos from this camera require less post processing than photos from any other camera I've owned, including digital cameras from Nikon, Olympus, Sony and Epson.

That goes for my Konica Miinolta Maxxum 5D, too.

IMO, the little Konica KD-510z has better metering, white balance and image processing algorithms. It's too bad about the redeye using it's built in flash, though (to be expected from a subcompact model with a flash located so close to the lens).

Noise? Sure, no contest (the DSLR is gong to win every time). Flexibility, control of depth of field via aperture selection, etc... Sure, the DSLR is going to win.

But, that doesn't change my thoughts on how this little Konica meters and processes images. I really like this little camera.

IOW, I can't fault this little Konica for it's intended market. It's capable of taking some very nice photos, with little to no "tweaking" needed later for best results. I can't say that about other digital cameras I've owned (and that includes ALL of them).

Were some bad business decisions made? Sure. Was the name change a part of it? Sure.

When the merger first took place, I thought that they were going to market the same models under one camera brand in some parts of the world, and use the brand in other parts of the world.

That's what it looked like their plan was to begin with (an example being my Konica Revio KD-510z, which was marketed under both brand names using two different model numbers).

I figured that they were probably using the brand name that had the most credibility/acceptability for a given target market (either Konica or Minolta).

But, that's not the way it turned out.

I'm no expert on their financials (and I've never tried to research them). But, I also understand that they didn't plan for the taxes on combined revenue well enough, and that hurt them (higher percentage of total revenue going to taxes, compared to what the separate companies would have paid).

My understanding may not be correct, but I can remember reading an story about it at one point.

--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield

 

[Shahak Nagiel]

...but they're a very large and established electronics company with a number of respected, professional-grade products. Here's one example:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=0&p=2&sp=19&id=70976

Their reputation in DSLR's may (hopefully) develop and appreciate rapidly.

 

[hanugro]

Konica, Fuji, Kodak, Agfa name is always traditional player of making film and print (in my country at least). Minolta, Pentax, Nikon, Canon, and some other brand not exist today like Yashica, etc are associated with the camera that uses those film. Then some film maker start doing camera as well and traditional camera maker also making other fine optical stuff, like copier, medical, etc.

Actually Konica Minolta is a great possibilty but they are failing to take advantage of their goodwill name. What is better than a film, print and camera maker joining force? But it seems that Fuji and Kodak took the same hit suggest that film division (not prints) is taking a hit very hard. So I don't complain about KM decided to abandon film and film-camera. What suprise me they also abandon digital camera, and print business which I think still exist well within next decade. I would still print my picture as I can take and put it anywhere I want without electricity. KM simply not advertise their product enough. I never see KM advertise their dSLR in my country. KM and Olympus has the same distributor in my country and when they advertise they only advertise Oly (full line from P&S to dSLR) and KM only P&S.

I know that other business portfolio in KM is easier to make money. Medical stuff is very expensive and 'easier' to maintance. I mean easier is because they have huge profit margin and sell to (big) organisation only. A big margin and small number of customers to deal with. Copier also the same as not every people will buy copier in their home.

Now KM decided that they will become OEM for camera. As Herbert Keppler put it, it is no loss business as they will have money up front. They will make camera as much as Sony ask them to do, get the money in full, and do not have to worry about selling and especially servicing every one of them. They will keep all the patent though if they want to be able to sell to other company than Sony (for example AS).

Sony is eager to become a player in dSLR but I bet they only pay small amount of money to have the exclusive right for KM dSLR and 49% of share in KM Malaysia factory. They also took over KM servicing as part of the deal (which KM is oblidge to do so they will have to give discount to Sony to make them takeover).

So Sony will ONLY have the right to make dSLR using KM patent but not own it. SOny got an instant dSLR line and not having to pay much to R&D from scratch. They already have a massive network of selling and servicing of consumer electronic worlwide so adding a dSLR advertisement and servicing is peanut for them anyway. It's win-win solution for KM and Sony. And KM, still have most of the patent, will be able to make digital camera again if they see fit. Will this happen as my line suggest? I don't think so but it is possibility nevertheless.

 

[lcmacedo]

... IMHO KM would quit as they did anyway. Their marketing was poor enough to show their lack of interest ( or capability ) in continuing as a competitor in the tough DSLR market. The agreement with Sony is an "easier" way out.

Anyway, we'll still keep getting excellent camera bodies for our lenses with Sony as well as lenses ( both Minolta and Tamron being somewhat partners to Sony ).

I keep with my mind set that Sony should capitalise on the Minolta brand name, licensing it for their DSLR's ( like Toyota has Lexus, Honda has Accura, etc., as their top-of-line products... ).

... Lucas

--
Always having fun with photography ...

 

[A_German]

Sony has bought the Konica-Minolta photo-optical division but not the brand name.

There´s actually a sell out of origin Konica Minolta photo gear here in Germany.

The agreements between Sony and Minolta commit Sony to provide professionel customer services in the near future for Ex-Minolta gear.

The new coming Sony-DSLR will still use Minolta kompatible bayonets.

The first new DSLR lenses are all "Minolta" designs and not by Zeiss.
Despite this, the partnership between Sony Zeiss isn´t cancelled.

But in the near future isn´t a Zeiss lens line for the SONY DSLR´s not to expect.

 

[aphotodude]

I never even thought of it as Konica_ Minolta. It has always been minolta and always will even if you change the name to Sony

 

[hanugro]

... IMHO KM would quit as they did anyway. Their marketing was poor
enough to show their lack of interest ( or capability )

Poor is an understatement. Their marketing is sh*t. I think they are just hoping that existing user will buy and not try to lure new user.

continuing as a competitor in the tough DSLR market. The agreement
with Sony is an "easier" way out.
Anyway, we'll still keep getting excellent camera bodies for our
lenses with Sony as well as lenses ( both Minolta and Tamron being
somewhat partners to Sony ).

Yeah, to sell more they have to advertise more meaning pouring out more money for unit already in red. Also there is no guarantee that they will turn to profit after they advertise heavily. KM is not Nikon/Pentax where main businsess is camera. For them it is question of survival of company as a whole if camera business died. KM camera business is just a small percentage and it is easier for them to bail out and become OEM.

I keep with my mind set that Sony should capitalise on the Minolta
brand name, licensing it for their DSLR's ( like Toyota has Lexus,
Honda has Accura, etc., as their top-of-line products... ).

That would be good but seems that they did not buy Minolta name. I would pay $100 extra to buy camera with Minolta name on it.

 

[JKirbs]

Hi,

errata and contradictions:

They will keep all the
patent though if they want to be able to sell to other company than
Sony (for example AS).

[ . . .]

Sony is eager to become a player in dSLR but I bet they only pay
small amount of money to have the exclusive right for KM dSLR and
49% of share in KM Malaysia factory. They also took over KM
servicing as part of the deal (which KM is oblidge to do so they
will have to give discount to Sony to make them takeover).

Although you may havve meant to make more distinctions there, you apppear to contradict yourself. The logic is that if Sony have a exclusive right to KM camera output, then any technology essential for maintaining that exclusive right's advantages would also be exclusive. My understanding is that even if special exceptions were provided in contract, much of contract law would argue "Sony exclusively bought rights to KM slrs based on unique features [AS] therefore KM selling AS tech undermines Sony's rights, and is therefore in breach of the effective and implied rights in contract".

So Sony will ONLY have the right to make dSLR using KM patent but
not own it.

Correct there.

The whole point is we know nothing as to the agreements in place. I don't even remember reading the words "exclusive" in any statement or release to date.

It's also fair to say that AS is a unique implementation of an idea, not a unique feature, unless you prefer to kow tow to the marketing people

SOny got an instant dSLR line and not having to pay
much to R&D from scratch.

Since we don't know how much Sony spent whilst working with KM, we can't really say they got anything cheaply.

A "hidden" cost is obviously the concern now in the minds of other Sony - dependant makers, such as Nikon (though Nikon drive Sony's chips with their own circuits which means 1) Nikon still have leverage 2) Nikon have in-house integration expertise aplenty) which may yet affect Sony's bottom line.

As an afterthought, i hate to think of the cost in management time of picking through the subtle and intertwined corporate landscape in Japan, just to make this "simple" deal happen . . .

And KM, still have most of the
patent, will be able to make digital camera again if they see fit.

That's very true. But how many patents are relevant? And how many will expire during a usefully observable timescale (couple camera generations)? My guess, without doing any proper research, is only a handful are relevant.

Will this happen as my line suggest? I don't think so but it is
possibility nevertheless.

Okay, i'll say it again, i'm now on record predicting KM to do this under an individual name (Minolta or Konica, not both) at the very high end or "unusual end" (like rangefinder) within 1.5 to 2 Canon generations from today (based on Eos1 series generations). At least it will be a while before you can have a good laugh at me

Now, having put my foot in mouth, (for the future at least, assuredly!) I'll move on,

best from me,

• kirbs

--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================