Reading mode: Light Dark

Did the long name hurt Konica-Minolta marketing?

Go to last post
(or ultimately to us?)
David Kilpatrick said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nice Post David!

I don't know enough about Japanese management culture, but a thought occured to me:

(i may have missed a few in my zealousness to post)

Konishi-ya
Konishi-honten
Konishiroku Honten
K.K. Konishiroku
Konishiroku Shashin Kogyo K.K.
David Kilpatrick said:
David Kilpatrick said:
David Kilpatrick said:
David Kilpatrick said:
"Konica"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nichi-doku Shashinki Shokai
Chiyoda Kogaku Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha
Chiyoko
David Kilpatrick said:
David Kilpatrick said:
David Kilpatrick said:
David Kilpatrick said:
"Minolta"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Since Konica and Minolta were and (i expect remain so, in some perceptions) only brands, where do we go from here, if we take that assumption? (and i note here that the name change to brand-name slipstreamed very roughly those companies becoming publicly quoted)

Will "Konica - Minolta" branded units some day be an obscure "rare, collectable" on ebay?

It's like tracking the Jena name, or any other. One great photographic easter egg hunt! :-)
  • kirbs
--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================
 
The name had nothing to do with it.
They were ridiculously late to market.
They marketed half-a* ed.
They came out with few lenses very late.
Their SSM lenses were 8 years late and outrageously priced.

The 5D and 7D are good but M/KM behaved as if they released them reluctantly.

Did anyone [in the US] ever see a television ad for 5D or 7D?

A fart is a fart even if you call it a rose. The KM name had nothing to do with it.
 
Hi,
shoot123 said:
Typical of many mergers - bigger is rarely better if you're
dealing with corporate egos.
Click to expand...
Skipping the ego part of that (and how big would your ego be today, if you ran KM and loved your photography?) both K and M realised they were shrinking, and needed to bulk other businesses to cope with that shrink. If capital and free cash flow was no problem, i doubt they'd have exited cameras, even if it's a smart financial move medium - term. I don't therefore think it was anything about bigger. From the top of my head, the merged KM is way smaller than other players in theiir remaining markets - Kodak, Oce, Xerox, Canon, even KBA - Karat possibly if you skew the numbers, in corporate in-house print output.
  • kirbs
--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================
 
I largely agree with you.
liquid stereo said:
The name had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Yes, no way was it the most important consideration, but i see a flip - side, below . .
liquid stereo said:
They were ridiculously late to market.
Click to expand...
Had it been a 9D, and not a 5D, to the kind of spec Minolta afficionados wanted, would timing have mattered?
liquid stereo said:
They marketed half-a* ed.
Click to expand...
They marketed? LOL, so true :(
liquid stereo said:
They came out with few lenses very late.
Click to expand...
Other brands are in big lens - lock problems. AF-S upgrades for key Nikon primes e.g., Canon woeful on offering wides good enough for their bigger sensors. As we all know, Minolta simply never made enough at reasonable prices. 35/1.4 for $800 anybody? The price points had to make sense.
liquid stereo said:
Their SSM lenses were 8 years late and outrageously priced.
Click to expand...
I don't get how you make it 8 years too late? The 70-200VR GD F-S isn't 8 years old, e.g.
liquid stereo said:
The 5D and 7D are good but M/KM behaved as if they released them
reluctantly.
Click to expand...
I agree with the reluctant part. That's a very sad but insightful observation you make.
liquid stereo said:
Did anyone [in the US] ever see a television ad for 5D or 7D?
Click to expand...
Did anyone anywhere? (let that be a rhetorical question, if no-one has seen a TV ad)
liquid stereo said:
A fart is a fart even if you call it a rose. The KM name had
nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Okay, now my flip side - what if Sony creates an awesome KM mount machine, will the consuming publlic associate Sony with great cameras?

cheers!
  • kirbs
--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================
 
Sony will probably use Maxxum/Dynax somewhere or abandon all Minolta trademarks.

I sincerely believe in Sony's ability to invest in, develop, as well as market products.

Who knows though... A week after my Sony F717 died, I got a 7D, VC-7D, and 17-35 for $750. I'll gladly switch to Canon if Sony doesn't offer an upgrade path in 2-4 years.

And I do believe they will innovate. The next two cameras will probably be KM products. In early-2007 though it should be different.
JKirbs said:
Okay, now my flip side - what if Sony creates an awesome KM mount
machine, will the consuming publlic associate Sony with great
cameras?

cheers!
  • kirbs
--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================
Click to expand...
 
I genuinely hope so.
liquid stereo said:
Sony will probably use Maxxum/Dynax somewhere or abandon all
Minolta trademarks.
Click to expand...
I would have though that any dael for Maxxum/Dynax names would have been mentioned by now. But what you say makes sense, moreso on the abandonment side.

So long as they don't call it "Mavica"
liquid stereo said:
I sincerely believe in Sony's ability to invest in, develop, as
well as market products.
Click to expand...
See Mavica :)
liquid stereo said:
Who knows though... A week after my Sony F717 died, I got a 7D,
VC-7D, and 17-35 for $750. I'll gladly switch to Canon if Sony
doesn't offer an upgrade path in 2-4 years.
Click to expand...
It's a very fluid game, at least for those like me who need to own only small lens sets. I find this freedom - or rather not building a huge system like i did in film days with Minolta, a lot of fun. It only helps to spread one's experience, and in switching i learned more afresh - about real photography, not model specs etc. - than i had done in years.
liquid stereo said:
And I do believe they will innovate. The next two cameras will
probably be KM products. In early-2007 though it should be
different.
Click to expand...
I still don't expect any Sony to be available to buy more than weeks before 2007. Hunch, not prediction, though i've said as much many times now.

On to positive things about Sony. At their high end camera, for moving picture, they have a range of amazing HDTV cine style cams, which is what Lucas shot with recently. If this is the direction they take (as i wrote before a few times) to adapt the Minolta glass to cine use - where Sony loose hugely valuable sales to lensmakers and direct competitor Canon - and take the same attitudes as that division, then we may look to a very bright future. I think the point about Canon might be most valid there in terms of forcing the KM deal ethos upstream to Sony Pro and Industrial over Sony Consumer Electronics.

kind regards,
  • kirbs
--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================
 
I give a long shot, but possible shot that someday KM decides to make a cameras again, but takes a different path.

They go back to their roots and bring the X series back. Make new digital bodies and a few new lenses, this would get them bunch of sales from old X series users, and give them a nice niche. Since a Digital 35mm MF SLR is what many want do to the compact ness and low weight, plus pure retro appeal. it could be a side deal. Doesn't effect what they do with Sony on the MAF mount either. And they just call them Minoltas.

Be a little niche deal like the Epson RD1.

Or, I can see Sony taking off with the MAF mount. In the mean time, KM uses that cash-flow to go and cook up something all new. Basically go and design a brand new camera from the ground up, lens system too. All new, no legacy, if you could start over kinda deal. Since they still are making cameras for sony they have the resources still going, and they have money coming in from the sony side.

Just think what they could do with say 5-10 years of work behind the scenes. Just look at how well they did with the 7D by taking their time. Of course this time they would develop the marketing department too.

I picture a new shape of body, in it a bigger then 35mm sensor, something like 30x60mm. And new lenses designed from the ground up, all SSM from day one.Probably some form of Digital Range finder design. So make it EVF (even though I hate them) but also have a Optical Range finder view on top. This can help make it compact and light.
 
Call their copiers Konica and their cameras Minolta.

Everything points to the fact, that both companies were much more interested in making copiers, and Konica wanted to gain size buying Minolta.

Since it is a long name, why not shorten it? And why not make a clear distinction between the copier branch and the camera branch? Both makers were folding on the camera business anyway, and Konica had no part in either the 7D or the 5D (except the money to save the project).

To answer the original question: The change in name has certainly had an impact on me. I'm very happy that my four Minolta lenses are just that. I also have a Sigma (because Minolta didn't make an ultra wide zoom at the time). I have been tempted by the 70-200 mm, but if I don't get one before they're all Sony, I may wait until I can have one used.
 
No the name didn't kill them, lack of good advertising and overpricing when the 7D was first introduced, are too reasons why the 7D never really hit it big like the Canon 20D. It is a shame, the 7D and the 5D for that matter are damn good cameras. Minolta lens are top notch. As far as the longer name, I think it would have been better to see just "Minolta" on the 7D then "Konica-Minolta". I will pick up a 7D soon. I see the prices dropping even lower. Don't be surprised to see the 7D/lens kit go as low as $700.00. If it does, I'm their.

Take Care and God Bless,

Ed
--
Photography is mans way of imitating the beauty of God.
 
JKirbs said:
errata and contradictions:
JKirbs said:
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).
Click to expand...
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".
Click to expand...
OK I don't really know whether all deal are exclusive or not but seems that at the moment only Sony have the right to use A-mount. I especially mention AS as I don't think KM give exclusive right to Sony for AS though since, if I remember correctly, David Kilpatrick show a link about Sanyo using AS licensed from KM. So KM seems eager to sell/license AS (especially for P&S digicam) to anybody who wants to use it. It will be fine for Sony since they have their own steady shoot in P&S. So it seems that part of the patent are exclusive right and the other are not.

Actually Anti Shake is a really cool (and highly marketable) name rather than Image Stabilised, Steady Shoot, VR or whatever. It is more vibrant and energetic! KM simply can't market a camera. Maybe most of their employees are photographer and engineer.
JKirbs said:
JKirbs said:
SOny got an instant dSLR line and not having to pay
much to R&D from scratch.
Click to expand...
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 . . .
Click to expand...
Yes but I think it is obvious that doing the deal with KM is cheaper than R&D from scratch otherwise it will not done deal. Also 16million lenses is a huge instant market (very high value). It is so much better than if they have to make 16milion of their own lenses and market it from scratch.
JKirbs said:
JKirbs said:
And KM, still have most of the
patent, will be able to make digital camera again if they see fit.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I forget that patent may expired!
JKirbs said:
JKirbs said:
Will this happen as my line suggest? I don't think so but it is
possibility nevertheless.
Click to expand...
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 :-)
Click to expand...
If they see fit, they might do it, but it is a long shot. I always thought that when Sony and KM joint forces that Sony will play at 3D to 5D level and KM at 7D-9D level. Now Sony need to do all to succeed.
 
Well, before KM form I never knew Konica make copier, lol. I only knew they make film, print (picture) business and that's it. I knew Minolta have copier back then. Biggest copier in my country always Xerox and the others come below Xerox, but Minolta still have bigger market than Konica in copier (in my country).
Klipsen said:
Call their copiers Konica and their cameras Minolta.

Everything points to the fact, that both companies were much more
interested in making copiers, and Konica wanted to gain size buying
Minolta.
Click to expand...
 
The fact that 7D 6mp and 20D 8mp and priced a bit lower than 7D hit hard. For average Joe, 8mp 20D is a better option with a better price.

They over estimate AS while pople has not realised the advantage. I own A2 and really like to buy 7D when first released, but 6mp and $1500 list price force me to wait and settle for 5D.
Ed Duffy said:
No the name didn't kill them, lack of good advertising and
overpricing when the 7D was first introduced, are too reasons why
the 7D never really hit it big like the Canon 20D.
Click to expand...
 
hanugro said:
Yes but I think it is obvious that doing the deal with KM is
cheaper than R&D from scratch otherwise it will not done deal.
Also 16million lenses is a huge instant market (very high value).
It is so much better than if they have to make 16milion of their
own lenses and market it from scratch.
Click to expand...
sorry to split your argument, but - point in hand - there are about 30 Million Pentax mount lenses. As for Leica bayonet mount, i expect many many more. And for 42mm screw - mount?

How many still exist?

How many are good?

How many are worth more than $10, which means nothing to a new user?

Do you want to have 10 Million crappy lenses, or 2 Million good ones.

Discuss :-)
  • kirbs
--
=====================
Bring Back The Mind Of Minolta !
=====================
 
Do you think it is easy to sell 1 million totally brand-new-mount from newcomer in dSLR arena? People would be thinking hard to buy totally-new Sony mount dSLR. They would rather go to establish one like Pentax, KM, Nikon, and Canon. Do you think Samsung will be brave enough to sell dSLR without Pentax mount? Or Panasonic without Oly mount? Oly 4/3 is brave decision but at least Oly is an old player in dSLR. Also Oly new 4/3 is nowhere close to 20% of dSLR market.

Sony choose KM since only KM available (they tried to buy Nikon last year but Nikon say no thanks). KM said that they sell to Sony because it will be impossible for A-mount to survive if they sell it to establish name that has their own mount.

It is clear that there will be no KM-Pentax, KM-Oly, or Oly-Pentax since each of them along with Canon and Nikon has its own proprietary mount.
 
I've seen some of Canon's.
 
I got my D7D + 17-35 + VC-7D for $750.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top