Reading mode: Light Dark

Another Big Camera Store Fails:

Go to last post
... if it wasn't located in NYC. A huge city with plenty of professional photographers and videographers who need instant access to tools for their trade? A city that is flooded with tourists on a daily basis, including some who make a visit to the B&H Superstore a "must see" destination? (And I am in that group).

... if it didn't have a huge online business too? I am sure your store does a lot of volume, but I suspect your online sales are even larger.

Someday, if the trend away from brick and mortar shopping continues B&H might become just another website, like Ritz or Circuit City. It will be sad if it happens, but it might be inevitable. No one can stay in business for very long by being a showcase for Amazon to sell online.

Much of this was caused by changes in customer behavior, but an awful lot was caused by the shrinking of the overall market for digital cameras. According to CIPA, their unit shipments are down 75% from just five years ago. This by necessity means "fewer retailers are needed."

One thing for certain. Whether B&H continues as a retail store, as an online store, or as a combination of both, they will always need a good customer services manager.

So your job is safe!
 
HRC2016 said:
Why is the guy going to DC to lobby for a state issue?
Click to expand...
So federal law will force all retailers to collect and pay to the state the appropriate sales tax. California is around 10% most places, not paying sales tax really helps drive down the cost of a large purchase.

Chuck
 
antoineb said:
Some figures to start with:
- in the peak year 2010, no less than 121 million dedicated cameras were sold. Last year, it was closer to 20m. About 6 TIMES less.
- in 2015, about 97% of all cameras sold, were those on Smartphones. They accounted for an even bigger shares of photos that were taken, uploaded, and shared. In 2016, the figure was closer to 98%.
- DSLRs and mirrorless are NOT saving the party. They peaked at 21m units in 2012, and were below 11m units last year. That's HALF. Within this, mirrorless has stayed just over 3m units for the past 4 years, i.e. no growth, while DSLRs continued to shrink.

Needless to say, revenues came down roughly in line with units - a bit less so, due to attempts to move upmarket a bit.

Needless to say, retailers had extended their Photo space massively on the run to the peak. Non-dedicated retailers had flexibility to adjust in-store space. Dedicated photo retailers had no choice.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that dedicated photo retailers should fail.

Will they ALL disappear? Hopefully not! In theory you can still make money off 10-11m ILC units, plus accessories and lenses. BUT:
- one worrying demographic, is that the younger generations couldn't care less about big, dedicated cameras. They have grown with Smartphones, and don't see why they should lug a big heavy beast that will be inferior to their Smartphone in many ways (even if it delivers better very high ISO).
- and one worrying development (for ILCs, not from my point of view), is that pretty soon all smartphones will have dual or triple imaging modules, will deliver very solid IQ, and will be able to zoom either virtually, or perhaps even thanks to actual optical zooms.
henryp said:
Another Big Camera Store Fails: Why Are So Many Closing?

Some informative insights here IMO
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
henryp said:
Another Big Camera Store Fails: Why Are So Many Closing?

Some informative insights here IMO

--
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video
Click to expand...
it's interesting to read, it's going to have to be an issue the states figures out. Most other countries have gone to a country wide sales tax - which evens the playing field. it's a mess in the USA, and you'd have to wonder how much it's hurting both the states and americans needing jobs - for any product that can be sold online and shipped.
 
digitallollygag said:
antoineb said:
Some figures to start with:
- in the peak year 2010, no less than 121 million dedicated cameras were sold. Last year, it was closer to 20m. About 6 TIMES less.
- in 2015, about 97% of all cameras sold, were those on Smartphones. They accounted for an even bigger shares of photos that were taken, uploaded, and shared. In 2016, the figure was closer to 98%.
- DSLRs and mirrorless are NOT saving the party. They peaked at 21m units in 2012, and were below 11m units last year. That's HALF. Within this, mirrorless has stayed just over 3m units for the past 4 years, i.e. no growth, while DSLRs continued to shrink.

Needless to say, revenues came down roughly in line with units - a bit less so, due to attempts to move upmarket a bit.

Needless to say, retailers had extended their Photo space massively on the run to the peak. Non-dedicated retailers had flexibility to adjust in-store space. Dedicated photo retailers had no choice.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that dedicated photo retailers should fail.

Will they ALL disappear? Hopefully not! In theory you can still make money off 10-11m ILC units, plus accessories and lenses. BUT:
- one worrying demographic, is that the younger generations couldn't care less about big, dedicated cameras. They have grown with Smartphones, and don't see why they should lug a big heavy beast that will be inferior to their Smartphone in many ways (even if it delivers better very high ISO).
- and one worrying development (for ILCs, not from my point of view), is that pretty soon all smartphones will have dual or triple imaging modules, will deliver very solid IQ, and will be able to zoom either virtually, or perhaps even thanks to actual optical zooms.
henryp said:
Another Big Camera Store Fails: Why Are So Many Closing?

Some informative insights here IMO

--
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, let that soak in for a minute: less than 11 million DSLRs last year in world population of close to 7.5 BILLION. How much longer and deeper is this contraction going?
Click to expand...
what about it? before digital the peak was around 6.5 million slr's per year and cameras weren't replaced nearly as often.
 
Last edited:
Tulsaghost said:
HRC2016 said:
Why is the guy going to DC to lobby for a state issue?
Click to expand...
So federal law will force all retailers to collect and pay to the state the appropriate sales tax. California is around 10% most places, not paying sales tax really helps drive down the cost of a large purchase.
Click to expand...
I think one approach doesn't force anything per say, it is a bunch of states getting together and agreeing to enforce this behavior as it would potentially benefit any state with sales tax.
 
techjedi said:
Tulsaghost said:
HRC2016 said:
Why is the guy going to DC to lobby for a state issue?
Click to expand...
So federal law will force all retailers to collect and pay to the state the appropriate sales tax. California is around 10% most places, not paying sales tax really helps drive down the cost of a large purchase.
Click to expand...
I think one approach doesn't force anything per say, it is a bunch of states getting together and agreeing to enforce this behavior as it would potentially benefit any state with sales tax.
Click to expand...
you'd think the states would smarten up to this. there's more and more sales tax not being collected as more and more people shop online.

and more and more local retailers getting squeezed.
 
rrccad said:
digitallollygag said:
antoineb said:
Some figures to start with:
- in the peak year 2010, no less than 121 million dedicated cameras were sold. Last year, it was closer to 20m. About 6 TIMES less.
- in 2015, about 97% of all cameras sold, were those on Smartphones. They accounted for an even bigger shares of photos that were taken, uploaded, and shared. In 2016, the figure was closer to 98%.
- DSLRs and mirrorless are NOT saving the party. They peaked at 21m units in 2012, and were below 11m units last year. That's HALF. Within this, mirrorless has stayed just over 3m units for the past 4 years, i.e. no growth, while DSLRs continued to shrink.

Needless to say, revenues came down roughly in line with units - a bit less so, due to attempts to move upmarket a bit.

Needless to say, retailers had extended their Photo space massively on the run to the peak. Non-dedicated retailers had flexibility to adjust in-store space. Dedicated photo retailers had no choice.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that dedicated photo retailers should fail.

Will they ALL disappear? Hopefully not! In theory you can still make money off 10-11m ILC units, plus accessories and lenses. BUT:
- one worrying demographic, is that the younger generations couldn't care less about big, dedicated cameras. They have grown with Smartphones, and don't see why they should lug a big heavy beast that will be inferior to their Smartphone in many ways (even if it delivers better very high ISO).
- and one worrying development (for ILCs, not from my point of view), is that pretty soon all smartphones will have dual or triple imaging modules, will deliver very solid IQ, and will be able to zoom either virtually, or perhaps even thanks to actual optical zooms.
henryp said:
Another Big Camera Store Fails: Why Are So Many Closing?

Some informative insights here IMO
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
rrccad said:
henryp said:
Another Big Camera Store Fails: Why Are So Many Closing?

Some informative insights here IMO

--
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video
Click to expand...
it's interesting to read, it's going to have to be an issue the states figures out. Most other countries have gone to a country wide sales tax - which evens the playing field. it's a mess in the USA, and you'd have to wonder how much it's hurting both the states and americans needing jobs - for any product that can be sold online and shipped.
Click to expand...
The smaller states actually benefit with the current sales tax arrangement. I specifically look for items outside of california so i don't have to pay tax.

If tax is country wide, there is no reason to shop at these little stores. I just buy my stuff from Amazon, Target or Walmart then. Country wide sales tax only levels the playing field for big retailers as they are already charging tax.

There is nothing wrong with the current system. It promotes competition and investment in states that are flexible with sales tax incentives.
 
antoineb said:
- one worrying demographic, is that the younger generations couldn't care less about big, dedicated cameras. They have grown with Smartphones, and don't see why they should lug a big heavy beast that will be inferior to their Smartphone in many ways (even if it delivers better very high ISO).
Click to expand...
Ehhh, I wouldn't go that far. I'm 33... look at my gear list. Many of my friends have and regularly use ILCs as well. Maybe not enough of us to sustain 21m units annually, but probably enough to support the historical norm of 3-6m or so.
antoineb said:
- and one worrying development (for ILCs, not from my point of view), is that pretty soon all smartphones will have dual or triple imaging modules, will deliver very solid IQ, and will be able to zoom either virtually, or perhaps even thanks to actual optical zooms.
Click to expand...
This is true too, and I've said as much a few times... but that's just at the sensor level. Cameraphones will always be hamstrung by optics and ergonomics.

It's definitely/obviously a dramatically shifting business.... but I don't think it is going to disappear
 
10% margins on lenses. 50% on filters. 3% to cover credit card costs.

That leaves a gross profit of $24.50 on a $350 lens, and $23.50 on a $50 "protective filter".

It's no wonder the salesman want's you to believe that you really need that protective filter for your brand new lens. By adding a filter to the lens purchase, he almost doubles his profit. If there was an "instant rebate" on the lens, adding the filter can more than double profit.

Whether or not the filter is needed or not, it's no surprise that they really, really, really want you to buy one.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, when I purchased a car in NJ and my home address was in PA, I was charged PA tax.

Same should apply to make it a fair game. But till that time I admit I am enjoying the tax free benefits.
 
"smarten up?" Too simple. Newspapers and journals have covered this topic for years. According to multiple articles, the reason that this hasn't been enacted is because of pressure from small retailers (including anyone selling anything on eBay) who have to get and maintain expensive software programs to determine how much tax to withhold to someone buying from any place, such as a rural district in some state. Of course, large retailers, such as Best Buy and Amazon, could do this, but it would be discrimination against the smaller ones who can't afford to do it, as they would have to raise prices to pay for the system, or just fold.

Another factor is the cost and complexity states would encounter trying to police every online purchase, which would also have privacy concerns that would meet strong resistance and perhaps be unconstitutional, which is why most states just require (but cannot enforce) that such purchases are reported by the consumer.

This has been covered many times in these forums.
 
Right. When I moved back to the US a couple of years ago, I bought computers, printers, modem, router, stereo hardware, iPads, vacuum and carpet cleaners, etc. from them. I am currently eyeing a couple of TVs. Anyone visiting their store years ago saw that they were "branching out" long before the now-obvious decline of the traditional photo marketplace, which is one reason they are still a success while those with no vision (like the store referenced by the OP) disappeared. Deservedly so.

--
"Knowledge is good." Emil Faber
 
Last edited:
Tequila MockingjayBird said:
IIRC, when I purchased a car in NJ and my home address was in PA, I was charged PA tax.

Same should apply to make it a fair game. But till that time I admit I am enjoying the tax free benefits.
Click to expand...
 
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