Done with Fuji and Adorama forever...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim - receiving a deposit or a hold on your CC, and they can book the sale on their books, along with an accounts receivable. Some in management like to operate this way, particularly if they are rewarded on sales.
Do you have examples of companies booking preorders as revenue, or are you speculating?
Standard accounting practice....this is rather common
Very interesting……!!!
It may be interesting but it isn’t standard accounting practice. Companies may do whatever they like internally, but would get sued if they tried this with their public filings.
Just curious (and not trying to throw fuel on this), but I believe Adorama is a private S-Corp company, and they don't need to follow GAAP reporting?
For internal purposes, companies can pretend dreams of sales represent actual sales if they like. How could this possibly support the conspiracy theories that having pre-orders reflects some cunning, secret source of profit? Pretending something is a sale doesn’t generate cash, does it?
 
Jim - receiving a deposit or a hold on your CC, and they can book the sale on their books, along with an accounts receivable. Some in management like to operate this way, particularly if they are rewarded on sales.
Do you have examples of companies booking preorders as revenue, or are you speculating?
Standard accounting practice....this is rather common
Very interesting……!!!
It may be interesting but it isn’t standard accounting practice. Companies may do whatever they like internally, but would get sued if they tried this with their public filings.
Just curious (and not trying to throw fuel on this), but I believe Adorama is a private S-Corp company, and they don't need to follow GAAP reporting?
While private S corporations are not mandated to adhere to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for financial reporting, they are still subject to specific tax accounting rules established by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). These rules are designed to ensure that revenue recognition is consistent, accurate, and not arbitrary.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, particularly Section 446, taxpayers are required to use a consistent accounting method that clearly reflects income. The IRS permits methods such as cash, accrual, or other approved methods, but once a method is chosen, it must be applied consistently. To change an accounting method, a taxpayer must obtain IRS approval, ensuring that income is not manipulated through frequent changes in accounting practices.IRS+3Wikipedia+3IRS+3IRS+1Wikipedia+1

For accrual-method taxpayers, Section 451 outlines the "all-events test," which stipulates that income is recognized when:IRS+3The Tax Adviser+3Wikipedia+3
  1. All events have occurred that fix the right to receive the income.
  2. The amount can be determined with reasonable accuracy.
This test ensures that income is reported in the correct period, aligning with the economic reality of transactions.

The IRS's emphasis on consistency and clear reflection of income means that S corporations cannot arbitrarily recognize revenue. Even without GAAP compliance, the tax accounting methods must provide a true and accurate representation of income. Failure to comply can result in the IRS mandating a change in accounting methods or imposing penalties.

While private S corporations are not bound by GAAP, they are still required to follow IRS tax accounting rules that govern revenue recognition. These rules are in place to prevent arbitrary financial reporting and ensure that income is accurately and consistently reported for tax purposes.
Thanks Jim! I know just enough in this area to be dangerous and didn't mean to open such a fractious thread. I did learn a few things.

It seems that this thread boils down to Fuji's antics are for marketing purposes and not financial shenanigans. Whether they are intentional or not, Fuji's policies have created a subset of customers that are not happy.

Value for my money/time, the quality of the images out of GFX outweighs the hassle of dealing with Fuji's sales and service. I empathize with the OP and wish he had a better experience.
 
Last edited:
jerseyinHK wrote:
I did learn a few things.

It seems that this thread boils down to Fuji's antics are for marketing purposes and not financial shenanigans.
Antics? Fuji has made a popular camera for which the demand exceeds the supply. What would you have them do? The most common answer seems to be that people want Fuji to commit much more capital to the project. Given the world in which we live, it seems easy to understand that a company might be cautious.
Whether they are intentional or not, Fuji's policies have created a subset of customers that are not happy.
Indeed. This is a downside of not making bigger investments in production capacity for a good camera. Making too many has downsides, too. You can’t please everyone.
Value for my money/time, the quality of the images out of GFX outweighs the hassle of dealing with Fuji's sales and service. I empathize with the OP and wish he had a better experience.
 
Whether they are intentional or not, Fuji's policies have created a subset of customers that are not happy.
Indeed. This is a downside of not making bigger investments in production capacity for a good camera. Making too many has downsides, too. You can’t please everyone.
The downside of making too many is greater than that of making too few. OBTW, I waited for almost five years for SCGC to build my latest guitar. And they had a lot of my money for that time. Still, I'm very pleased with it.

--
https://blog.kasson.com
 
Last edited:
Imagine being stupid enough to plunk down $250K for a vaporware car back in 2017 and 8 years later you have nothing to show for it.

Many more apparently put deposits of $50K down and later $5K down.

The car isn't finished yet. :D

https://www.jalopnik.com/its-still-very-funny-that-1-000-people-gave-tesla-250-1851038764/

In comparison all this angst about preorders is rather insignificant. Fuji is making the right business decisions, imo.

None of my preorders were ever charged until they shipped with the exception of Cardinal Camera, btw.
 
Imagine being stupid enough to plunk down $250K for a vaporware car back in 2017 and 8 years later you have nothing to show for it.

Many more apparently put deposits of $50K down and later $5K down.

The car isn't finished yet. :D

https://www.jalopnik.com/its-still-very-funny-that-1-000-people-gave-tesla-250-1851038764/
Here's a classic in that vein:

https://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness/dp/1774267608

Tulips, anyone?
lol... looks like a fun read. Just a little close to home these days however.

Cheers!
 
It seems that this thread boils down to Fuji's antics are for marketing purposes and not financial shenanigans.
Antics? Fuji has made a popular camera for which the demand exceeds the supply. What would you have them do? The most common answer seems to be that people want Fuji to commit much more capital to the project. Given the world in which we live, it seems easy to understand that a company might be cautious.
Whether they are intentional or not, Fuji's policies have created a subset of customers that are not happy.
Indeed. This is a downside of not making bigger investments in production capacity for a good camera. Making too many has downsides, too. You can’t please everyone.
Value for my money/time, the quality of the images out of GFX outweighs the hassle of dealing with Fuji's sales and service. I empathize with the OP and wish he had a better experience.
You are speculating that Fuji doesn't have the capacity, and that this is a CAPEX decision and not a marketing one. None of us actually know or ever will know unless we are in their corporate meetings.

The only verifiable fact we have direct evidence is that Fuji has alienated a subset of it's current and potential customer base. Oh, and Fuji builds cameras people want.
 
It seems that this thread boils down to Fuji's antics are for marketing purposes and not financial shenanigans.
Antics? Fuji has made a popular camera for which the demand exceeds the supply. What would you have them do? The most common answer seems to be that people want Fuji to commit much more capital to the project. Given the world in which we live, it seems easy to understand that a company might be cautious.
Whether they are intentional or not, Fuji's policies have created a subset of customers that are not happy.
Indeed. This is a downside of not making bigger investments in production capacity for a good camera. Making too many has downsides, too. You can’t please everyone.
Value for my money/time, the quality of the images out of GFX outweighs the hassle of dealing with Fuji's sales and service. I empathize with the OP and wish he had a better experience.
You are speculating that Fuji doesn't have the capacity, and that this is a CAPEX decision and not a marketing one.
I am speculating that Fuji is acting rationally.
None of us actually know or ever will know unless we are in their corporate meetings.
Can you suggest one plausible reason for a company to invest in production at a level to meet market demand, then artificially constrain supply, leaving revenue on the table and disappointing customers, while keeping prices low enough that resellers can make significant spreads in secondary markets?
The only verifiable fact we have direct evidence is that Fuji has alienated a subset of it's current and potential customer base. Oh, and Fuji builds cameras people want.
Fuji has released statements about capex and capacity wrt to the X100VI. Those who foment conspiracy theories are likely to remain unpersuaded, however.
 
Last edited:
Whether they are intentional or not, Fuji's policies have created a subset of customers that are not happy.
Indeed. This is a downside of not making bigger investments in production capacity for a good camera. Making too many has downsides, too. You can’t please everyone.
The downside of making too many is greater than that of making too few. OBTW, I waited for almost five years for SCGC to build my latest guitar. And they had a lot of my money for that time. Still, I'm very pleased with it.
Exactly. Everyone can pick a winner after the race, but putting up real capital under uncertainty is much riskier.
 
Whether they are intentional or not, Fuji's policies have created a subset of customers that are not happy.
Indeed. This is a downside of not making bigger investments in production capacity for a good camera. Making too many has downsides, too. You can’t please everyone.
The downside of making too many is greater than that of making too few. OBTW, I waited for almost five years for SCGC to build my latest guitar. And they had a lot of my money for that time. Still, I'm very pleased with it.
Exactly. Everyone can pick a winner after the race, but putting up real capital under uncertainty is much riskier.
I stand by what I said. There are only two things we actually know....subset of unhappy customers, cameras people want (me included).

As far as not building to capacity, you only have to look at the Ferrari F40 or the Porsche 959. Both cars were produced in facilities with the capacity to build many more. Restricting supply allowed them to raise prices.

And what do you think the narrative would be if Fuji told you their marketing strategy? We are restricting supply to support the market? That would be suicide. Ask Gereld Ratner how well that strategy would play out.

Fuji's discount model (running sales often) already is strong evidence that Fuji sells at market prices, not at cost plus. Discounting is one of the tried and true methods to determine the price elasticity of the client. To think marketing doesn't drive sales and production is a little pollyanna. It is not a conspiracy theory to believe companies spending tens of millions of dollars in marketing money are not engaged in forecasting their own supply/demand curve, and tailoring their operations to a specific target.
 
It seems that this thread boils down to Fuji's antics are for marketing purposes and not financial shenanigans.
Antics? Fuji has made a popular camera for which the demand exceeds the supply. What would you have them do? The most common answer seems to be that people want Fuji to commit much more capital to the project. Given the world in which we live, it seems easy to understand that a company might be cautious.
Whether they are intentional or not, Fuji's policies have created a subset of customers that are not happy.
Indeed. This is a downside of not making bigger investments in production capacity for a good camera. Making too many has downsides, too. You can’t please everyone.
Value for my money/time, the quality of the images out of GFX outweighs the hassle of dealing with Fuji's sales and service. I empathize with the OP and wish he had a better experience.
You are speculating that Fuji doesn't have the capacity, and that this is a CAPEX decision and not a marketing one. None of us actually know or ever will know unless we are in their corporate meetings.

The only verifiable fact we have direct evidence is that Fuji has alienated a subset of it's current and potential customer base. Oh, and Fuji builds cameras people want.


aa098d38802746fa807b82426d4c6244.jpg.png



--
 
This thread descended a long time ago into a corp. finance discussion

I am sure there are specialist platforms for that ...😄
 
As far as not building to capacity, you only have to look at the Ferrari F40 or the Porsche 959. Both cars were produced in facilities with the capacity to build many more. Restricting supply allowed them to raise prices.
Porsche was losing US$200,000 on every sale of the 959 so I don’t think any rationale manager would want to increase production. The F40 was also using “space age” materials construction in 1987 that I assume could not scale to large volumes.

Travel, photography and gear: fcracer.com
 
As far as not building to capacity, you only have to look at the Ferrari F40 or the Porsche 959. Both cars were produced in facilities with the capacity to build many more. Restricting supply allowed them to raise prices.
Porsche was losing US$200,000 on every sale of the 959 so I don’t think any rationale manager would want to increase production. The F40 was also using “space age” materials construction in 1987 that I assume could not scale to large volumes.

Travel, photography and gear: fcracer.com
Ok...maybe a few bad examples. How about Porsche GT-2's and Ferrari F50?

Poor examples aside, the point is how much to produce at what price is a marketing decision, and manufacturing generally follows.
 
As far as not building to capacity, you only have to look at the Ferrari F40 or the Porsche 959. Both cars were produced in facilities with the capacity to build many more. Restricting supply allowed them to raise prices.
Porsche was losing US$200,000 on every sale of the 959 so I don’t think any rationale manager would want to increase production. The F40 was also using “space age” materials construction in 1987 that I assume could not scale to large volumes.

Travel, photography and gear: fcracer.com
Ok...maybe a few bad examples. How about Porsche GT-2's and Ferrari F50?

Poor examples aside, the point is how much to produce at what price is a marketing decision, and manufacturing generally follows.
I don’t disagree with you but I think one oft overlooked strategy is earnings smoothing. I think Fujifilm is being conservative on production these days to 1. Ensure they don’t have to hold inventory; 2. Make their products harder to obtain so that people want it more; and 3. To prevent one financial year overwhelming the next four years before the next generation of camera comes out.

I would do exactly what Fujifilm is doing if I were the CEO there. It’s just good business and cameras will eventually find their way to people.
 
Whether they are intentional or not, Fuji's policies have created a subset of customers that are not happy.
Indeed. This is a downside of not making bigger investments in production capacity for a good camera. Making too many has downsides, too. You can’t please everyone.
The downside of making too many is greater than that of making too few. OBTW, I waited for almost five years for SCGC to build my latest guitar. And they had a lot of my money for that time. Still, I'm very pleased with it.
Exactly. Everyone can pick a winner after the race, but putting up real capital under uncertainty is much riskier.
I stand by what I said. There are only two things we actually know....subset of unhappy customers, cameras people want (me included).

As far as not building to capacity, you only have to look at the Ferrari F40 or the Porsche 959. Both cars were produced in facilities with the capacity to build many more. Restricting supply allowed them to raise prices.
Can you posit a sensible reason why Fuji would build capacity at one level for a new camera with a breakthrough low price, then intentionally constrain supply?

By what mechanism could this result in higher profitability?

The Porsche 959 sold for an eye-watering $250,000 in the late 1980s. Do you really believe that the economics of a handmade supercar are a good analogy for a production camera?
And what do you think the narrative would be if Fuji told you their marketing strategy? We are restricting supply to support the market?
What does it mean to restrict supply to support the market?
That would be suicide. Ask Gereld Ratner how well that strategy would play out.

Fuji's discount model (running sales often) already is strong evidence that Fuji sells at market prices,
How would you define “market prices”?
not at cost plus. Discounting is one of the tried and true methods to determine the price elasticity of the client.

To think marketing doesn't drive sales and production is a little pollyanna. It is not a conspiracy theory to believe companies spending tens of millions of dollars in marketing money are not engaged in forecasting their own supply/demand curve, and tailoring their operations to a specific target.
I don’t understand this. You believe Fuji spends tens of millions on marketing but doesn’t do any work to estimate demand, etc? Analysis of markets, demand, and pricing are all key marketing functions.
 
As far as not building to capacity, you only have to look at the Ferrari F40 or the Porsche 959. Both cars were produced in facilities with the capacity to build many more. Restricting supply allowed them to raise prices.
Porsche was losing US$200,000 on every sale of the 959 so I don’t think any rationale manager would want to increase production. The F40 was also using “space age” materials construction in 1987 that I assume could not scale to large volumes.

Travel, photography and gear: fcracer.com
Ok...maybe a few bad examples. How about Porsche GT-2's and Ferrari F50?

Poor examples aside, the point is how much to produce at what price is a marketing decision, and manufacturing generally follows.
You're right, not the best examples... because in the automotive industry, many vehicles are produced to fulfil a role other than profit. Indeed, some are known loss leaders to generate revenue in other ways.

I'm unsure about the profitability of the Porsche 959, but the Ferrari F40 had an extended production run, and made money. Both were initially produced to feed into motorsport programs which may or may not have happened. Looking at other vehicles in the industry, halo products are not unusual, as a means of adding glamour or desirability to lesser models or indeed the brand.

Which is totally different to the situation with Fuji and the two cameras in particular. I am not familiar with how Fuji hold their stock, or manufacture their products. I would suspect that they hold minimal stock, and manufacture in lower volumes to avoid having to distress sell products later.

Years ago, Porsche used to produce one less car than the market demanded, preserving retail and used prices, while maintaining profit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top