Reading mode: Light Dark

How can companies validate demand for a new/proposed camera

Go to last post
Satyaa

Satyaa

Veteran Member
Messages
7,059
Solutions
7
Reaction score
2,437
Location
MA, US
This thought comes from two different angles as the background...

First is that there are many cameras that people talk about on the fora, which the brands no longer make. There are several examples like the Lumix GX/GM/FZ series, OM PEN series, SONY RX10/100 series, etc.

While there is lot of enthusiasm online, companies worry that a product may not sell well on release. There are many examples of companies releasing something and the response is just complaints about what is missing, not sales.

Second is the idea I have seen from accessory makers (bags, tripods) to go with crowd funding.

How about combining those two to validate a proposed model before actually making it? Less expensive than a failed model?

My main idea here is not funding the company for the new model. It is to put some real data and commitment to address this disconnect between makers and buyers. At the very least, everybody will learn why it is not a good idea to make a camera of every type that is hyped up by online chatter. Not everyone commenting usually buys a new camera (speaking from my own experience!)

Here's what I mean...

The company should announce a model... they will release camera 'X' if they get at least 10,000 committed buyers. Commitment would be to sign up by paying 10% of the camera price. There should be a period when they can ask for clarifications before the sign-up period opens.

Next is the promise... the price (for those who sign up), expected date, specs, etc. If someone signs up and doesn't buy it, they lose their 10%. If the company doesn't get 10,000 subscribers, they drop the idea and refund the money. The money could be placed in an escrow with a reputed bank so that those who sign up are assured of a refund.

If the idea goes through, some possibilities could be discussed and put into the sign-up contract. Then the company can add a buffer and make one batch (say 12,000). If there isn't more demand beyond that, it would be the end of that model. Start over with something new.

This is just an initial thought. I am sure the smart people at different companies can come up with refinements and make it practical.

Thanks.
 
Satyaa said:
The company should announce a model... they will release camera 'X' if they get at least 10,000 committed buyers. Commitment would be to sign up by paying 10% of the camera price. There should be a period when they can ask for clarifications before the sign-up period opens.

Next is the promise... the price (for those who sign up), expected date, specs, etc. If someone signs up and doesn't buy it, they lose their 10%. If the company doesn't get 10,000 subscribers, they drop the idea and refund the money. The money could be placed in an escrow with a reputed bank so that those who sign up are assured of a refund.
Click to expand...
Is that how crowdfunding generally works - funders get their money returned if the project never materializes?

Even if so, there's something to consider if applied to camera production: It takes a long time to develop a modern camera before any production occurs ... often measured in years, I think. Camera companies are spending development money right now on products that won't come to market anytime soon, and that will quite possibly undergo design changes before they do. With that in mind, how can a company confidently predict the specs and price of something that hasn't even been designed - and will funders be willing to wait for the result? I don't know the answers.
 
Last edited:
ishwanu said:
Satyaa said:
The company should announce a model... they will release camera 'X' if they get at least 10,000 committed buyers. Commitment would be to sign up by paying 10% of the camera price. There should be a period when they can ask for clarifications before the sign-up period opens.

Next is the promise... the price (for those who sign up), expected date, specs, etc. If someone signs up and doesn't buy it, they lose their 10%. If the company doesn't get 10,000 subscribers, they drop the idea and refund the money. The money could be placed in an escrow with a reputed bank so that those who sign up are assured of a refund.
Click to expand...
Is that how crowdfunding generally works - funders get their money returned if the project never materializes?
Click to expand...
I don't know if there is a standard model for crowdfunding but there have been examples where the projects promised refund if the minimum threshold was not met.

And this is just an idea. I am sure the companies can tweak it. Doesn't need to follow crowd funding model strictly.
ishwanu said:
Even if so, there's something to consider if applied to camera production: It takes a long time to develop a modern camera before any production occurs ... often measured in years, I think. Camera companies are spending development money right now on products that won't come to market anytime soon, and that will quite possibly undergo design changes before they do. With that in mind, how can a company confidently predict the specs and price of something that hasn't even been designed - and will funders be willing to wait for the result? I don't know the answers.
Click to expand...
I don't know either.

My expectation is that companies have multiple technologies under design/development but the final mix of features and look of the camera won't be decided years ahead. Once they come to that point, there is always a dilemma as to what should be included/excluded and what will cause a super success vs. backlash.

Some way to validate that buyer interest is what I am trying to arrive at. I am sure there are many other ideas. I am trying to see if there is a process acceptable to both manufacturers and consumers.

Thanks.
 
You can't assess a product before holding it in your hands or before someone else holds it in their hands and says it's good. I guess you can sell a few cameras based on pre-launch hype, but companies need sales year round, not 2 months after the product is first introduced.

Also, even if a camera is "approved" by the masses before it's launched, that doesn't mean it's not going to flop once the sales begin.

There is no way to predict the future success of a product or a business. There are lots of failed products either way, most new products developed via crowdfunding are failures, as far as I know.
 
If anyone was insane enough to contemplate setting up a new company for the express purpose of making money from cameras they're going to need a few items.

1. A crystal ball with a totally reliable view of the market for at least 10 years.

2. A production cost of next to zero so you can buy your way into the market.

3. Complete immunity from any form of legal challenges to your ripoff products.

4. A very expensive army of touts in every form of mass media culture.

5. Your precious had better be available instantly, universally, PDQ as the vast majority will be retailed as bright, shiny, new things with a half-life of a few months.

6. I could go on, but finally, you do actually have to bring something new to the field. Copying and adapting old tech. is a very mature paddock in 2025.
Good luck inventing and protecting it.

--
Ron.
Volunteer, what could possibly go wrong ?
 
Last edited:
One reason I can think of why it would not work (for a major brand and a standard product *) is indeed because of the lead time.

to explain , lets say that Canon posts the details (features and look) of a new cmera.

For some reason those three NEW features or something... gets the attention of a LOT of people.

That would give other manufacturers a good reason to make something like that too.

now, if they do , the potential buyers will be diluted between two or more brands , possibly making it unprofitable compared to the original target.

* a good number of succesfull crowd funding projects are products that for some reason the main brands don't make and don't want to make, because of the limited portion of the market they have, so mostly a direct sale market ( with limited or no after sale service) not ideal for retail.

The over 1 million projects are almost all Blockchain ,video games and unusual toys. Takes many millions of dollars to design and make a new real camera. (not the toy type..)
 
Satyaa said:
This thought comes from two different angles as the background...

First is that there are many cameras that people talk about on the fora, which the brands no longer make. There are several examples like the Lumix GX/GM/FZ series, OM PEN series, SONY RX10/100 series, etc.

While there is lot of enthusiasm online, companies worry that a product may not sell well on release. There are many examples of companies releasing something and the response is just complaints about what is missing, not sales.

Second is the idea I have seen from accessory makers (bags, tripods) to go with crowd funding.

How about combining those two to validate a proposed model before actually making it? Less expensive than a failed model?

My main idea here is not funding the company for the new model. It is to put some real data and commitment to address this disconnect between makers and buyers. At the very least, everybody will learn why it is not a good idea to make a camera of every type that is hyped up by online chatter. Not everyone commenting usually buys a new camera (speaking from my own experience!)

Here's what I mean...

The company should announce a model... they will release camera 'X' if they get at least 10,000 committed buyers. Commitment would be to sign up by paying 10% of the camera price. There should be a period when they can ask for clarifications before the sign-up period opens.

Next is the promise... the price (for those who sign up), expected date, specs, etc. If someone signs up and doesn't buy it, they lose their 10%. If the company doesn't get 10,000 subscribers, they drop the idea and refund the money. The money could be placed in an escrow with a reputed bank so that those who sign up are assured of a refund.

If the idea goes through, some possibilities could be discussed and put into the sign-up contract. Then the company can add a buffer and make one batch (say 12,000). If there isn't more demand beyond that, it would be the end of that model. Start over with something new.

This is just an initial thought. I am sure the smart people at different companies can come up with refinements and make it practical.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Though on a much more limited scale, most camera companies are not so different than car companies. As such most don't introduce new models all that often or willy-nilly. Most changes are to existing models that are merely updated with new technologies to perform better or more thoroughly than the last model and hopefully compete better than the competing models from other companies!!

Those existing models already have a customer following. I'm pretty sure the companies do their own marketing analyzes as to market share.

As to peripherals such as tripods and backpacks, I think you are right about start-up trends to crowd source but those are limited as well. It will be difficult to compete with the established companies like Lowpro or Sirui that are well established and have reliable market outlets.

John
 
Satyaa said:
ishwanu said:
Satyaa said:
The company should announce a model... they will release camera 'X' if they get at least 10,000 committed buyers. Commitment would be to sign up by paying 10% of the camera price. There should be a period when they can ask for clarifications before the sign-up period opens.

Next is the promise... the price (for those who sign up), expected date, specs, etc. If someone signs up and doesn't buy it, they lose their 10%. If the company doesn't get 10,000 subscribers, they drop the idea and refund the money. The money could be placed in an escrow with a reputed bank so that those who sign up are assured of a refund.
Click to expand...
Is that how crowdfunding generally works - funders get their money returned if the project never materializes?
Click to expand...
I don't know if there is a standard model for crowdfunding but there have been examples where the projects promised refund if the minimum threshold was not met.
Click to expand...
If the funding threshold is not met then those backing the proposed thing don’t pay any money, and the thing doesn’t get made. If the threshold is reached then the finders pay their money and hope the thing they’ve backed appears. If it doesn’t appear then they have lost their money and I think pretty much have no recourse.

As crowdfunding sites remind you all the time, crowdfunding isn’t a shop, you’re not buying something, you’re backing something to be made in exchange for rewards (normally the thing you’ve backed)
Satyaa said:
And this is just an idea. I am sure the companies can tweak it. Doesn't need to follow crowd funding model strictly.
Satyaa said:
Even if so, there's something to consider if applied to camera production: It takes a long time to develop a modern camera before any production occurs ... often measured in years, I think. Camera companies are spending development money right now on products that won't come to market anytime soon, and that will quite possibly undergo design changes before they do. With that in mind, how can a company confidently predict the specs and price of something that hasn't even been designed - and will funders be willing to wait for the result? I don't know the answers.
Click to expand...
I don't know either.

My expectation is that companies have multiple technologies under design/development but the final mix of features and look of the camera won't be decided years ahead. Once they come to that point, there is always a dilemma as to what should be included/excluded and what will cause a super success vs. backlash.

Some way to validate that buyer interest is what I am trying to arrive at. I am sure there are many other ideas. I am trying to see if there is a process acceptable to both manufacturers and consumers.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
That's the problem with labels/names.

My intent is not strictly follow/use crowdfunding. My intent is to use a mechanism like that to validate the interest and potential buyers for a new model to be introduced.

These camera companies are already working on multiple models/features/possibilities, and which one wins the race to be chosen for release?

Another response above mentioned that companies do their own market research. Yes, they do. Then I don't understand all the complaints from users that it is not what it should be. I was looking for a tool that engages the potential buyers as well.

The $100 per unit is not a big contribution in the overall cost the company is spending to develop a new model. So, it's strictly not 'funding' part of crowdfunding that is important in this case. The $100 is still a significant amount for an individual. So, only those really interested to buy will commit to it.

Where it fails is that people may not want to commit $100 until they see something in hand/in the shop. That's where the problem is for the companies in developing new models that are so much talked about online.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks.

--
See my profile (About me) for gear and my posting policy. My profile picture is of the first film camera I used in the early 80s, photo credit the internet.
 
Last edited:
Satyaa said:
That's the problem with labels/names.

My intent is not strictly follow/use crowdfunding. My intent is to use a mechanism like that to validate the interest and potential buyers for a new model to be introduced.
Click to expand...
Lomography have used crowdfunding as a way to gauge initial demand and effectively handle their preorders They’ve often delivered the cameras very shortly afterwards
Satyaa said:
These camera companies are already working on multiple models/features/possibilities, and which one wins the race to be chosen for release?

Another response above mentioned that companies do their own market research. Yes, they do. Then I don't understand all the complaints from users that it is not what it should be. I was looking for a tool that engages the potential buyers as well.
Click to expand...
Because given a sufficient crowd there will be some people who complain about everything If you based what you made on what people want then we’d still be driving around in a horse and cart with “giddy up” stripes
Satyaa said:
The $100 per unit is not a big contribution in the overall cost the company is spending to develop a new model. So, it's strictly not 'funding' part of crowdfunding that is important in this case. The $100 is still a significant amount for an individual. So, only those really interested to buy will commit to it.

Where it fails is that people may not want to commit $100 until they see something in hand/in the shop. That's where the problem is for the companies in developing new models that are so much talked about online.
Click to expand...
Pre-orders already exist but normally for things that have been made. I can understand crowdfunding (they don’t make it and you lose you’re money but without the funding it wouldn’t be made)
 
There have been multiple crowdfunded camera projects over the last 30 years.

https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/chronos-camera-smashes-crowdfunding-target-hours/

https://www.krontech.ca/camera-overview/

https://www.techradar.com/cameras/m...reinventing-the-camera-for-the-smartphone-age

https://www.kickstarter.com/discove...d=333&woe_id=0&sort=magic&seed=2935827&page=3

Note that Sirui have a Kickstarter for a lens.

Note sure the worldwide market share of cameras originally started into development by crowdfunding. Niche camera makers like Leica, Ricoh, Hasselblad and Phase One seem to have other sources of funding and market insight that don’t involve revealing their plans to competitors.

Ideas that existing players don’t believe will be successful has been the domain of startups forever. The long-run success rate of startups is about 5%.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
 
Last edited:
Interesting problem.

IMO it’s a matter of degree.

If we’re talking about genuine innovation it’s difficult to imagine that many potential buyers will be creative enough to imagine a breakthrough that would be technically feasible.

___
Photography is so easy, that's what makes it highly difficult - Robert Delpire
 
"Another response above mentioned that companies do their own market research. Yes, they do. Then I don't understand all the complaints from users that it is not what it should be"

it does not matter if companies do or don't do market research, there will always be some that, fr some reason, don't like the product...

Pick any product ever and some will comment "I wish it had/didn't have...". This will never change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
A true "KODAK" Rangefinder Point and Shoot Camera?
Replies
4
Views
3K
PG_Photo
P
oneofone25
OM System need this new camera
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Wboz88
W
E
Proposal for a New Camera Type: AI All-In-One Companion
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
CanadianLongbowman
C
F
Handmade in Sweden continued...
Replies
14
Views
5K
TechTalk2
TechTalk2
G
Getting into GFX at last - a GFX 100 (original) - tips?
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
GeoffHarris
G

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