How to sell more cameras

[Marty4650]

For the casual photographer smartphones have multiple advantages over dedicated cameras. We all know the obvious ones (things like... "you always have it with you" and "you don't have to carry two devices" and "they are more convenient to use") but there are also a few more subtle things that camera makers could do encourage faster replacement cycles.

The camera industry could adopt a few strategies that have been successfully used by smartphone makers to force users to buy new ones. These things might not be desirable or ethical, but no one can dispute that they would result in higher sales figures:

• Make fashion an essential selling point. With every model year, change some exterior feature to make it obvious that this model is new., and the one you already have is old. Like adding fins on a car in the 1950s, this should be instantly and easily recognizable from a distance.

• Create cameras that require frequent updates. Release monthly wireless updates that are necessary to maintain all camera functions. Then, after three years or so, stop supporting that particular model. The cameras will still work, but they will be slower and less useful.

• Make camera performance dependent on battery life. Glue the OEM battery in place, and make it impossible for the user to remove. Eliminate all chargers, so they can only be charged in place using a USB cord. Make sure that performance depends on battery condition, and use batteries that become useless after three or four years. Since you cannot replace the battery you will have to buy a new camera.

• Make cameras more fragile, and encourage rough handling. Use plenty of fragile parts (like glass), make them thinner, and then encourage users to carry them in their back pockets. Advertise them as "waterproof" even though they are only water resistant.

• Make user or third party repairs difficult or impossible. Use proprietary screws that require special tools. Don't sell any parts to third party repair shops. Keep all repair manuals top secret, and sue anyone who gets their hands on one. Void warranties if anyone other than you even opens a camera. Install sensors that turn red when there is "water damage" even if they only detected high humidity. To their credit, Nikon is already employing some of these strategies.

• Eliminate all third party repair shops so your customers must come to you for repairs, then pay whatever price you want for them. Call your own repair people "geniuses" or "experts" or "geeks." Make your repair team wear polo shirts of a different color and give them special coffee mugs to denote their special status.

• Make repairs economically impractical. After you make repairs difficult, and assure that only you can do them, the next step is to price repairs very close to replacement price. If some small part breaks, make it cost $800 to fix, when a brand new model might "only cost $950" to buy.

If camera makers adopt some or all of the above, they will still not sell as many units as smartphones. At least not until cameras can surf the web and play video games. But they will still sell more units than they do today.

 

[onlyfreeman]

I disagree Marty, I don't think they can do anything that would significantly increase sales. The enthusiasts already buy cameras, and the rest of the people think their phones are good enough.

The only thing they can do is implement these "planned obsolescence" like suggestions to further rip off their customers.

 

[Marty4650]

I disagree Marty, I don't think they can do anything that would significantly increase sales. The enthusiasts already buy cameras, and the rest of the people think their phones are good enough.

I actually agree with you on this. My post was tongue in cheek, attempting to showcase why so many new phones get sold every year. Your camera could last you ten years, while your phone needs replacement every few years.

The only thing they can do is implement these "planned obsolescence" like suggestions to further rip off their customers.

Lets hope they don't! If anything, I want my next camera to be better built and more robust than my last one.

I've been pretty fortunate, having never needed a camera repair. But my adult children are sometimes breaking their phones without even trying very hard.

 

[joeletx]

You are describing Apple products. I know your are being sarcastic, but sadly some cameras and lenses are being marketed that way; PL 100-400 comes to mind.

 

[onlyfreeman]

I thought there was something I was missing, lol!

Unfortunately phone companies are just too "good" at business, if the definition of business is to make as much money as possible without consideration for anything else.

 

[mamallama]

For the casual photographer smartphones have multiple advantages over dedicated cameras. We all know the obvious ones (things like... "you always have it with you" and "you don't have to carry two devices" and "they are more convenient to use") but there are also a few more subtle things that camera makers could do encourage faster replacement cycles.

The camera industry could adopt a few strategies that have been successfully used by smartphone makers to force users to buy new ones. These things might not be desirable or ethical, but no one can dispute that they would result in higher sales figures:

• Make fashion an essential selling point. With every model year, change some exterior feature to make it obvious that this model is new., and the one you already have is old. Like adding fins on a car in the 1950s, this should be instantly and easily recognizable from a distance.

• Create cameras that require frequent updates. Release monthly wireless updates that are necessary to maintain all camera functions. Then, after three years or so, stop supporting that particular model. The cameras will still work, but they will be slower and less useful.

• Make camera performance dependent on battery life. Glue the OEM battery in place, and make it impossible for the user to remove. Eliminate all chargers, so they can only be charged in place using a USB cord. Make sure that performance depends on battery condition, and use batteries that become useless after three or four years. Since you cannot replace the battery you will have to buy a new camera.

• Make cameras more fragile, and encourage rough handling. Use plenty of fragile parts (like glass), make them thinner, and then encourage users to carry them in their back pockets. Advertise them as "waterproof" even though they are only water resistant.

• Make user or third party repairs difficult or impossible. Use proprietary screws that require special tools. Don't sell any parts to third party repair shops. Keep all repair manuals top secret, and sue anyone who gets their hands on one. Void warranties if anyone other than you even opens a camera. Install sensors that turn red when there is "water damage" even if they only detected high humidity. To their credit, Nikon is already employing some of these strategies.

• Eliminate all third party repair shops so your customers must come to you for repairs, then pay whatever price you want for them. Call your own repair people "geniuses" or "experts" or "geeks." Make your repair team wear polo shirts of a different color and give them special coffee mugs to denote their special status.

• Make repairs economically impractical. After you make repairs difficult, and assure that only you can do them, the next step is to price repairs very close to replacement price. If some small part breaks, make it cost $800 to fix, when a brand new model might "only cost $950" to buy.

If camera makers adopt some or all of the above, they will still not sell as many units as smartphones. At least not until cameras can surf the web and play video games. But they will still sell more units than they do today.

Reading some of the stuff you wrote above, I figured it was tongue-in-cheek as you admit in a later post.

However you seem to imply that an emulation of the marketing plan that made smartphones so successful would allow camera makers to do the same.

My view is that camera companies have zero chance of doing to smartphone companies what smartphone companies did to them by trying to copy them.

 

[Donald B]

All phone makers need to do is put a shutter button on the side of the phone then its game over.

Don

 

[Mika Y.]

All phone makers need to do is put a shutter button on the side of the phone then its game over.

That's actually a feature that has been on some phones (at least from Sony and Nokia) in the past and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are some currently produced phones with it too.

 

[Donald B]

All phone makers need to do is put a shutter button on the side of the phone then its game over.

That's actually a feature that has been on some phones (at least from Sony and Nokia) in the past and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are some currently produced phones with it too.

My late model Samsung and my daughters apple XR dont, its such a pain having to use 2 hands to take a happy snap when i can use a FF sony with i hand.

Don

 

[sybersitizen]

All phone makers need to do is put a shutter button on the side of the phone then its game over.

Is that what you think? It's not what I think. When smartphones routinely offer eye-level viewfinders, articulating LCDs, bounceable Xenon flashes, real optical zooms, built-in tripod sockets, sensible remote control capabilities, and real physical controls - not just a button that functions as a shutter release, which some phones already offer - then I might consider your proposition.

 

[Marty4650]

All phone makers need to do is put a shutter button on the side of the phone then its game over.

Don

Don, the truth is smartphones and cameras are really two separate and distinct products. The only thing they really have in common is "both can take really good snapshots." The unfortunate thing for the camera industry is that around 75% of their customers six years ago "just wanted to take really good snapshots."

I don't understand why you think a shutter button would make any difference. Historically speaking phones that try to be cameras and cameras that try to be phones have been huge failures.

Samsung Galaxy NX. This camera tried to be more like a phone. It failed miserably.

Motorola Moto Z with Hasselblad Camera Mod. This phone tried to be more like a camera. It even had a shutter button and a real 10X optical zoom. It ALSO failed miserably.

Some people will ALWAYS prefer smartphone photography (vertical video and all) and some others will ALWAYS prefer dedicated camera photography. Most of us probably use both but still have a strong preference for one over the other.

I think the market has spoken. Consumers want cameras with good ergonomics and plenty of direct controls. Consumers what phones that are convenient and easy to use. Both are capable of taking good snapshots, but neither one appeals to everyone.

--
Marty

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132

Favorites

Explore this photo album by Marty4650 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

 

[Donald B]

All phone makers need to do is put a shutter button on the side of the phone then its game over.

Don

Don, the truth is smartphones and cameras are really two separate and distinct products. The only thing they really have in common is "both can take really good snapshots." The unfortunate thing for the camera industry is that around 75% of their customers six years ago "just wanted to take really good snapshots."

I don't understand why you think a shutter button would make any difference. Historically speaking phones that try to be cameras and cameras that try to be phones have been huge failures.

Samsung Galaxy NX. This camera tried to be more like a phone. It failed miserably.

Motorola Moto Z with Hasselblad Camera Mod. This phone tried to be more like a camera. It even had a shutter button and a real 10X optical zoom. It ALSO failed miserably.

Some people will ALWAYS prefer smartphone photography (vertical video and all) and some others will ALWAYS prefer dedicated camera photography. Most of us probably use both but still have a strong preference for one over the other.

I think the market has spoken. Consumers want cameras with good ergonomics and plenty of direct controls. Consumers what phones that are convenient and easy to use. Both are capable of taking good snapshots, but neither one appeals to everyone.

The only reason i dont use my phone to take photos is because it doesnt have a shutter button otherwise i would.

Don

--
Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244

past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2

 

[forest dream]

I disagree Marty, I don't think they can do anything that would significantly increase sales. The enthusiasts already buy cameras, and the rest of the people think their phones are good enough.

The only thing they can do is implement these "planned obsolescence" like suggestions to further rip off their customers.

These are worst plans but existing lens holder will continue support camera maker if all camera maker doing same strategy.

It proofed via consumer still support unfair battery price and more and more expensive (but little improvement) camera/lens (e.g. Canon EOS M50 Mark II).

 

[forest dream]

Marty4650 wrote:

Motorola Moto Z with Hasselblad Camera Mod. This phone tried to be more like a camera. It even had a shutter button and a real 10X optical zoom. It ALSO failed miserably.

Below comments from Amazon reviews told why above these smartphone-camera hybrid fail:

1. Even when it's not connected to your phone, the True Zoom is wider and taller and just as heavy as most small real cameras.
2. It also makes the phone as bulky as a small camera - but if you only use it when you need to, you must first remove your phone's case or "style mod" (backplate) - and then replace it later.
3. The True Zoom's sensor is comparable to what you would find in any premium smartphone; many real cameras offer better sensors.
4. It costs more than many cameras of equal or better capability and quality. - It uses your phone's battery instead of having its own power source.

Above comments show it is no innovation, only direct attach worst small camera sensor (The True Zoom module has a 12MP 1/2.3" sensor) to phone.

All entry/mid-range smartphone (at the times, e.g. XiaoMi 6) already has 1/2.3" sensor.

Only feature provided by "Hasselblad Camera Mod" is 10x optical zoom which not needed by majority smartphone consumer daily usage.

 

[mamallama]

Marty4650 wrote:

Motorola Moto Z with Hasselblad Camera Mod. This phone tried to be more like a camera. It even had a shutter button and a real 10X optical zoom. It ALSO failed miserably.

Below comments from Amazon reviews told why above these smartphone-camera hybrid fail:

1. Even when it's not connected to your phone, the True Zoom is wider and taller and just as heavy as most small real cameras.
2. It also makes the phone as bulky as a small camera - but if you only use it when you need to, you must first remove your phone's case or "style mod" (backplate) - and then replace it later.
3. The True Zoom's sensor is comparable to what you would find in any premium smartphone; many real cameras offer better sensors.
4. It costs more than many cameras of equal or better capability and quality. - It uses your phone's battery instead of having its own power source.

Above comments show it is no innovation, only direct attach worst small camera sensor (The True Zoom module has a 12MP 1/2.3" sensor) to phone.

All entry/mid-range smartphone (at the times, e.g. XiaoMi 6) already has 1/2.3" sensor.

Only features provided by "Hasselblad Camera Mod" is optical zoom which not needed by majority smartphone consumer.

Also whoever designed it was unclear on the concept. Apparently they thought it was the shape of the body that attracted so many buyers. :-(

 

[BrownieVet]

Make camera that has the :

BEST OPTICS

BEST SENSOR

WIDEST DYNAMIC RANGE

WIDEST SHUTTER SPEED RANGE

VOICE CONTROLLABLE

THOUGHT CONTROLLABLE TO OPERATE

PROVIDE MEMORY CARD SLOTS FOR FOUR DIFFERENT MEMORY CARDS

WIRELESS TRANSMISSION OF IMAGE CAPTURE TO MEMORY DEVICES

WIRELESS DISPLAY OF CAPTURED IMAGES TO TV, MONITORS, TABLETS, ETC.

SELF LEVITATION OBVIATING THE NEED FOR TRIPODS

DIRT - STAIN RESISTANT and SELF CLEANING LENSES

DURABLE WITH 6 YEAR GUARANTEED LIFE

. . .
Sell the camera with lens for $100, perhaps $20,000 below cost
DO NOT WORRY ABOUT LOOSING MONEY
The OBJECTIVE is to SELL MORE CAMERA, NOT TO MAKE MONEY.

 

[onlyfreeman]

Olympus did everything on that list.

 

[forest dream]

Olympus did everything on that list.

But with tiny sensor, heavy body and expensive camera/lens (when compared with Fujiflm X-E3 with XC 35mm F2).

 

[Andy873]

For the casual photographer smartphones have multiple advantages over dedicated cameras. We all know the obvious ones (things like... "you always have it with you" and "you don't have to carry two devices" and "they are more convenient to use") but there are also a few more subtle things that camera makers could do encourage faster replacement cycles.

The camera industry could adopt a few strategies that have been successfully used by smartphone makers to force users to buy new ones. These things might not be desirable or ethical, but no one can dispute that they would result in higher sales figures:

• Make fashion an essential selling point. With every model year, change some exterior feature to make it obvious that this model is new., and the one you already have is old. Like adding fins on a car in the 1950s, this should be instantly and easily recognizable from a distance.

I believer somebody already tried this and it didn't work.

Most people don't know anything about cameras so they won't know if yours is new even if it looked different.

• Create cameras that require frequent updates. Release monthly wireless updates that are necessary to maintain all camera functions. Then, after three years or so, stop supporting that particular model. The cameras will still work, but they will be slower and less useful.

If that's supposed to be one of those ignorant jabs at Apple, you need to learn more about why it happened, how batteries work, and then you'll understand why it won't be possible to replicate on a camera.

• Make camera performance dependent on battery life. Glue the OEM battery in place, and make it impossible for the user to remove. Eliminate all chargers, so they can only be charged in place using a USB cord. Make sure that performance depends on battery condition, and use batteries that become useless after three or four years. Since you cannot replace the battery you will have to buy a new camera.

Same as above, please learn how batteries work.

BTW, some of them are eliminating chargers.

• Make cameras more fragile, and encourage rough handling. Use plenty of fragile parts (like glass), make them thinner, and then encourage users to carry them in their back pockets. Advertise them as "waterproof" even though they are only water resistant.

Sony already did this.

• Make user or third party repairs difficult or impossible. Use proprietary screws that require special tools. Don't sell any parts to third party repair shops. Keep all repair manuals top secret, and sue anyone who gets their hands on one. Void warranties if anyone other than you even opens a camera. Install sensors that turn red when there is "water damage" even if they only detected high humidity. To their credit, Nikon is already employing some of these strategies.

Sony also did this.

• Eliminate all third party repair shops so your customers must come to you for repairs, then pay whatever price you want for them. Call your own repair people "geniuses" or "experts" or "geeks." Make your repair team wear polo shirts of a different color and give them special coffee mugs to denote their special status.

Again, it's already been done, there are no shady cameras repair shops anyway because it's not viable business, there aren't that many cameras around.

• Make repairs economically impractical. After you make repairs difficult, and assure that only you can do them, the next step is to price repairs very close to replacement price. If some small part breaks, make it cost $800 to fix, when a brand new model might "only cost $950" to buy.

Again if that's some ignorant jab at apple, you really don't understand the economics of how this actually works.

If camera makers adopt some or all of the above, they will still not sell as many units as smartphones. At least not until cameras can surf the web and play video games. But they will still sell more units than they do today.

If you genuinely believe Apple is popular by being anti-consumer, and you're the only one around smart enough to see it. Consider the alternate possibility, that is there's something you're not understanding.

 

[OldSchoolNewSchool]

For the casual photographer smartphones have multiple advantages over dedicated cameras. We all know the obvious ones (things like... "you always have it with you" and "you don't have to carry two devices" and "they are more convenient to use") but there are also a few more subtle things that camera makers could do encourage faster replacement cycles.

The camera industry could adopt a few strategies that have been successfully used by smartphone makers to force users to buy new ones. These things might not be desirable or ethical, but no one can dispute that they would result in higher sales figures:

• Make fashion an essential selling point. With every model year, change some exterior feature to make it obvious that this model is new., and the one you already have is old. Like adding fins on a car in the 1950s, this should be instantly and easily recognizable from a distance.

• Create cameras that require frequent updates. Release monthly wireless updates that are necessary to maintain all camera functions. Then, after three years or so, stop supporting that particular model. The cameras will still work, but they will be slower and less useful.

• Make camera performance dependent on battery life. Glue the OEM battery in place, and make it impossible for the user to remove. Eliminate all chargers, so they can only be charged in place using a USB cord. Make sure that performance depends on battery condition, and use batteries that become useless after three or four years. Since you cannot replace the battery you will have to buy a new camera.

• Make cameras more fragile, and encourage rough handling. Use plenty of fragile parts (like glass), make them thinner, and then encourage users to carry them in their back pockets. Advertise them as "waterproof" even though they are only water resistant.

• Make user or third party repairs difficult or impossible. Use proprietary screws that require special tools. Don't sell any parts to third party repair shops. Keep all repair manuals top secret, and sue anyone who gets their hands on one. Void warranties if anyone other than you even opens a camera. Install sensors that turn red when there is "water damage" even if they only detected high humidity. To their credit, Nikon is already employing some of these strategies.

• Eliminate all third party repair shops so your customers must come to you for repairs, then pay whatever price you want for them. Call your own repair people "geniuses" or "experts" or "geeks." Make your repair team wear polo shirts of a different color and give them special coffee mugs to denote their special status.

• Make repairs economically impractical. After you make repairs difficult, and assure that only you can do them, the next step is to price repairs very close to replacement price. If some small part breaks, make it cost $800 to fix, when a brand new model might "only cost $950" to buy.

If camera makers adopt some or all of the above, they will still not sell as many units as smartphones. At least not until cameras can surf the web and play video games. But they will still sell more units than they do today.

Marty, it looks like your tongue is buried deeply into your cheek. But I'll play, because I sort of agree with the first point about changing the exterior of each camera model each year. Doing this without being cheesy would be difficult, though. Can you imagine walking around with an orange camera?

Maybe change the white lettering of the camera brand to blue one year, green the next, red the next, etc. Of course, the average non-photographer probably wouldn't have a clue why; they'd just want the camera with their favorite color emblazoned on the front.

Remember several years ago when some Pentax models were available in multiple colors? Some were even two-tone! Man, that must have wreaked havoc on their assembly lines, inventory tracking and supply chain.

I think your last point about making repairs economically impractical has actually happened in many cases. Anyone with a digital camera more than about four years old (depending on the model, of course) or anyone with a failed point-and-shoot camera who has received a repair estimate knows this all too well.