[rollei_list] Re: Decline of Rollieflex/Film
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:30:04 -0400
At 05:02 PM 3/25/2010, Austin Franklin wrote:
>Unless you can show substantiated figures that show people who bought
>Hasselblads would have not considered a Rollei as an option, I don't think
>there is a way to establish the claim that Hasselblad didn't contribute to
>the decline in sales of the Rollei TLR. The fact that they were sold at the
>same time, and were so similar is clear enough indication that it had to
>have some contribution, if not a significant one. And again, what if the
>Hasselblad weren't around? What else would all those thousands of people
>who bought Hasselblads have bought?
Austin
First, the figures are not available to the
public. You did have a 12-month window when
Rollei Fototecknik went bankrupt to access their
sales data, but that ended in 1980, and
Hasselblad has never released their sales figures
to the public though I believe Rick has obtained access to this.
Second, you are arguing against accepted
history. I realize that accepted history is not
always "real" history, but I suggest that you
revisit your copy of THE HASSELBLAD COMPENDIUM
for a discussion of just why the camera was produced and its intended market.
Third, you are not being very precise about your
years of reference. Hasselblad did not make much
of a dent in Rolleiflex sales in the 1950's -- I
believe that 1958 was Rollei's top year for sales
-- until the 500C was introduced. Hasselblad
did impact Zeiss Ikon sales -- we know that from
the anecdotal evidence collected by Bill Stone
and Charlie Barringer. But I do not believe that
Hasselblad made much of a hit on F&H sales until
the early 1960's, by which time Rolleiflex was
already slipping and would have gone on
slipping. The issues which afflicted the German
camera industry in that decade were general and
not restricted to a single company. As Carlos
has noted, you really cannot study one brand
without looking to the entire industry. I do
recognize that common sense would not suggest
that EVERY German camera company made a series of
identical and really stupid marketing decisions
in the same decade, but the historical record
seems clear that such was the case. Zeiss Ikon,
Voigtländer, Robot, Kodak AG, and the rest, just
made a lot of very similar and very stupid
business decisions. Hasselblad did NOT make
those same bad decisions, and so its downfall and
collapse was to be delayed for decades after
Zeiss Ikon and Kodak AG were gone. But hte
general market conditions eventually did in
Hasselblad as they had killed off all the others.
Fourth, you keep ignoring the reality that the
1600F and the 1000F were bombs on the market due
to reliability problems. Hasselblad could not
have had much of an impact in either the amateur
or professional market, as no one bought
them. (Check out eBay or like venues: there are
damned few of these cameras for sale, as there were damned few made ...)
Fifth, when Hasselblad did get its act together,
the price for the 500C was cripplingly high. Our
own Ed Meyers might rememer who it was among his
New York photo cronies who named it,
"Ha$$elblad", but the name dates from the late
1950's. The 500C sold with the basic 2.8/80
Planar for around 1 1/2 to 2 times the cost of a 2.8F Rolleiflex.
Austin, I will not stand behind you in my
admiration for the Hasselblad system
camera. But Hasselblad was not the cause of the
woes of F&H. Hasselblad's success did hurt F&H,
obviously, but it was not the cause. Had Viktor
H never conceived of the development of that
German wartime camera into the 1600F, Rolleiflex
sales would still have gone into the terlet, pace
Archie Bunker!, in the 1960's. The camera which
had been so perfect for the 1930's and 1940's and
1950's was just all wrong for the 1960's.
Again, compare and contrast to Leitz, another
company which made equally bone-headed
decisions. To speak up for family capitalism,
the Frankes and the Heideckes and the Leitzes all
made huge sums when their cameras were selling --
and all three families spent the 1960's
subsidizing their companies to keep them
afloat. H Beam Piper would have applauded, had
he lived to have seen this, as it was his vision
of the way capitalists ought to behave. (I do
know a few of the Leitz family -- we have one on
this List, I believe -- and the family is now
only moderately wealthy, thanks to their sense of
responsibility. Bless them all!)
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
