[LRflex] Re: Was Survey, now Apathy.
- From: David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:36:13 -0700
Good Morning, Javier!
>You seem to be invoking my name a little too often for
>my comfort.
If I have offended you, then I apologize. That was not my intention.
The bit about "not being constructive" was intended only as a gentle
nudge, to perhaps get you to complete the survey. That, I now see,
is never going to happen and I will not mention it, with regard to you, again.
As far as "complaining" .... well, you have complained about a number
of things, which do not add up.
First of all, you have stated that a new, revitalized Leica will
"have" to make cameras that people on this list will not like. I am
curious how you know this with such certainty. Are you privy to
plans Leica may have, that I am not? Certainly, it appears that your
crystal ball is much clearer than mine.
You tell me that polycarbonate and other plastics are not suitable
carriers for high quality lenses. I agree. You also tell me that you
like, and use, Canon cameras. Yet nearly every Canon AF lens has
some form of plastic lens barrel.
You tell me that you do not like, and will not do business with firms
which squeeze every dime to make a profit. Yet you like Canon, which
is probably the most successful camera company in the world at
squeezing every dime out of the manufacturing process.
It would appear that you dislike the idea that ACM stands to make a
bundle out of revitalizing Leica. If they are successful, indeed,
they will. But you seem to feel that somehow they will do it at the
expense of product quality and it's employees. So let me fill you in
on a few business basics.
Company A is a small firm in the widget business. Although they make
a high quality widget, they are lousy at business planning. Because
they make the world's best widgets, they expect the world to beat a
path to their door. But, the reality is that they are making old
style widgets, which very few people want. They try painting their
widgets in custom colours, and that works, for a while, but
eventually, they approach bankruptcy, for their limited sales are not
enough to pay the staff, the heat, the light and their banks.
Company B buys them out. They make some efficiencies in the widget
manufacturing line, it's true. But Company B realize that Company
A's widgets are the best. Cheapening the product, to sell simply on
price will not work, as A's production lines simply cannot make
enough widgets to gain the efficiencies of scale needed to compete
with their Vietnamese based competition. The solution, then, is to
continue to make the best widgets possible and charge a premium price
for that quality. The real trick is to start making up to date
widgets, so that the portion of the market which is willing to pay a
premium for the best widgets, will buy them!
After a few years, Company A is now making fine, up to date
widgets. And is now making 50 million dollars a year in profits,
rather than going broke, as before. Business are bought and sold by
calculating the price as a multiple of the profits. Company B goes
looking for a buyer for Company A. They find one, in Company C ... a
firm willing to pay 10x the profits, as it intends to run the firm as
it's own, for many years. They feel that over 20 or 25 years, they
can recoup their investment and make a lot more.
Suddenly, Company B has made 500 Million Dollars (as well as a few
years of low, but steadily increasing, profits from Company A) by
turning around a company headed for oblivion. Company A, now owned
by Company C is making good profits, can pay its staff and it's
bankers. Their products are still of top quality and they are again
selling well. Everybody from the firms customers, to it's employees
are much better off.
Is this such an evil thing? Had Company B not invested their time,
expertise and money, where would have happened to Company A, and it's
employees?
>When I read your survey and your pitch for the new
>management I thought you were a Leitz employee and I
>thought the survey had been issuesd by the company.
As I have stated before, you are very quick to make statements based
on erroneous assumptions. Both those thoughts are incorrect. And we
all know the problem with the word "assume".
>I'm also not sure what you mean by most folks wanting
>to complain. Isn't it you and a few others who have
>been complaining about the old managers. Perhaps you
>shouldn't point fingers.
Statements I have made about the old managers are not complaints.
They are facts. The old management team drove Leica to
bankruptcy. Leica's banks cut off their lines of credit and the firm
was saved only be investment from Hermes. Whether Hermes was the
right "white knight" is another story, though it would appear not,
for Leica did not do any better under their tutelage and Hermes has now bailed.
>Your call for doing something
>constructive seems naive. Leica is a business for
>profit not a charity. They know who I am because I
>have done business with the company before. If they
>want my advice they will ask for it and if I feel it's
>something I should do for free I will give it to them.
That Leica is a 'for profit' company is true. However, we are all
here because of a love of the brand and the products they
build. They are now asking for user feedback - something they have
never done before. And I, for one, am quite willing to help them get it.
However, it would appear that you are waiting for an engraved
invitation. And only then will you decide whether that request is
worthy of you.
>Finally, I remember meeting a few of thos old managers
>years ago in camera shows and camera shops. They were
>quite capable people. They understood what the
>problems were and unlike most users, they understood
>exactly why they couldn't do anything about it. Still,
>they managed to maintain the highest standards for
>quality in the industry and that's worth something. I
>guess my point is you can promote the new without
>trashing the old.
I, too, have met a number of the "old managers". And they were all
very nice people. As to their capabilities, if they were so good,
why did they drive Leica to bankruptcy? To mention that they did
this is neither criticism nor complaint... it is a fact.
As stated before, I am not in the employ of Leica, nor is the survey
I am asking people to complete, anybody's but my own. Leica are
asking for input, and we, as a group, are in a unique position to
help. I thought a survey would give all those here, who wanted it,
a voice in the process. It has consumed a fair bit of my time, and it
will consume more. However, I believe it is the right thing to do.
I went to the LHSA meeting in Wetzlar/Solms, because I felt, like
many who went, that it would be the last opportunity to see the
factory while it still existed. I was quite sure that it would not
be there, this time next year.
After first hearing Stephen Lees give a talk at one of the dinners,
and then having spent some 2 1/2 hours meeting with him, and his
managers, I came away feeling that this new management team is both
capable and willing to restore Leica to its former glory. A further
talk with him, in Solms, reinforced, in my mind, that he and Leica
are on the right track.
They plan to do this not by changing the methods of manufacturing,
nor by lowering the quality standards of the products. Rather, they
intend to do it (and, in the process, restore Leica's profitability)
by ensuring a steady parts supply and by designing new products which
will fly, in the marketplace.
With Matsushita's help, they will broaden Leica's offerings in the
lower price ranges, but will differentiate them from their Panasonic
counterparts by having Leica designed firmware, which they are
convinced will offer better picture quality.
And, they plan to bring a new R camera to market. They realize
that the last time Leica shook up the photographic world, was some 50
years ago, with the introduction of the M3. Although it is still in
the planning stages (thus their request for input), they hope to
create a new R, good enough to regain some of the pro-market and give
both Nikon and Canon some real competition for the first time in 40 years.
I believe, as Martha would say, this is "a good thing".
Respectfully yours,
David.
---
David Young,
Logan Lake, CANADA
Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/
Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
