[LRflex] Re: leicareflex Digest V4 #129

  • From: KEITH LONGMORE <keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 12:45:02 +0100

Well Flexers, this is getting 'heavy' isn't it?

All this talk of systems engineering, quality, technology.

My day job involves safety.  Now safety is a subset of quality, given 
the current definitions of both words; however, I have often heard the 
term 'build quality', and a while back tried to discover the difference 
between 'quality' and 'build quality'.  You may not think this relevant 
to the current discussion; unfortunately is is very relevant, and maybe 
the crux of the question.

Broadly speaking, 'quality' is measurable, whereas 'build quality' is 
subjective.  The two terms are often loosely interchanged, and this 
blurs the real issues.

I thin k we can safely say that Leica has always produced  goods of 
measurably high quality.  To a large extent, it has also provided goods 
with high 'build quality'.

The issue is, Nikon, Canon, Pentax et al generally provide goods of high 
'build quality' too (except perhaps their cheaper plastic offerings); 
the fact that any may not have as good measurable quality as Leica is 
not necessarily within the customer's perception of the actual product 
is where the dilemma arises. 
So:
1) do you aim for purely 'build quality' as the marketing yardstick?
2) if measurable quality is not within the customers' perception, are 
you going to be able to charge a premium for it?

Let me illustrate with car attributes:
Customers today are regaled by claims of high build quality by all 
manufacturers, and this has resulted in some 'must haves':
1) maximum showroom appeal;
2) accurate shut lines;
3) attractive paint finish without blemishes;
4) good economy rating (at the legal test points in the fuel/ignition map)
5) safe handling
6) at least 3 starts EuroNCAP
7) and so on....

By and large these attributes are addressed by all manufacturers from 
the cheapest to the dearest.  Under the skin, all manufacturers tend to 
fit parts from much the same 'parts bin'.  Beneath that glossy surface 
lurk parts from India, China, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Peru, South 
Africa.  But the end product is still 'Made in Germany', 'Made in 
France', 'Made  in Sweden'.  Yes, some customers remain brand loyal; but 
the brand content they are getting is very different to what they got 
say 30 years ago; the important issue is that the product meets customer 
expectations, and then the customer will believe that his/er brand 
loyalty is justified - even if that means paying twice as much for 
similar quality (measurable quality) components in a 'lesser brand' vehicle.

So, to Leica.  Leica has to operate in a 21st century market, like it or 
like it not.  That inevitably means some compromise; I think I and Doug 
Sharp are as one in this: manufacturers today can't afford to supply 
things exceeding customer expectations.  If they try to charge more for 
some invisible attribute - however 'nice' this may be - the customer 
won't pay if he/she doesn't need it.  On the other hand, providing extra 
for the same money is a road to lost profits, and ultimately ruin.  
There are plenty of competent, reliable cameras out there, with high 
brand reputations and profiles to compete with - and some of those 
famous names have fallen by the wayside of late - without having a 
problem such as the DMR.

The DMR is an excellent example.  Expensive, supposedly the best, Leica 
name (but arguably not Leica 'made') ...... and faulty.  The DMR has 
clearly tarnished Leica in many eyes (David, for example...? ;-) and 
increased the size of the next hurdle to be overcome if Leica is to be 
successful.  But - it has excellent 'build quality', doesn't it?  If it 
performed to customer expectations in every way, it would have a band of 
ecstatic owners, wouldn't it?  But it has fallen short, and almost 
certainly should be taken by Leica as a dire warning of things to come, 
if Leica management doesn't get itself into the 21st century - fast!  
You can't live off a reputation grown in the 1940s and 50s for ever!

Quoting Doug again:

'But then again , do customers really want an AF Leica? Isn't it a definitive 
characteristic of Leica SLR users that they prefer to have complete control of 
the process of photography - focusing, DOF etc? Maybe just give us reliable 
focus confirmation. Dyed in the wool Leica R owners don't "trust" AF anyway , 
as a rule.'


How old is the typical R user, Doug?  55?  60?  A classic example of a 
shrinking customer base.  Only one word to say here: 'Rover'.

Gathering expertise and competence is the name of the game, the Leica we know 
today will probably become a simple "centre of excellence", and one of the 
components in a group comprising the other branches (and their particular areas 
of  competence) swallowed by Kaufmann and co and planned to be the core 
concerns in the Leitz Park project.

With the best will in the world, this will not be enough.

'What does Lee consider to be "The Competition" as such: I expect, primarily 
Canon and Nikon  - so what do they have
 that Leica doesn't?


A large age-diverse base of customers world-wide!  And a long history of 
RELIABLE products. Mould-breaking innovation - remember the Nikon F?

 And what can Leica offer as a Unique Selling Proposition to gain a competitive 
edge and a profitable market share?'

A complete and fundamental rethink of where it is, where it wants to go, 
and how to get there.

Oh - and a thorough and realistic of what its customer base will be in , 
say, 10 years' time.

Cheers
Keith
PS - anyone else read Stefan Daniel's back page article in AP this 
week?  Seems the M8 is the icon for the future.....

------
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: