Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] [OT] Re: "Basic MBA material" (Was: discussion of Oly digital

Subject: Re: [OM] [OT] Re: "Basic MBA material" (Was: discussion of Oly digital incompatibilities w/OM System stuff)
From: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:37:47 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John,

Since I am completely unfamiliar with marketing-stuff, I find your mail
most interresting (and no, I do not feel that you pick on
me..assuming that "Tom Clausen" in your mail is an abbrevation of "Thomas
Clausen"). As an engineer working within research/teaching, I tend to
think along the "technical" lines (which, of course, involves good design
of a "product") rather than along the lines of marketing (which, of
course, involves good design of a huge profit). And also, I think of what
is convenient to me ;) So I hadn't had the issues you raise in your mail
in mind atall. 

Refreshing - though also a bit sad...In any event, thanks ;)

--thomas

 

On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, John A. Lind wrote:

> At 15:37 2/8/01, you wrote:
> >At 08:43 AM 2/8/2001 +0000, Thomas Clausen wrote:
> > >In that case, I don't give crap for MBA's. No offence, but teaching
> > >"Loosing customer loyality" doesn't seem to be that good of an idea. Let
> > >me explain below...
> >
> >Well, as a guy with several degrees (one of which is an MBA), I just had 
> >to respond.
> >
> >"Planned obsolescence" (which I assume is what John Lind was referring to) 
> >was a product development strategy used primarily by the automakers from 
> >the 1950s through the 1970s (and emulated by lots of other companies, of 
> >course) to support their massive capital spending.  In every marketing 
> >course I ever took, it was *not* held up as some "shining example" of good 
> >marketing strategy or customer relations strategy, but was rather 
> >thoroughly lampooned as being short-sighted, wasteful and alienating.  It 
> >may have been thought a good idea in the 60s, but hey! -- as one wag has 
> >so eloquently put it, "The 60s are *over*."
> [snip]
> 
> It still exists . . . but not as blatant as the examples you (and I) were 
> given and lampooned in the classroom.  My thought was incompatibility 
> creates a barrier to competition in lens sales from a supply of used OM 
> lenses.  That it might be an inconvenience for Tom Clausen, et alia, 
> doesn't matter to a large corporation.  In brand loyalty, it's sheer 
> numbers that count; there would have to be enough Tom Clausen's.  The 
> strategic direction chosen will be the one predicted to maximize the bottom 
> line revenue and profit.
> 
> Not considering technical feasibility, the basic business tradeoff is this:
> 
> On one hand:
> There is a large base of used OM lenses.  If we sell bodies that are 
> compatible with them, we will sell fewer new lenses; some will seek used OM 
> lenses and those transactions do not generate revenue for us.  This is 
> opportunity lost.  Incompatibility creates a barrier to competition from 
> the used market!
> 
> On the other hand:
> There is a large base of used OM lenses.  If we sell bodies that are 
> compatible with them, we may sell more bodies.  Some who might not buy our 
> body may do so if it is backward compatible.  This is opportunity 
> gained.  Compatibility expands the marketing base!
> 
> The business question:
> Which of these two strategies will generate more revenue (profit)?
> I would not dare to attempt answering this question and very likely nobody 
> else on this list is qualified to either.
> 
> This is a simplistic presentation of first order considerations . . . there 
> are some second order ones such as "public good will," not from an 
> individual or a few, but by the mass market as a whole.  Are there a 
> sufficient number of OM system owners interested in digital to satisfy a 
> business case for it?  Some list members might be, and may even be 
> passionately interested.  That doesn't matter; it's the numbers (how many) 
> that count and _don't_ underestimate how high that number might be.
> 
> [This is not intended to pick on Tom Clausen.  To a corporation, an 
> individual does not matter unless it influences a tremendously huge number 
> of other individuals who would otherwise be customers.  Is that rather 
> cold?  Yes, but it's also reality.]
> 
> -- John
> 
> 
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> 

-- 
Mange hilsner / Sincerely

-------------------------------------------
  Thomas Heide Clausen
  Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
  M.Sc in Computer Engineering

  E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  WWW:    http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz