P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:09:08 -0700, Rich wrote:

amateurphotographer.co.uk

Compact camera sales drop 14.5%

Thursday 2nd July 2009
Chris Cheesman
GfK

UK consumers snapped up 14.5% fewer compact cameras in May than in the
same month the year before, according to official figures seen by
Amateur Photographer. However, DSLR sales continue to ride out the
effects of the economic downturn.

Statistics show that 433,900 compact cameras were sold in May 2009 -
that's 73,400 fewer than in May 2008.

This led to a 11% drop in compact camera sales revenue, according to the
figures compiled by GfK Retail & Technology.

GfK attributed the fall in demand for compact cameras to higher prices,
compared to a year ago, and the effects of the recession.

GfK's Photo/Imaging account manager Cedric Mertes blamed higher
unemployment and cuts in household budgets, adding that the compact
market has now 'reached maturity'.

He said that 75% of UK households own a compact camera and people are
reluctant to upgrade to newer models during a downturn.

However, sales of digital SLRs held up, sliding around 2% in volume in
May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%,
compared to 12 months earlier.

Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.

ray wrote:

Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.

Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way
or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
don't know, but that is the only number which counts...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

ray wrote:

Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.

Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way
or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
don't know, but that is the only number which counts...

To you, but not to the rest of the world.

So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily
doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember
Adam Osborne selling computers like that...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

ray wrote:

Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.

Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way or another.
How much did the *profits* change? We don't know, but that is the only
number which counts...

Really. Only matters to me if I own stock in one of the companies. I
don't.

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)

Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way
or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
don't know, but that is the only number which counts...

To you, but not to the rest of the world.

Yes, no profits meaning stores and camera makers going
bankrupt ... doesn't mean a thing to the world. It's not
like banks failing had any affect on the world, either.

-Wolfgang

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:16:40 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

ray wrote:

Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.

Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way
or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
don't know, but that is the only number which counts...

To you, but not to the rest of the world.

So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily
doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember
Adam Osborne selling computers like that...

How silly.

Oh, so you *don't* remember Adam Osborne. Look it up.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2009-07-02 23:37:32 -0700, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:16:40 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

ray wrote:

Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.

Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way
or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
don't know, but that is the only number which counts...

To you, but not to the rest of the world.

So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily
doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember
Adam Osborne selling computers like that...

How silly.

Oh, so you *don't* remember Adam Osborne. Look it up.

Yup. Compaq copied his suitcase portable. 8088, Keyboard lid, twin 51/4
drives amber 6" monitor.

Lug fest!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-07-02 23:37:32 -0700, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:16:40 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

ray wrote:
Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as
opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.
Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue
one way
or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
don't know, but that is the only number which counts...
To you, but not to the rest of the world.
So if they can boost sales to half a million, they
are necessarily
doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember
Adam Osborne selling computers like that...
How silly.
Oh, so you *don't* remember Adam Osborne. Look it up.

Yup. Compaq copied his suitcase portable. 8088, Keyboard lid, twin 51/4
drives amber 6" monitor.

Lug fest!

However, the point is that while Osborne created a
wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate
his cost of production and for the entire life of the
product he sold it for less than it cost to make... and
went bankrupt due to the "success"!

Along the same lines, to stay with the original
discussion relating 434,000 compact cameras to 42,000
DSLRs, another story that I've heard but have not
verified, involves Henry Ford. Supposedly his invention
of the production line to build cars was what brought
him success, but that is not exactly the real story
either. Seems he came up with the production line idea
first... and applied it to making a $35 wrist watch!
But he did do his homework, and it doesn't take much
arithmetic to determine how many watches it takes to
make a million bucks (too many!). So he literally went
looking for something more expensive.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily
doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember
Adam Osborne selling computers like that...

I used to work right next to Osborne Computer in Hayward, CA and I'd see
Adam coming and going. We (Xerox) lost a lot of employees to Osborne,
but they didn't last long there. But Osborne's real cash problems
started when they pre-announced the new model, and everyone stopped
buying the old model. They were under-capitalized, and couldn't survive
the transition, it had nothing to do with losing money on every sale,
there were just no sales.

The fact is that the D-SLR sales are becoming a bigger percentage of
total sales, and the profit per D-SLR system sold is far greater than
the profit on a commodity point and shoot, where you don't keep selling
lenses and accessories far into the future. I don't think the question
was ever whether or not the manufacturers are profitable overall in the
digital camera segment. Some obviously are not, and have exited the
business (Konica/Minolta) and probably Samsung and Panasonic in the near
future. They just don't have the critical mass to survive. As NPD
director Ross Rubin stated, "The top three suppliers are solidly
positioned," Rubin said, "but slowing growth in the point-and-shoot
market could make it difficult for other brands, like Samsung and
Panasonic, which are still making in-roads in the digital camera
market." The question is how long these companies are willing to lose
money in this segment, funding the operations with revenue from other
segments.

The D-SLR growth is a natural progression as people decide that they
want better quality photos, faster AF, more lens choices, and more
control. As Australian Photo Information Council spokesperson Paul
Curtis stated last week, "Over the last five months, digital SLR sales
have soared by nearly fifty per cent. We believe it is the cheaper
low-end cameras and camera phones which became available over the last
couple of years that inspired people into the joys of taking better
photos. An SLR camera allows a photographer to be more expressive,
versatile and creative in their picture taking."

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

However, the point is that while Osborne created a
wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate
his cost of production and for the entire life of the
product he sold it for less than it cost to make... and
went bankrupt due to the "success"!

That's not what happened to Osborne Computer at all.

Several things killed Osborne.

1. Kaypro came out with a 9" screen model hurting sales of the 5" screen
Osborne 1.

2. Compaq offered their suitcase computer which was IBM compatible.

3. Adam pre-announced the Osborne Executive (7" screen) and sales of the
Osborne 1 tanked because everyone waited for the new model.

4. The company was under-capitalized so they could not ride out the
sales lull and develop new products fast enough.

5. He could not produce the original model in sufficient quantities to
meet demand, and by the time he could, prices had fallen.

Too bad, Adam was a good guy. Maybe he should have stuck to books.