Did Canon buy the pro market?

RichA wrote:
No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?


In the UK they 'seeded' the press/media market from the late 1970s on,
lending unafforable big lenses to the papers etc, who of course needed
to use Canon to be able to use those lenses. But so did Olympus, and
even Minolta, who seeded stuff to one major provincial/national group.
Around 1980-ish the press desks had cameras and lenses pressed on them
for 'we'd like you to try this out' reasons constantly.

Canon won, because they had the right things to be tried out. Olympus
nearly got there. Canon has always kept doing so, with close
relationships to major newspaper picture desks.

You must remember that the leading photo magazine used senior newspaper
picture desk/chief photogs as columnists for years in Britain = Ron
Spillman, Victor Blackman, Mike Maloney etc. They were also legitimate
PR targets for loan/test gear for their 'Amateur Photographer' magazine
pages. And of course, they passed it round the staff photographers.

There are not so many staffers now and the same would be hard to do, but
Canon did undertake such a PR campaign, and they did use loaned or
seeded gear to win it. It's long in the past. These days they just use
better service and support, especially at international events.

David

--
Icon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB
Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange
St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL
VAT Reg No GB458101463
Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com
www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk -
www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk
Tel +44 1573 226032

RichA wrote:
No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

Canon certainly "bought" the pro market by investing heavilly in a new
AF platform, new (generally supperb) pro lenses and flash system. Then
they "bought" the pro markt by getting pros to use their system with the
results.

Canon also "bought" the pro market by giving better service than most
Nikon service centers.

Further, at least here in Montreal, Canon give a healthy discount to pro
photogs for their personal equipment and Nikon do not.

Yep Canon bought the market ... by being more competitive than Nikon.

They certainly did not do it with low prices which is what is generally
meant by "buying" a market.

It's also important to note that in the 90's Nikon's camera division was
not a huge money maker and so the cash to re-invest was not there to
face down Canon.

One might also say that by keeping the Nikon systems of today
mechanically (and to varying degrees functionally) compatible back over
decades of lenses that they prevented a lot of potential new lens sales
had they come out with a new mount (as did Minolta, Canon). That
renewed cash flow would have helped Nikon stare down Canon.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Jun 30, 9:27 pm, Slack wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:00:57 -0700, Tony Polson wrote:
RichA wrote:

Did Canon buy the pro market?

Is the Pope Catholic?

No, actually, he's a child molester [supporter]. Then again, perhaps that
is redundant.

And, RichA, I'm sorry you were molested, repeatedly, for many years. If I
could've been
there to stop it, I would've.
--
Slack

Somehow with your mentality, I'd say you'd be more likely a
participant than a saviour.

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message ...
RichA wrote:

No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

In the UK they 'seeded' the press/media market from the late 1970s on, lending unafforable big lenses to the papers etc, who of
course needed to use Canon to be able to use those lenses. But so did Olympus, and even Minolta, who seeded stuff to one major
provincial/national group. Around 1980-ish the press desks had cameras and lenses pressed on them for 'we'd like you to try this
out' reasons constantly.

Canon won, because they had the right things to be tried out. Olympus nearly got there. Canon has always kept doing so, with close
relationships to major newspaper picture desks.

You must remember that the leading photo magazine used senior newspaper picture desk/chief photogs as columnists for years in
Britain = Ron Spillman, Victor Blackman, Mike Maloney etc. They were also legitimate PR targets for loan/test gear for their
'Amateur Photographer' magazine pages. And of course, they passed it round the staff photographers.

There are not so many staffers now and the same would be hard to do, but Canon did undertake such a PR campaign, and they did use
loaned or seeded gear to win it. It's long in the past. These days they just use better service and support, especially at
international events.

David

Canon has for as long as I've known them (the '60s...!) been excellent
at marketing, and as a result, even with products that were not
necessarily better than those offered by others at the time, they were
predictably likely to "win" in the long run (since their success provided
for more research money to gradually improve the relative quality/range
of their offerings). Canon used to provide "loans" of gear to student
newspapers (get 'em used to your gear early - a successful marketing
technique also used by Apple with its cut-rate prices to school
departments). I ran across this effect also in consumer video, where
far more often in the early video NGs about Mini-DV would be the
question, "Which Canon camcorder should I buy?", than, "Which
camcorder is best at my budget price point?". The answer at the
time was rarely "Canon", but Canon had marketed their name and
products more skillfully than others, including cozy factory relationships
with reviewers - that other manufacturers did not attempt. Even with
demonstrably inferior products (and even ones defective in design!),
people's first inclination was often to buy Canon. The power of good
marketing trumps the quality of the goods offered - but fortunately,
Canon has used the proceeds to improve its offerings...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

Alan Browne wrote:
RichA wrote:
No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that
their cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to
quality. But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did
they (as many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours"
Canon has supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave
newspapers their equipment for free. Same could be with sports
magazines and the like. Their support structure is also apparently
just as amenable to professional photographers, providing rapid and
often free service to heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This
method of market control was done by another company in the 1970s.
Laidlaw undercut (heavily) other players in the garbage collection
market and rapidly took over huge numbers of routes formerly not
their own. Laidlaw at the time was basically Mafia controllled. Once
they'd established a stronghold, of course prices went up and
so the whole move was considered unethical. But was what Canon did
fair business practice, if in fact that is what they've done?

Canon certainly "bought" the pro market by investing heavilly in a new
AF platform, new (generally supperb) pro lenses and flash system. Then
they "bought" the pro markt by getting pros to use their system
with the results.

Canon also "bought" the pro market by giving better service than most
Nikon service centers.

That's really true. For all my momentary irritation with Canon over a
screwed up 1D3, they were incredibly nice at the Irvice Service Center.
Heck...I drove up there without remembering any of my receipts, and yet they
took my 500 f4, 1D3 and much older 70-200 2.8 IS without ANY proof of
purchase! Then...they get their technician to make sure he could get the
stuff back to me by Monday (I took it there Friday, and they're closed over
the weekend).

I don't yet know whether they'll be able to fix the 1D3, but I have to say
that their attitude toward me was the most helpful/receptive I have EVER
seen at any type of service esteblishment...photography related or other.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Canon seem to have done a very good job with marketing. One thing I found
when selling compact cameras, was that they had this really crazy level of
customer loyalty. A customer might have bought any non-Canon brand and the
conversation would go something like this... "don't even bother trying to
sell me a Brand X, because I bought one 5 years ago and just now it broke.
I'll never have a Brand X again." Whereas the Canon customers would come in
and say "I'm looking to buy a Canon camera to replace my Canon XYZ that just
died - it's only 3 days out of warranty and it'll cost more than it's worth
to fix it" - then the conversation would continue... "I had a Canon ABC
before that, and a DEF before that, a GHI and a JKL - they all failed just
outside the warranty period, but they were fantastic cameras, so I want
another Canon". I couldn't believe how often this type of conversation took
place. I could understand the degree of brand loyalty if it were SLR
cameras, because the lenses are the investment and the bodies are to some
extent disposable, but these were compact cameras - where it would really
make no difference to the customer if they bought Canon, Nikon, Pentax
whatever. It seemed that one failure with all other brands would create huge
disloyalty, but repeated failures by Canon's wouldn't hurt the huge loyalty.
I've noticed a similar pattern with printers too. I would have to say that
Canon have one of the highest failure rates of any of the major brands
(camera or printer),in Australia their service levels are mediocre at best,
and yet they have the highest customer loyalty. That's some pretty amazing
marketing that they've managed to pull.

"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:34:59 -0700, RichA
wrote:

But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

Ask Apple, with their school programs that basically gave computers to
schools.
Or Kawasaki, who took the police motorcycle business away from HD and
Moto Guzzi by "giving away" KZ-1000s to local police departments.

It's the "Barbie Doll" school of marketing.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

The White House announced that President Bush
will meet with Mexican President Felipe Calderon
next month. They have to discuss the growing
problem of illegal immigration. The two presidents
agreed to meet in Mexico's capital city, Los Angeles.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:41:40 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

Ask Apple, with their school programs that basically gave computers to
schools.

MS did the same, but with Windows and educational software and
their Office apps, not the hardware. Do you remember when they were
on trial several years ago, and tried to convince the courts that
instead of paying a hefty fine, should be required to donate
software to schools? "Oh please, Mr. Judge, do whatever else you
want, but please, *please* don't throw me into that briar patch"

Bill Funk wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:34:59 -0700, RichA
wrote:

But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

Ask Apple, with their school programs that basically gave computers to
schools.
Or Kawasaki, who took the police motorcycle business away from HD and
Moto Guzzi by "giving away" KZ-1000s to local police departments.

It's the "Barbie Doll" school of marketing.


Who says business practice has to be "fair"? Only one who is naive.

Canon have undoubtedly bought the pro market. But they could not have
done it without a superb professional product range. And Nikon had
done it before them, so Canon really didn't do anything new, or
unusual, or in ny way "unfair".

Nikon had the pro market almost to itself, then became complacent and
lost that market to a company that tried harder and offered a better
product with markedly better service. Anyone who has used Nikon
service in the UK will know exactly what I mean.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:41:40 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:34:59 -0700, RichA
: wrote:
:
: But was what Canon did fair business practice,
: if in fact that is what they've done?
:
: Ask Apple, with their school programs that basically gave computers to
: schools.

And IBM did the same thing much earlier. IIRC, DEC did too. It was a very
effective tactic. Kids came out of college never having even seen a computer
not built by IBM.

In some respects present-day sales and marketing practices are almost
comically tame in comparison with those of, say, the 1960s. Although I never
experienced it myself, there were countless stories of IBM computer salesmen
saying to technical decision makers something like, "I play golf with your
boss's boss's boss. If you try to buy some other brand of computer, I'll tell
him you've lost your mind and get you fired." Those stories may or may not
have been true. But IBM salesmen seldom went out of their way to deny them.

Bob