nasmformyzombie
Registered
I'm not comparing cars to digital cameras specifically. My point is a brand name doesn't mean very much any more. Nikon is not going to get whole again just because of the brand name. The only people who are loyal to Nikon as a brand are mostly older folks who used Nikon's film cameras when Nikon was the system of choice with professionals. Many professionals abandoned film cameras over ten years ago.
As for digital cameras specifically, across brand names they do share major components such as sensors. The major differences now are in software and in interface ergonomics. Further, software and digital post processing have diminished the differences in lens performance across brand names.
But the bottom line is smartphone cameras are obliterating the consumer level camera business and will continue to do so. In the next few years, there will be a significant shift in the number of major players making cameras. Brand names will not determine who survives as much as how well run and managed these companies are. Nikon is declining faster than the market in interchangeable lens cameras, their primary brand driver. This points to poor management.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Don’t agree. That’s like saying the brand name "Apple" doesn’t mean anything, or "Toyota," or "Kellogg’s." Brand names mean a lot, people will buy items based on their name and reputation. The Nikon name is well-known and respected, even by those who really don’t know much about cameras.
Jim B.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
Mackinaw, if the Nikon name means so much, how is it they are in the state they're in?
Apple has a lot more brand loyalty than Nikon or any other organization for that matter. Today, Apple is the exception rather than the rule. By in large, brands just don't mean very much anymore. The cameras business is changing rapidly, primarily brought about by the emergence of the smartphone camera. The Nikon name will not save Nikon. Better management might save them.
No brand is immune. In 1997 Microsoft rescued one-time and future nemesis Apple with a $150 million investment that breathed new life into what was a struggling Silicon Valley icon. Apple has now left Microsoft in the dust. Apple adapted to changes in the marketplace far better than Microsoft did. Today, Apple is worth more than Microsoft or Google.
The only constant in life is change. Nikon has not adapted very well to a changing marketplace. It will mean a restructuring of Nikon or the end of Nikon as we know it.
Still think brand names matter? Read this.
Apple has a lot more brand loyalty than Nikon or any other organization for that matter. Today, Apple is the exception rather than the rule. By in large, brands just don't mean very much anymore. The cameras business is changing rapidly, primarily brought about by the emergence of the smartphone camera. The Nikon name will not save Nikon. Better management might save them.
No brand is immune. In 1997 Microsoft rescued one-time and future nemesis Apple with a $150 million investment that breathed new life into what was a struggling Silicon Valley icon. Apple has now left Microsoft in the dust. Apple adapted to changes in the marketplace far better than Microsoft did. Today, Apple is worth more than Microsoft or Google.
The only constant in life is change. Nikon has not adapted very well to a changing marketplace. It will mean a restructuring of Nikon or the end of Nikon as we know it.
Still think brand names matter? Read this.
In the US, I would think this is clearly not true. If anyone here knows of a camera brand, they know Nikon. DSLRs are still considered THE professional camera by anyone not in the know. After smartphones, DSLRs by Nikon or Canon seem to be the cameras I see the most here in the US and I'm into Photography.
Spanik
Well-known
Same in where I go in europe: I see Canon, Nikon, from time to time a Fuji, maybe a Sony and very rarely any other brand. You have more chance to see an old film camera or Polaroid than a Sony. I have seen at least 1 view camera, more than a Samsung dslr in the wild!
Likewise I see more compacts than bridge cameras. And tablets are going out compared to 3-5 years ago. Phones, yes, but more for snapshots, not someone who wants a photo to "endure". I mean more than just a selfie or photo of their meal/drink. Like a typical family holiday snap that you will look at or print in a book when you get home, those are more likely to be taken by dslr than a phone.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I don’t disagree that Nikon has made some poor management decisions, I disagree with your assertion that brand names are meaningless. People walk into a car dealership, big-box store, whatever, and buy a product based on its brand name and reputation. They don’t know or care how well a company is being managed.
Jim B.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
Mackinaw
Think Different
I’m not missing the point. You’ve done a poor job of explaining yourself. Reread some of your previous posts. They’re confusing.
Jim B.
its astounding to me that Nikon does not have a good competitor to the FujiX and Sony 7 series, ideally one that shoots Nikon AF lenses via adapter
I don't see how Nikon management did not develop a quality mirrorless.
I don't see how Nikon management did not develop a quality mirrorless.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Brand name not important anymore? Tell that to Cosina (Voigtlander), Leica, Zeiss, Rollei etc. The make great products, but the brand name is a great issue there. I mean, but would you seriously pay $5,000 for a Konost camera? Brand gives a degree of trust. Yeah, they could lose their name due to bad products but if you have good products and service, the brand could keep its value over time.
Related to Nikon, I dont think they need external help, but good management decisions.
Regard.
Marcelo
Related to Nikon, I dont think they need external help, but good management decisions.
Regard.
Marcelo
Pioneer
Mentor
I am not a fan but I do hope Nikon makes it through this tough time. They are a historic company and have produced some magnificent products over the years. But, like the stock market, past performance is no guaranty of future profits.
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
You have posted that list twice.
Even Altria Group still has a market cap of $140.44 Billion USD, and they are selling tobacco!
WMT - $213.87B
AT&T - $252.44B
GE - $268.49B
MSFT - $498.66B
XOM - $344.95B
AAPL - $710.96B
How do you see any of these S&P stocks failing currently? Someday maybe, but not right now.
Nikon is like the corner mom and pop drug store compared to these behemoths, at only a $5.68B market cap. Canon much larger at $40.4 Billion market cap, Sony about the same. Panasonic $22.9 Billion.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
This is my point. Brand name alone does not guarantee sustained success when marketplace conditions change. Nikon has done a poor job of adapting to a changing marketplace. You Nikon fans are not facing reality (NOT you Stephen), you think the brand name is going to solve their problems. The name means virtually nothing if management is doing a poor job.
Adaptation to a changing market is much more important to success than brand name recognition. Brand name matters more when conditions are not changing than when they are changing.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Nikon is one of 'those' brand names ... iconic and a big part of our popular culture.
Scooter = Vespa
Film = Kodak
Camera = the first name to flash into many minds would be Nikon.
But ... they have obviously been asleep at the wheel for some time and as has been pointed out ^ they have pretty well ignored the mirrorless market. I do hope they survive on their own and trade their way out of this but if not I would tend to favour a buy out from the Chinese which seems to be the popular choice in the poll.
Scooter = Vespa
Film = Kodak
Camera = the first name to flash into many minds would be Nikon.
But ... they have obviously been asleep at the wheel for some time and as has been pointed out ^ they have pretty well ignored the mirrorless market. I do hope they survive on their own and trade their way out of this but if not I would tend to favour a buy out from the Chinese which seems to be the popular choice in the poll.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
Missing the point. The point of the article is companies grow and contract based on quality of adaptation to changing market conditions. Nikon exists today facing a declining market in cameras. But to make matters worse, in interchangeable lens cameras Nikon is under performing the market. Nikon is not adapting well to changing market conditions. This points to poor management, which places Nikon in an even more precarious position than some of its rivals.
For example, if you told someone in 1997 when Microsoft invested in its primary competitor Apple (which was in a precarious position at the time), that Apple would someday be worth much more than Microsoft you would have been laughed out of the room. How did it happen? Apple adapted to a changing market more effectively than Microsoft.
As for the tobacco company reference, in 1992 the Philip Morris company was the LARGEST company in the world. Changing attitudes about smoking as well as litigation against the tobacco industry changed the dynamic. While the now renamed Altria Group is still a viable company, it's nowhere near the largest company in the world. Altria Group's market cap is but 20% the size of the largest company today, Apple.
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
Personally if I had to guess, there is no future in converting analog cameras and lenses into digital, so even mirrorless has no future.
Check back in 10 years?
Not the point of the article you linked to, it is purely about market cap -- IMO. None of those companies have really contracted, only bigger ones like Apple have appeared. Market Share should not be confused with Market Cap. It's like confusing weather with climate change.
You aren't actually Michael Dell are you?
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
+1.
A big Chinese company with a strong presence on the smartphone market, like Xiaomi for example, could be interested. Let's not forget that most of the cameras sold today come attached to a smartphone.
Or maybe Apple will be willing to sacrify a small part of its US$ 230 billion bounty sleeping in Irish coffers to be able to offer Nikon optics on the iPhone 8...
Cheers!
Abbazz
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Nathan King
Established
Wasn't Nikon worse off around 2009? I seem to remember another crisis that the company ended up rebounding from. How is this different?
John Bragg
Well-known
They should take note of the film resurgence and be proactive in making an affordable alternative student camera that is as reliable as the fleet of ageing Pentax K1000 and similar. Sign a deal with Kodak Alaris to promote and supply said camera and Kodak film to educational facilities at a reasonable realistic price. Who'd of thunk that Fuji would corner the market in instant photography ? Even Kodak have done a U turn on things analog and actually are re-issuing deleted products.