helimat wrote:
I just ask myself "How do we get from $5300 to $2000 and still make a profit?"
It is very easy when you live in a dream world and repeatively explain marketing, pricing, strategy without any knowledge of any of these things nor the brand positioning, history...
Just say "I want a poney, it needs to be pink, should fly, can transform to a unicorn but the horn must be retractible because we must be on the safe side".
And of course, never listen to those who say that Santa does not exists because "you do not see why"
A modern Leica version of a Konica C35 or S3 would be great. Compact, fixed lens, rangefinder, auto and manual modes. Or, if you will, a Minolta CLE type thing with a fixed lens.
This would keep it from cannibalizing M sales.
Leica makes virtually no money on film camera sales. They make the M-A and MP in batches every six months based off pre-orders received for a reason. If you really think Leica makes any real money on film bodies you really need to do your homework. For a luxury brand, the margins are actually pretty laughable. Especially compared to consumer brands that are dipping into the pro-sumer market like Sony.
Leica used to release a small magazines every month called Leica Fotografie. They weren’t shy about sharing price margins and costs. There was a great article breaking down rare earth glass costs for production of aspherical elements. Something like $750 was their cost for one element.
danlandoni wrote:
Leica makes virtually no money on film camera sales. They make the M-A and MP in batches every six months based off pre-orders received for a reason. If you really think Leica makes any real money on film bodies you really need to do your homework. For a luxury brand, the margins are actually pretty laughable. Especially compared to consumer brands that are dipping into the pro-sumer market like Sony.
Leica used to release a small magazines every month called Leica Fotografie. They weren’t shy about sharing price margins and costs. There was a great article breaking down rare earth glass costs for production of aspherical elements. Something like $750 was their cost for one element. ...Show more →
I would be very interested to see this data. Any online reference you can send me to?
danlandoni wrote:
Leica makes virtually no money on film camera sales. They make the M-A and MP in batches every six months based off pre-orders received for a reason. If you really think Leica makes any real money on film bodies you really need to do your homework. For a luxury brand, the margins are actually pretty laughable. Especially compared to consumer brands that are dipping into the pro-sumer market like Sony.
Leica used to release a small magazines every month called Leica Fotografie. They weren’t shy about sharing price margins and costs. There was a great article breaking down rare earth glass costs for production of aspherical elements. Something like $750 was their cost for one element. ...Show more →
Are you talking about making money off film body sales (which of course will be negligible given the low volumes) or making no money per body? I would expect that most of the price you pay for the MP/MA is profit, no tooling to pay for, no development costs, no staff training, this is the same camera they've been selling for 50 years now, just parts and labour.
danlandoni wrote:
Leica makes virtually no money on film camera sales. They make the M-A and MP in batches every six months based off pre-orders received for a reason. If you really think Leica makes any real money on film bodies you really need to do your homework. For a luxury brand, the margins are actually pretty laughable. Especially compared to consumer brands that are dipping into the pro-sumer market like Sony.
Leica used to release a small magazines every month called Leica Fotografie. They weren’t shy about sharing price margins and costs. There was a great article breaking down rare earth glass costs for production of aspherical elements. Something like $750 was their cost for one element. ...Show more →
Please link to actual source/data.
Businesses tend not to spend time on anything that does not make a profit, especially if they are small.
This article is interesting. While it does not mention much on specifics, at least it is directly from the source not anecdotal.
Leica would not be making film cameras out of the kindness of their hearts.
I think a lot of people are forgetting that Leica Camera is a luxury brand. Not an electronics brand. The way they make profits can't be compared to other imaging brands. Period. Think of the film cameras as design exercises. By releasing a product that says "We still make film cameras because we believe in XYZ" has a massive value to the image of the brand. They can take a hit on profit margins on certain products because they understand that by offering niche items that reinforce brand ethos has a lasting impact in sales and value. That being said, what I'm 100% certain is that it will not be cheap (relative). Not because they aren't capable of making an inexpensive camera, but because there is like 50+ years of case studies on diminishing reputations when trying to be more inclusive throughout the luxury market. Leica is clever, they know their customer very well and have like 75+ years of demographic data at their disposable to be able to have a product roadmap that wont hurt their image and wallets. You can't just make whip up a film body and sell it for $2k to a demographic that they have no research or experience with. It cost money to go out and do market studies and they sure as hell wouldn't be selling them a film body haha.
If i were a betting man, I'd say the new film camera will be just under 4k. No meter, zinc M body. Leica has been re-releasing old lenses (Classic Range: 28 Summaron, 50 Nocti 1.2, 90 Thambar) so we can see this brand philosophy probably carry on through their line up. What better way to compliment the Classic Range lenses than to match it with an Classic Range re-release body?
Desmolicious wrote:
Please link to actual source/data.
Businesses tend not to spend time on anything that does not make a profit, especially if they are small.
This article is interesting. While it does not mention much on specifics, at least it is directly from the source not anecdotal.
Leica would not be making film cameras out of the kindness of their hearts.
Sorry, not scanning old magazines for you. There is A LOT of public data/numbers out there online.
Again, If i were a betting man, I'd say their margins fall in around 15-18%. That's me being generous. I know for a fact that it was embarrassingly low around 2010. It's hard to really say since there was a lot of private investment made and some of the Leica stores are not owned by Leica, but by "Leica USA" (private?). Add on the retailer % and you'll have a general understanding of profits. Anyways, this reinforces the pricing structure even more if you want to compare apples to oranges (other camera companies).
Regardless, this obsession of a companies pricing structure is so ridiculous to me. It's as if people are shocked that wealthy people exist and it's impossible that they might enjoy taking photographs haha. The manufacturer does set the price at which they will sell their product, but they cannot force the consumer to buy. Leica bases their prices on accurate information about production costs and probable consumer purchases at prices based on these costs.
It's common sense. You don't need an economics degree to crunch a few numbers and make some educated guesses that aren't based off emotional biases lol. Leica isn't some sort of anomaly. Just pick a luxury brand that has easy to access public data and figure it out. They're all within a few point margin and the customer is effectively the same.
I said Leica isn't making any "real" money selling film cameras. Not that they're making "no" money. I stand by this 1000%. Selling a couple thousand film cameras a year at probably at a 15% margin is not a good strategy. Its a design/brand exercise to boost image value. That's it. Luxury brands do this ALL the time.
Their money making strategy is not and never will be the film camera market.
Id imagine with the existing tooling and production facility they could easily scale production of film bodies if they wanted. However, as we've seen time and time again, they choose to make special products a little more limited by choice. I would also say "we cant keep up with demand" if I were in his position...what else would you want me to say publicly? I'd want my customer to think that its exclusive and have to have it...Not that I'm deliberately keeping certain items limited to inflate perceived value. Hello! This is economics 101!
Either way, I love that they're doing this. I have a couple MP's now and would no doubt sell one if it was a re-issue to match the Classic Range lenses.
Usually means "I have no idea but I want to believe".
danlandoni wrote:
You don't need an economics degree to crunch a few numbers and make some educated guesses that aren't based off emotional biases lol.
So you are saying that without access to the data nor training in the field, you can say something meaningful?
This is never true, whatever the subject. Except in the dreams of some people on the Internet who thing they can explain what they know nothing about.
danlandoni wrote:
Leica isn't some sort of anomaly.
Wrong: they are an anomaly in the market of photography.
danlandoni wrote:
Just pick a luxury brand
Your error is to see Leica as a luxury brand. This is not the case. It was and still is a technology brand with such an high-end position that part of its market looks like the luxury one. This is very different.
danlandoni wrote:
Id imagine with the existing tooling and production facility they could easily scale production of film bodies if they wanted.
Did you ever read anything about it? Including what was published here? That some of this tooling is very old? That they need hard to find highly-skilled and trained personnel?
danlandoni wrote:
Hello! This is economics 101!
Thanks but some of us did not wait for you to study business, economics, marketing, practice them on different scales, etc.
So you should stop thinking you know the truth and you are talking to dummies because so far, you have demonstrated only one thing:
You should practice some common sense to know that you’re clearly out of your depth when you can’t constructively reply. You’re just lazy and refuse to objectively look at similar brands and draw conclusions lol. You spent all this time quoting sections of my previous post when you could have done some research.
Which part are you too dense to understand? That Leica’s pricing structure is most likely justified based off their sales and overhead, or that the new film camera is comparatively more expensive to produce than their digital cameras? Kaufmann eluded to tooling and bill of materials being a large expense...... He gave specifics for you to cling on too about the difficulty of making film bodies that clearly support that argument. I never said I know the truth, I’m saying the writing is on the wall. The brand attracts a lot of opinions revolving around pricing structure that are utterly vapid.
Also, Leica Camera is run like a Luxury company. Period. End of story.
Even if i didn't have any clue and was completely off base, its much more constructive to express opinions and points of view rather than being critical and not contributing anything challenging to a conversation.
. The ultimate rebranding deal for Holga.