 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005How Nikon Is Really Doing
A lot of rumors and speculation regarding sales and market share loss have been floating about. Here's the data straight from Nikon's investor relations site. http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/business_info/imaging.htm For March, 2005, Nikon had projected sales of 6,600,000 digital cameras so far in fiscal 2005, up from 5,400,000 for the same period in fiscal 2004. They project 20% growth in 2006. Lens sales are up 50%. Compare that to 310,000 film cameras, down from 680,000 in 2004. The compact film business is also down 50% - which is not unlike every other manufacturer. But, revenues for the imaging division are up as well, with 355 billion yen compared to 284 billion. It is possible to lose market share while experiencing rapid growth. The market is booming and everyone under the sun is entering the P&S market. Here is what the President of the Nikon Imaging has to say about market share: "Nikon intends to launch an offensive with the aim of dominating the digital SLR camera market with a share of 40% or more. In addition, Nikon will endeavor to further bolster its product lineup, and enhance its already formidable market position. Finally, Nikon is #1 in the instrumentation business and dominates other markets as well. Somehow, I don't think Nikon will be going under any time soon and I don't think anyone need worry about long-term support or innovation. Their R&D budget is up 20% from last year as well.  SignatureWalt Hanks > A lot of rumors and speculation regarding sales and market share loss have > been floating about. Here's the data straight from Nikon's investor [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > soon and I don't think anyone need worry about long-term support or > innovation. Their R&D budget is up 20% from last year as well. Everything I have heard of late would seem to say they are doing well. Their DSLRs are selling well and they are expanding their manufacturing lines for these cameras. They are one of the major players, and I would think they will continue to be. Scott >A lot of rumors and speculation regarding sales and market share loss have >been floating about. Here's the data straight from Nikon's investor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >far in fiscal 2005, up from 5,400,000 for the same period in fiscal 2004. >They project 20% growth in 2006. Lens sales are up 50%. Those figures hardly indicate a company in trouble. >Compare that to 310,000 film cameras, down from 680,000 in 2004. The >compact film business is also down 50% - which is not unlike every other >manufacturer. > >But, revenues for the imaging division are up as well, with 355 billion yen >compared to 284 billion. That is a much higher margin business than cameras, particularly PandS. >It is possible to lose market share while experiencing rapid growth. The So true in every high-growth market. The market segments and new entrants target some underserved niche. >market is booming and everyone under the sun is entering the P&S market. It's fascinating to watch now "computer" companies are becoming digital camera manufacturers while "film" camera companies are struggling, with the exceptions of Nikon and Canon. the film companies themselves are hurting big-time. >Here is what the President of the Nikon Imaging has to say about market >share: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >endeavor to further bolster its product lineup, and enhance its already >formidable market position. Nice, but what company president is going to say, "We are behind in the market, our customers are leaving us in droves, and our competitors have much better products that we do. And, we have no intention to fix this situation." Any self-respecting president would resign first. (exclude Enron, MCI, GM, Ford) >Finally, Nikon is #1 in the instrumentation business and dominates other >markets as well. Somehow, I don't think Nikon will be going under any time >soon and I don't think anyone need worry about long-term support or >innovation. Their R&D budget is up 20% from last year as well. > That is a much higher margin business than cameras, particularly > PandS. Sorry I didn't make myself clear there. The imaging division *is* their camera division. It represents over 50% of Nikon's bottom line. Walt What we really want to know is what is the corporate relationship between Nikon and Mitsubishi? Is Nikon effectively a subsidiary of Mitsubishi or do they have one of those vague Japanese interlocking boards? This is apparently not a new relationship with some evidence it dates back to WWII years. Has Sony bought into Nikon or is Sony merely a supplier of digital sensors to Nikon? And that garf about scientific instrumentation is a bit of an exaggeration. Nikon is a major, but not indispensable, player in certain types of microscopes, optical and digital, for laboaratory work but is non-player in the more lucrative clinical medical fields. Leica is actually a major player there but could easily be replaced by Zeiss, Olympus and a few other vendors. > What we really want to know is what is the corporate relationship between > Nikon and Mitsubishi? Is Nikon effectively a subsidiary of Mitsubishi or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > actually a major player there but could easily be replaced by Zeiss, > Olympus and a few other vendors. Let's see what the data indicates: Nikon has a 44% market share in IC steppers, a 22% market share in microscopes, and a 43% market share in measuring instruments. (BTW, every ENT office I've ever been in used either Nikon or Olympus surgical microscopes. My daughter had sinus surgery Friday and the surgeon used a Nikon there as well.) Their instrument sales went from 48 Billion Yen in 2004 to 55 Billion Yen in 2005, and their precision equipment sales (mostly IC steppers) went from 158 to 230 Billion Yen. Yep, sounds like minor players to me. Oh, and Mitsubishi Trust Bank owns 2.5 % of Nikon's stock, making them the 8th largest shareholder, and acts as one of 4 corporate auditors. Another auditor is from Mitsubishi Industries. There are only two outside directors, neither of which are from Mitsubishi. No data on the relationship with Sony was available in the annual report. FYI, Leica Microsystems (unrelated to the camera company), which manufactures surgical scopes and precision optical measurement equipment, was purchased by Danaher Corporation of Washington, D.C. last week. I know the company well and you can expect significant growth in Leica's market share. They won't be replaced by anyone. Walt >> What we really want to know is what is the corporate relationship between >[snip] >Let's see what the data indicates: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >2005, and their precision equipment sales (mostly IC steppers) went from 158 >to 230 Billion Yen. [snip, snip, snip ...] >Walt Nothing personal about Walt, but why does any of this matter to _photographers?_ I'm a Nikon user (full disclosure) but frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of these incessant Nikon vs Canon "nyah, nyah" discussions. How much does it matter? If I am a very happy Canon owner, do I have to get upset if Nikon's new D2X is described by some reviewers as good as the greatest-and-greatest Canon body? Or if I am a happy Nikon user, do I care if Canon's L lenses are "better" in some way? As a Nikon/Canon user, am I here to proselytize (spelling?) all the "benighted" Pentax and Olympus users? Do I get a brownie point every time one of them switches to Canon/Nikon? Sheesh, people. What really matters? Are we here to discuss photography or are we a debating/flaming group here? In other words, what is the charter of this and related groups? > Nothing personal about Walt, but why does any of this matter to > _photographers?_ I think it is important for anyone considering a significant investment in a system to feel confident that the company is going to be around for the long haul. Several posts had suggested that Nikon was/could be/might be soon in danger because of lost market share. Similar posts and discussions have been held regarding K-M, Olympus, Pentax, and Leica. My point in providing this information was to show that Nikon is healthy and anyone considering entering the Nikon product line need not be concerned about their longevity. That's all. Walt Father Kodak wrote in part: > Sheesh, people. What really matters? Brand loyalty matters. As your brand investment increases, so should your zeal to praise your chosen brand and RIGHTEOUSLY SMITE opposing brands. It will also make you feel better for reasons that are best discussed in a psychology forum. If you are distracted from your brand duty by the mere act of taking pictures, the terrorists will have won. Now go forth and consume. You can take pictures later if there is time. Sincerely, Every Marketing Department in the Fscking Universe SignatureIt Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net > Brand loyalty matters. Indeed it does: this is why the Stacey's, the Polson's, the george's, and the rest of the Nikon Nutcases are so desperately connected to the photographic market. It isn't the actual, physical, product that matters or what it does, or how well it does it: it's the name, it's the box, it's the packaging material, it's the press releases, it's the advertising, it's the promotional aparatus. We know this is all true because nothing drives these people more crazy than some irreverent Canon user who rattles their cages with outrageous "Canon gear is _superior_" commentary. They know in their heart of hearts it is true, but the dissonance potentials are just too destabilizing for them to bring the concept into full cognition. So when the despicable heresy materializes on their displays, they are reduced to apopleptic incoherency. They can only babble senseless about the glory-days, the by-gone era of the 1970's and 1980's when everything was Black. >>Brand loyalty matters. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > about the glory-days, the by-gone era of the 1970's and 1980's when > everything was Black. What *I* like about Canon, a short list just off the top of my HAIYUD: 1) They make good gear, in spite of their obvious marketing to the moron demographic. You see? Rational, sensible debate is EASY. SignatureIt Came From C. L. "A chaste, platonic relationship w/Nikon" Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net >>> Brand loyalty matters. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You see? Rational, sensible debate is EASY. What I like about NIKON: Nice OPEN straight lines and no BROKEN CIRCLES such as you see in CANON > I'm a Nikon user (full disclosure) but frankly, I'm getting a bit > tired of these incessant Nikon vs Canon "nyah, nyah" discussions. How [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Are we here to discuss photography or are we a debating/flaming group > here? I almost bought a Brownie Hawkeye at a thrift store the other day, to start my inevitable slide into medium format. But since that's obviously an obsolete media, and since there's no speed winder or consumer-level wide-angle zoom for it, and since Brownie stock performance in the past couple months have been less than stellar, I'll just have to make do with my Pentax DSLR. >What we really want to know is what is the corporate relationship between >Nikon and Mitsubishi? Is Nikon effectively a subsidiary of Mitsubishi or do >they have one of those vague Japanese interlocking boards? [..] Does this have any relevance to us as photographers or buyers of equipment? Pardon me if I am wrong, but I don't see any. >>What we really want to know is what is the corporate relationship between >>Nikon and Mitsubishi? Is Nikon effectively a subsidiary of Mitsubishi or do >>they have one of those vague Japanese interlocking boards? [..] > >Does this have any relevance to us as photographers or buyers of >equipment? Pardon me if I am wrong, but I don't see any. I agree. It doesn't, unless you're trying to do business in Japan, where corporate relationships and personal relationships are key. Ask David who lives in Tokyo. And there is nothing like an after-work-hours visit to a karioke bar with your Japanese business colleagues, any of whom can easily drink you under the table. Kompai! Father [..] >I agree. It doesn't, unless you're trying to do business in Japan, >where corporate relationships and personal relationships are key. Ask [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Father I live in Kyoto, am now in Tokyo for two months... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.