Articles
Leica's Newest Opportunity - Its greatest risk?
Perfectly matched resolving power - Leica optics and film! Leica M7, Summicron-M 35mm lens.
The Leica M cameras and their superlative engineering, design and build quality were equally matched by market leading 135 format lenses - arguably the benchmark for all 135 format optics (design, engineering and performance).
However, the development of successive iterations of the Leica M camera saw relatively few "new" models introduced over an extraordinarily long period of time. The current M7 is the most "advanced" iteration - boasting aperture priority exposure; electronic shutter (with 2 all mechanical shutter speeds as well); TTL flash exposure and DX film code reading. But most cameras had these as basic features some 20 years earlier.
Today Leica users eagerly await the announced 10MP digital iteration of the Leica M. But when one studies the financial misfortunes of this old company, one quickly understands that it faces enormous risks should the execution of the product and its marketing fall short of what is needed.
Here I look at one element of that risk - the new camera's nomenclature, a key element of product marketing - for here the risks are complex. The company may get the product 100% right, but by naming it badly it may just seriously affect the huge opportunity (and necessity) of adding "new" customers to its family. It also risks alienating its legacy customers by adversely affecting the current film Leica M cameras. The risks and opportunities both lie in the new product's positioning.
While we Leica M fans refer to the forthcoming digital Leica M rangefinder as the M8, I really wonder what Leica will call it. I certainly hope they do not fall into the obvious trap of calling it the "M8".
Why would that be so important? Simply due to the market risks that Leica must manage to ensure this new product is the screaming success it hopes for .... and Leica needs it to be.
THE RISK
As a professional specialising in such issues I have seen too many "product oriented" companies that are usually admired as being smart companies commit their new breakthrough product to the doldrums through poor understanding of branding, product branding and how these factors can alienate an otherwise outstanding product from those expected to buy it.Additional to that risk of the new product failing to achieve its full sales potential, Leica in this case risks adversely affecting that whole product category - yes the M7 and the MP etc are also at risk. Again, further to that such an infection also risks adversely affecting all Leica products and the spiral continues in a downward direction.
You may say I overstate these risks, and indeed I state them strongly because unless one screams loud and clear and the logic is understood, the scenario will be bad - maybe not to the extent I say it may be, but the RISKS are there.
Has Leica studied such risks; has it carefully planned and researched what this (expectedly so) wonderful product should be called; do they understand the product categories well enough to well define this product in a such a way as it gets in front of ALL potential customers; have they identified how the wrong product nomenclature / categorisation / model designation may risk a variety of adverse impacts on Leica, its M category products and other Leica products.
Leica has proven itself for a very long time to be a product oriented company - a factory and engineering oriented company - rarely a customer or market oriented company. It has shown with good and bad effect over many decades how it designs, engineers and builds magnificent products (in the main) and how it then hopes the market will come to it.
Today we live in an even tougher world and Leica has everything to lose - fussier customers; fiercer competition; fickle customers; disloyal distribution channels; price focused retail channel partners....
So, having set the scene I will now explain what the risk is.
1. Leica M cameras have a strong legacy (albeit niche market segment) as film based range-finders second to none. Whatever designation of an M camera - this is how they are known. That's the bed (market segment) Leica made and lies in.
2. The M7 was a long awaited "modern" iteration of the M concept (as too in a different way is the MP).
3. So the next film rangefinder sensibly would be branded (or sub-branded / model designated however you like to express this) an M8 - of course that is logical - no customer or market segment problem there.
4. BUT, now Leica's so-called next M camera will be digital - it is not just replacing a film chamber with a digi-sensor; not at all. This camera will have more controls as is dictated by digi-technology; it will have a menu; it may have a rear LCD panel. In all it will only be anything similar to an M camera in design, look and the use of a rangefinder / viewfinder. It will hardly be a "real" M camera.
Gee, the Leica world went berserk when the M7 came out - Leicaphiles said "this is not a Leica M" (silly as it was to say). The MP made them happy again. But take that emotion out of this discussion and you'll see what I mean - the new digi-M is a new product in a DIFFERENT market segment, not a digital M7 or M8 (a subtle point but a critical one at that).
5. Going on that last point you'll see that the major market opportunity is largely OUTSIDE the traditional Leica M customer base (yes a nice add- on category of buyer or nice place to start some sales, but just not the core that Leica will NEED to get back to making money in this digi-dominated era). The key to Leica's success is in a majority of NEW customers for its NEW product.
This digi-M potential customer segment is a high end digi range-finder buyer (and that may be a niche segment too).
6. So, call it an M8 and the risk is clear - you don't capture the buying imagination of "new" digi camera buyers and show them you have the world's best whatever. Even the channels, both retail and distributor may differ!
Apple Computer learned that the hard way and now maximised iPod sales buy rethinking who the customer segment is and what channels those customers use for such products.
7. More dangerously, by simply designating this "new" camera an M7 digital or an M8 or similar, Leica risks alienating its traditional rangefinder customers by taking their product category (the film high end rangefinder) and saying that the NEXT best M iteration is a digital camera - M8? The digital-M surely is not confused with being the next and best Leica M rangefinder - Leica Ms are film range-finders! This is a "new" digital camera drawing upon Leica's great rangefinder legacy.
8. So, is this new camera an M7d - if it is in ALL other respects a digital M7 then MAYBE, but I'm not convinced and time will tell.
9. This is where good market and customer oriented companies get smart and go back to the basics - maybe this camera is really a Leica D1 being the first iteration of their D rangefinder camera - a "new" product in their "new category"; or maybe a D3 since the first M camera was an M3; or maybe a D7 since it builds on the M7 but is a D rather than an M; or maybe a D8 since it comes after the M7 and a next generation hence 8 not 7. Whatever, I think you might get my point.
10. So, the risk of getting the model designation wrong (may seem a small issue to some but it is not), they adversely restrict the sales success; adversely affect the positioning and continued sales of the M7 and even the MP; adversely affect their traditional film rangefinder customer loyalty; they even risk adversely affecting the broader market's attitude to Leica products and all Leica's product categories take a dive and the inevitable happens - the company saver new product killed the company. Yes again I'm colourful but the scenario is not stupid.
11. Then, remember how important premium quality lens sales are to Leica. Along with the positioning, categorising and designation of the digital-M come issues of new digi-lenses some of which have already been alluded to.
How will these be designated - using traditional Leica film camera lens nomenclature? Surely not - the risks are similar.
' height='267'>Nicholas' Beautiful Balcony
LEARN FROM HISTORY
For the ideal parallel example of the critical importance of product nomenclature just look at the Porsche story. Its legacy was the 911 model designation and the key things that made the number 911 iconic were: the car shape, the air cooled engine and the rear mounted 6 cylinder motor.When Porsche brilliantly engineered, designed and built the 928 (V8), 944 and 924 (4 cylinder) etc each model failed to maximise its sales potential by a very long shot - the company nearly died especially as world economic downturn at the end of the 1980s pulled back 911 sales. The key to this failure was that the market positioning was wrong and the market perceived that the 928 would replace the 911 and that the 924 and 944 were not "real Porsches".
So like I said at the outset, the designation mistakes made not only killed the new (and they were excellent in their own right) products' opportunities, adversely affected 911 sales and nearly killed the company (yes other factors came in to play too).
When Porsche got smart and tried its next new product - they remembered they were after NEW customers not 911 buyers - so the kept releasing new iterations of the 911; they decided not to use numerals for the Boxter - new customers were attracted in huge numbers saying I love Porsche, don't want a 911 / can't afford a 911, like this new car and I can be a Porsche driver too! Sales success reached full potential, women came to own Porsches as too other customer segments never reached by the company ever before.
Will Leica learn from history?
UPDATE - April 2007
I've held back commenting on Leica's launch and (one would be forgiven for saying) re-launch of the digital rangefinder camera - the M8 until when the dust has settled and it's image quality has become widely know. So, now here are my comments.
Yes, Leica failed to learn from history and other companies' nomenclature mistakes - it called the first rangefinder camera the M8 - it simply could not resist the temptation. AND it is already proving to be a mistake and one it could regret.
You may still wonder why I make a big issue of this. It may seem logical that the next M Leica should simply follow suit - the camera after the M7 should be logically an M8. No, simply because the M8 is a different camera and it should differentiate itself as such even if subtly so - an M7d or M8d. Now that the M8 has proven to have issues and issues that dampened its launch, Leica may just be worried that these issues may taint the M range. Time will tell.
So what are these issues that tainted the M8's launch? The biggest issue is that Leica launched a totally new camera with both faults and unexpected drawbacks that infuriated some customers and simply irritated others - none were immune.
The issues are limited to image quality and the hardware has lived up to Leica's legacy of building the very best in quality and finish. But image quality issues of any nature are very serious especially when the product is promoted and prices at the very top of the tree as Leica M cameras have always been.
It was totally unacceptable of Leica to release the M8 before the image quality issues were addressed and even more unacceptable if Leica was unaware of any one or more of these issues - that would reflect a low standard of pre-release testing. The market had already waited years for the M8 and some months longer wait would hardly have mattered at all since the "horse had bolted".
The image quality issues fall into 2 groups - those that are permanent "features" of the camera and its sensor and those requiring firmware fixes:
- blacks rendered with a purple tone - this occurs under specific shooting conditions and is a result of the absence of an infra red filter on the sensor (necessitated for other image quality reasons as well as the fact that such a filter would not fit between the sensor and the lens gate). The fix is simple - add a Leica made IV filter to the front of your lens. However that may not please purists who prefer to avoid adding a layer of air and glass to the front of any lens for fear of some image degradation. Two free filters are now supplied with the M8. So, whatever you view on this, you have the option to add or not add the filter under shooting conditions that may cause purple tinting of the blacks. The other option is to just correct the purple tint in post processing software.
- the appearance of strange effects such as green bands, strange lines and highlights from a bright light source. These are all said to be issues to do with the camera's firmware and one or more firmware updates have been issued to customers. Not every customer experiences all of these strange effects. However, it is very clear that Leica's testers did not discover all of these faults and the cameras were unfortunately issued to customers who unwittingly completed Leica's product testing!
The image quality issues are now under control. But, the bigger issues was for some time about the company's response - a very slow response which made many owners very worried for a while that the company just might not stand by its product. Of course in the end Leica did, but in the process allowed rumours to flourish and anger to grow.
But, I should say that throughout the drama of customers' discovering the image quality faults, the first photos seen over the Internet and in prints made, showed generally outstanding image quality - image characteristics that are totally consistent with Leica's overall reputation as a great camera and lens company.
Having had the opportunity to handle one of the first cameras to arrive in Australia, these are my comments:
- the build quality is every bit the same as all M cameras before it - superb!
- as a modern electronic device it totally avoids the mess of feature controls and buttons and is an ergonomic treat. It is like all other M cameras, an intuitive instrument to use.
- I could only find one "fault" in its design - the power and shooting mode lever is designed in a way that makes it easy to bump to another setting.
So finally, what about the images it makes; is the 10MP sensor sufficient resolution; does the sensor do justice to Leica's brilliant lenses; is it worth the money?
I think the answer is yes to all those questions excepting that the issue of price is a matter of personal opinion - we all have differing views of value for money.
However, the images I have seen show excellent resolution of fine details that is probably capturing everything the Leica lens resolves and the human eye can see. The tonality is superb and very typical of of what we have become to expect from Leica. The dynamic range appears to be outstanding with some images I have seen to have superb shadow and highlight details.
While I am not a fan of cropped sensors, Leica had no choice in this matter due to the physical proximity of the sensor and the lens mount - a fact of life. But the 1.3 frame size ratio makes the maths for users quite simple to get used to - a 50mm lens takes on the angle of view of a 75mm lens and so on.
And what do the die hard Leica M camera users think of their M8? If the busiest photography forums are anything to go by, they are very pleased with it - they accept the infra red issue and the optional work-arounds; they are happily receiving their firmware updates. What's more they are proudly sharing their very high quality images.
Most importantly though, time will tell if Leica has successfully attracted NEW users to its brand and how many of them are actively adding Leica M lenses to their kits. Like other Leica users I wish them well and hope the M8 brings the company good fortunes.
Photos and text copyright of f8Vision and SimonPG