Leica and Customer Expectations

[dcsang]

One of the first things I learned when working at a retail location of a bank way back in 1986 was "setting/managing/delivering on customer expectations".

This has become a 'standard' to me in customer service.

Based on Leica's plans for 2012 Photokina (found here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=107439 ) and specifically on JSRockit's comment (found here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1649851&postcount=10 ) Do any of you think Leica is (or has been) able to manage the expectations of its customers? How about its "potential" customers? Do "potential customers" even matter?

Or is it a case that Leica's (potential) customers really hope for the company to be (or produce) something that it is not (an "inexpensive" digital aps-c or larger interchangeable lens Leica camera)

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Dave,

This chimes exactly with something I was contemplating recently.

Why do new and second-hand Leicas still sell? To meet the expectations of a bunch of fantasists and self-abusers? Or because, actually, they're quite good cameras? Of a kind that is not available elsewhere?

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

and specifically on JSRockit's comment

Ut oh... I'm being called out! 😛 I truly think non-users either want Leica to be something they aren't (i.e. drop the RF on the M, etc.) or they just think it is insane to pay Leica prices when compared to (insert name) mass-produced camera. What I just don't get it when people obsess about Leica not making what they want... why not just go buy a different camera that fits your needs?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ut oh... I'm being called out! 😛 I truly think non-users either want Leica to be something they aren't (i.e. drop the RF on the M, etc.) or they just think it is insane to pay Leica prices when compared to (insert name) mass-produced camera. What I just don't get it when people obsess about Leica not making what they want... why not just go buy a different camera that fits your needs?

YES!

If you want something different, or if you think it's too expensive, BUY SOMETHING ELSE!

Obviously 'you' as 'one', not as 'you personally'.

Of course, the possibility is that there isn't any real alternative to the camera they want, but they think they're entitled to buy whatever they want, at whatever price they feel like paying. To hell with what it costs to make with skilled labour. "DUH! Why not make it in China...?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[dcsang]

And that's sort of what I'm getting at here - is it "Lecia's fault" for not giving these folks what they desire (i.e. Leica has not communicated it's target demographic effectively) or is it the fault of those potential clients not understanding that Leica can't give them what they expect/want?

Cheers,
Dave

 

[ferider]

Actually, without people continously b*tching about Leica prices, Leica would be much less successful. The first batch of M9-Ps (1500) has already sold. Basically all new lenses are back-logged. Customers gladly accept several months service responses, etc. It's all part of what creates the cloud, and has little to do with technical features.

They are actually doing a super marketing job and in setting customer expectations. And they just paid dividends for 2010.

Roland.

 

[tbarker13]

And that's sort of what I'm getting at here - is it "Lecia's fault" for not giving these folks what they desire (i.e. Leica has not communicated it's target demographic effectively) or is it the fault of those potential clients not understanding that Leica can't give them what they expect/want?

I don't think "fault" applies here. It's not Leica's fault for not making a camera that does X. Nor is it the consumer's fault for wanting Leica to make a camera that does X.

But for both parties - it is one of the most powerful aspects of the Internet. Consumers have a way to voice their concerns/wants like never before. And companies (the smart ones anyway) have easy access to market information.
If enough of us ask for something, we just might get it.

 

[jsrockit]

And that's sort of what I'm getting at here - is it "Lecia's fault" for not giving these folks what they desire (i.e. Leica has not communicated it's target demographic effectively) or is it the fault of those potential clients not understanding that Leica can't give them what they expect/want?

I think Leica's user base i.e. people actually using Leicas (or, cough, collecting them) like Leica due to its traditional ways. It's that the company has stuck with the M for 60 years that is appealing. That the digital M is the closest thing there is to a manual film camera in digital. However, Leica isn't letting that get in their way of making something new (S2)... which is a good thing too.

I think the average user that hasn't been into Leica long will think that Leica is a lot bigger than it is... company size wise. They think that Fuji introduced the X100, had a hit, and that Leica will die because of this. Leica is in a weird position in that they get to make what they want, exclusively making tools to photograph with (panasonics aside i.e. not "swiss army" cameras with video etc), and its small user base buys it because they like the traditional approach... where as many companies just have to cater to the masses.

 

[Paul Luscher]

I also think part of the problem is the mystique surrounding the Leica name. People get the impression that a Leica is some kind of WunderKamera that will do everything but get up and tap dance, so they're disappointed when it doesn't do everything they think it should do....and in fact has even LESS features than they're used to on their Japanese auto-everything jobs....

As to the pricing...well, as has been pointed out, people are used to the pricing for Japanese products, so they're shocked by Leica pricing. I guess they don't stop to consider the fact that the camera is essentially hand-built, and is in no way a polycarbonate wonder. Also since Leica is a niche market, and is not mass-produced, the cost of production is going to be higher...

In some ways, bitching about the price of a Leica is a bit like complaining that a Rolls Royce is not priced like a Ford Escort...

 

[jsrockit]

In some ways, bitching about the price of a Leica is a bit like complaining that a Rolls Royce is not priced like a Ford Escort...

Haha, yep. What's even more funny is that I've owned a Leica M6 at the same time as driving an Escort (in the 90s).

 

[alun severn]

This chimes exactly with something I was contemplating recently.

Why do new and second-hand Leicas still sell? To meet the expectations of a bunch of fantasists and self-abusers? Or because, actually, they're quite good cameras? Of a kind that is not available elsewhere?

Because (delete as appropriate):

* They offer a bargain gateway drug to the Leica experience;
* Affordable and eminently useable;
* Still have cachet, 'brand power', mystique (in fact, the older the better as far as mystique is concerned);
* A bit beat up and therefore what subsequently happens to them matters less.

 

[cee]

Simply, they don't care.

Simply, they don't care.

Leica has reached the elusive and coveted position of being an iconic brand.

They are also most definitely an aspirational brand, in the sense that they market a luxury product that users likely feel contains something special or unique to set it apart from the rest.

At this point, providing dedicated users what they want or desire is an afterthought.

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ken-musgrave/thinkdesign/enduring-power-brand-leica-vs-panasonic

 

[blindrobert]

Yes. The complaints about what Leica isn't doing reminds me of a Q&A session with a director of a film I once saw. Somebody in the audience stood up and said "why didn't you do <blah blah blah> with your film?" The director's response was "Well, that would be a different movie."

Why doesn't Leica have HD video capability and <insert your complaint here>? Well, that would be a different camera.

 

[x-ray]

I think expectations and customer base have changed dramatically in the 43 years I've shot leicas. In 1968 when i bought my first M's and lenses I was a young PJ looking for reliability and a camera that would stand the abuse of my job. Also I was looking for a camera that was particularly well suited for low light shooting. All of my friends in the business either used Leica, Nikon S3 & SP or Nikon F's. I don't think any of us looked on what we used as being anything other than a tool. We had no expectations that there was glow, perfect bokeh or any sort of magic associated with our gear. In 1968 98% of the market was pro but today 99.9% are amateurs. I don't mean that in a negative sense just simply they don't make a living with their cameras. It's totally a hobby for most Leica shooters. My take on many of todays leica owners are they have unrealistic expectations of their gear. They're seeking the magic bullet to make them the next HCB or who ever they idolize. It's no longer the talent behind the camera but the self image and especially the gear. The same mythology surrounds other goods like stereo, bicycles, motorcycles, musical instruments, golf clubs and on and on.

Leica's great but IMO no better than Nikon or any number of other cameras and lenses. Sorry but it's just another camera void of magic as all others are and this is just my personal opinion so please don't be offended. Nothing personal.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I see it as a simple issue. If you can afford Leica gear, buy it. If not, buy something else. I've owned Leica M's for years, along with Pro Nikons and Canons. Leicas have been no better or worse than the other two brands in my PJ use. They all work, they all break. It's simply a non-issue to me. There's no "magic" in any of them! 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think expectations and customer base have changed dramatically in the 43 years I've shot leicas. In 1968 when i bought my first M's and lenses I was a young PJ looking for reliability and a camera that would stand the abuse of my job. Also I was looking for a camera that was particularly well suited for low light shooting. All of my friends in the business either used Leica, Nikon S3 & SP or Nikon F's. I don't think any of us looked on what we used as being anything other than a tool. We had no expectations that there was glow, perfect bokeh or any sort of magic associated with our gear. In 1968 98% of the market was pro but today 99.9% are amateurs. I don't mean that in a negative sense just simply they don't make a living with their cameras. It's totally a hobby for most Leica shooters. My take on many of todays leica owners are they have unrealistic expectations of their gear. They're seeking the magic bullet to make them the next HCB or who ever they idolize. It's no longer the talent behind the camera but the self image and especially the gear. The same mythology surrounds other goods like stereo, bicycles, motorcycles, musical instruments, golf clubs and on and on.

Leica's great but IMO no better than Nikon or any number of other cameras and lenses. Sorry but it's just another camera void of magic as all others are and this is just my personal opinion so please don't be offended. Nothing personal.

Well, apart from the dozens of other interchangeable lens RF cameras, with a long rangefinder base, that are still in production with a choice of film or digital...

Yes, it's just another camera. But it doesn't have a lot of competition. And how likely is it that there will ever be any real, high-end competition?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I see it as a simple issue. If you can afford Leica gear, buy it. If not, buy something else. I've owned Leica M's for years, along with Pro Nikons and Canons. Leicas have been no better or worse than the other two brands in my PJ use. They all work, they all break. It's simply a non-issue to me. There's no "magic" in any of them! 🙂

Seconded, with the rider that I never used Canons, just Nikons, alongside Leica. But then, I never expected Leicas to replace my Linhof, Gandolfi or Alpa cameras either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

I would say there can be a huge psychological appeal to a certain camera. I know that I am very sensitive in regards to using certain cameras more than others. I enjoy a camera that is designed well and incorporates features (or lack of) that amount to what I believe a camera should be. I also get influenced by aesthetics...I'm not afraid to admit that. Luckily for me, I'm not buying cameras to do a job (in which I would certainly need something different than what I really want to use).

 

[BobYIL]

I think expectations and customer base have changed dramatically in the 43 years I've shot leicas. In 1968 when i bought my first M's and lenses I was a young PJ looking for reliability and a camera that would stand the abuse of my job. Also I was looking for a camera that was particularly well suited for low light shooting. All of my friends in the business either used Leica, Nikon S3 & SP or Nikon F's. I don't think any of us looked on what we used as being anything other than a tool. We had no expectations that there was glow, perfect bokeh or any sort of magic associated with our gear. In 1968 98% of the market was pro but today 99.9% are amateurs. I don't mean that in a negative sense just simply they don't make a living with their cameras. It's totally a hobby for most Leica shooters. My take on many of todays leica owners are they have unrealistic expectations of their gear. They're seeking the magic bullet to make them the next HCB or who ever they idolize. It's no longer the talent behind the camera but the self image and especially the gear. The same mythology surrounds other goods like stereo, bicycles, motorcycles, musical instruments, golf clubs and on and on.

Leica's great but IMO no better than Nikon or any number of other cameras and lenses. Sorry but it's just another camera void of magic as all others are and this is just my personal opinion so please don't be offended. Nothing personal.

As being someone who bought his first Leica in 1963 I agree with the above statements...

Leicas were preferred because they were light, compact but reliable and fast... When we were buying Leicas our models were the top professionals, Magnum photo members, the ones who won Pulitzer prizes... Today the model is Seal or the Russian president Medvedev...

Today it is a different Leica than the one we know... A member in these forums put it the best:" A $7000 Nikon or Canon is made for professional use, a Leica is made for hobbyist/collectors, and build accordingly."

 

[rogerzilla]

I read that many people who wait years to buy a Leica (OK, this was in the days when the M6 was the current product, so I don't know about digital) are bitterly disappointed. Maybe they expect twelve exposure modes, motorwind, AF and all the other extraneous crud you get on "normal" cameras, or maybe an M just shows that, deep down, they can't really "do" photography. Another problem is that you can build up a comprehensive Canikon system with five lenses for a couple of grand, but the equivalent with Leica is going to be more than ten grand. A body and a 50mm (or even 35mm) lens isn;t going to satisfy some people.

Anyway...I'd like Leica to carry on as they are, although buying up a film factory and applying Leica quality control to it might be appreciated by all us older M users.