P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive

amateurphotographer.co.uk

Compact camera sales drop 14.5%

Thursday 2nd July 2009
Chris Cheesman
GfK

UK consumers snapped up 14.5% fewer compact cameras in May than in the
same month the year before, according to official figures seen by
Amateur Photographer. However, DSLR sales continue to ride out the
effects of the economic downturn.

Statistics show that 433,900 compact cameras were sold in May 2009 -
that's 73,400 fewer than in May 2008.

This led to a 11% drop in compact camera sales revenue, according to
the figures compiled by GfK Retail & Technology.

GfK attributed the fall in demand for compact cameras to higher
prices, compared to a year ago, and the effects of the recession.

GfK's Photo/Imaging account manager Cedric Mertes blamed higher
unemployment and cuts in household budgets, adding that the compact
market has now 'reached maturity'.

He said that 75% of UK households own a compact camera and people are
reluctant to upgrade to newer models during a downturn.

However, sales of digital SLRs held up, sliding around 2% in volume in
May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%,
compared to 12 months earlier.

 

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:09:08 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
wrote in
<>:

>[SNIP]

How silly. What this actually shows:
* Sales of dSLR cameras are also down
* Compact cameras outsold dSLR cameras by more than 10:1
* "the compact market has now 'reached maturity'"
* "the effects of the recession"

--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)

 

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:09:08 -0700, Rich wrote:

> amateurphotographer.co.uk
>
> Compact camera sales drop 14.5%
>
> Thursday 2nd July 2009
> Chris Cheesman
> GfK
>
> UK consumers snapped up 14.5% fewer compact cameras in May than in the
> same month the year before, according to official figures seen by
> Amateur Photographer. However, DSLR sales continue to ride out the
> effects of the economic downturn.
>
> Statistics show that 433,900 compact cameras were sold in May 2009 -
> that's 73,400 fewer than in May 2008.
>
> This led to a 11% drop in compact camera sales revenue, according to the
> figures compiled by GfK Retail & Technology.
>
> GfK attributed the fall in demand for compact cameras to higher prices,
> compared to a year ago, and the effects of the recession.
>
> GfK's Photo/Imaging account manager Cedric Mertes blamed higher
> unemployment and cuts in household budgets, adding that the compact
> market has now 'reached maturity'.
>
> He said that 75% of UK households own a compact camera and people are
> reluctant to upgrade to newer models during a downturn.
>
> However, sales of digital SLRs held up, sliding around 2% in volume in
> May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%,
> compared to 12 months earlier.

Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.

 

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <>:

>ray <> wrote:
>>
>>Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
>>Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.
>
>Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way
>or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
>don't know, but that is the only number which counts...

To you, but not to the rest of the world.

--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)

 

On Jul 2, 9:09 am, Rich <> wrote:
> amateurphotographer.co.uk
>
> Compact camera sales drop 14.5%
>
> Thursday 2nd July 2009
> Chris Cheesman
> GfK
>
> UK consumers snapped up 14.5% fewer compact cameras in May than in the
> same month the year before, according to official figures seen by
> Amateur Photographer. However, DSLR sales continue to ride out the
> effects of the economic downturn.
>
> Statistics show that 433,900 compact cameras were sold in May 2009 -
> that's 73,400 fewer than in May 2008.
>
> This led to a 11% drop in compact camera sales revenue, according to
> the figures compiled by GfK Retail & Technology.
>
> GfK attributed the fall in demand for compact cameras to higher
> prices, compared to a year ago, and the effects of the recession.
>
> GfK's Photo/Imaging account manager Cedric Mertes blamed higher
> unemployment and cuts in household budgets, adding that the compact
> market has now 'reached maturity'.
>
> He said that 75% of UK households own a compact camera and people are
> reluctant to upgrade to newer models during a downturn.
>
> However, sales of digital SLRs held up, sliding around 2% in volume in
> May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%,
> compared to 12 months earlier.

I don’t know of many people who now do not own a compact camera,
including me. Doesn’t it make sense that perhaps the sales of compact
cameras is going to drop as most people have them? On the other hand
most people don’t yet have a DSLR, so there is still a large potential
market for them.

If you are trying to say that sales of compact cameras are in trouble
due to DLSR you are about as deluded as some of the film people who
keep seeing a resurgence in the use of film and claim that large
numbers of people are giving up their digital cameras for film.

I love my DSLR, but I also like my compact camera, I use both and
enough both.

As for the anti DSLR nut I have to point out that my wife and I own
two DSLR, one over 4 years old the other over 3 and neither has given
us any problem. On the other hand I have had a number of P&S digital
cameras crap out on me.

Compact digital camera as simple not as bad as Rich makes out or as
good as some other make out. And as far as value for you money they
deliver nicely.

 

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> ray <> wrote:
>>
>>Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
>>Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.
>
> Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way or another.
> How much did the *profits* change? We don't know, but that is the only
> number which counts...

Really. Only matters to me if I own stock in one of the companies. I
don't.

 

John Navas <> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)

>>Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way
>>or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
>>don't know, but that is the only number which counts...

> To you, but not to the rest of the world.

Yes, no profits meaning stores and camera makers going
bankrupt ... doesn't mean a thing to the world. It's not
like banks failing had any affect on the world, either.

-Wolfgang

 

On Jul 2, 4:57 pm, ray <> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:09:08 -0700, Rich wrote:
> > amateurphotographer.co.uk
>
> > Compact camera sales drop 14.5%
>
> > Thursday 2nd July 2009
> > Chris Cheesman
> > GfK
>
> > UK consumers snapped up 14.5% fewer compact cameras in May than in the
> > same month the year before, according to official figures seen by
> > Amateur Photographer. However, DSLR sales continue to ride out the
> > effects of the economic downturn.
>
> > Statistics show that 433,900 compact cameras were sold in May 2009 -
> > that's 73,400 fewer than in May 2008.
>
> > This led to a 11% drop in compact camera sales revenue, according to the
> > figures compiled by GfK Retail & Technology.
>
> > GfK attributed the fall in demand for compact cameras to higher prices,
> > compared to a year ago, and the effects of the recession.
>
> > GfK's Photo/Imaging account manager Cedric Mertes blamed higher
> > unemployment and cuts in household budgets, adding that the compact
> > market has now 'reached maturity'.
>
> > He said that 75% of UK households own a compact camera and people are
> > reluctant to upgrade to newer models during a downturn.
>
> > However, sales of digital SLRs held up, sliding around 2% in volume in
> > May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%,
> > compared to 12 months earlier.
>
> Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
> Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.

Difference is? There is no PROFIT in selling P&S's except for the
most expensive ones that sell in fewer numbers than DSLRs. DSLRs on
the other hand (except for cheaply priced ones for what they offer
like the A900) are profitable because the purchasing does not stop
with the cost of the body.

 

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:16:40 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <>:

>John Navas <> wrote:
>>On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>wrote in <>:
>>
>>>ray <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
>>>>Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.
>>>
>>>Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way
>>>or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
>>>don't know, but that is the only number which counts...
>>
>>To you, but not to the rest of the world.
>
>So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily
>doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember
>Adam Osborne selling computers like that...

How silly.

--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)

 

Rich wrote:
> amateurphotographer.co.uk
>
> Compact camera sales drop 14.5%
>
> Thursday 2nd July 2009
> Chris Cheesman
> GfK
>
> UK consumers snapped up 14.5% fewer compact cameras in May than in the
> same month the year before, according to official figures seen by
> Amateur Photographer. However, DSLR sales continue to ride out the
> effects of the economic downturn.
>
> Statistics show that 433,900 compact cameras were sold in May 2009 -
> that's 73,400 fewer than in May 2008.
>
> This led to a 11% drop in compact camera sales revenue, according to
> the figures compiled by GfK Retail & Technology.
>
> GfK attributed the fall in demand for compact cameras to higher
> prices, compared to a year ago, and the effects of the recession.
>
> GfK's Photo/Imaging account manager Cedric Mertes blamed higher
> unemployment and cuts in household budgets, adding that the compact
> market has now 'reached maturity'.
>
> He said that 75% of UK households own a compact camera and people are
> reluctant to upgrade to newer models during a downturn.
>
> However, sales of digital SLRs held up, sliding around 2% in volume in
> May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%,
> compared to 12 months earlier.

Statistics are ONE thing.....
Interpretation of those Statistics is quite ANOTHER.
The raw data tells us essentially nothing.
Bob Williams

 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily
> doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember
> Adam Osborne selling computers like that...

I used to work right next to Osborne Computer in Hayward, CA and I'd see
Adam coming and going. We (Xerox) lost a lot of employees to Osborne,
but they didn't last long there. But Osborne's real cash problems
started when they pre-announced the new model, and everyone stopped
buying the old model. They were under-capitalized, and couldn't survive
the transition, it had nothing to do with losing money on every sale,
there were just no sales.

The fact is that the D-SLR sales are becoming a bigger percentage of
total sales, and the profit per D-SLR system sold is far greater than
the profit on a commodity point and shoot, where you don't keep selling
lenses and accessories far into the future. I don't think the question
was ever whether or not the manufacturers are profitable overall in the
digital camera segment. Some obviously are not, and have exited the
business (Konica/Minolta) and probably Samsung and Panasonic in the near
future. They just don't have the critical mass to survive. As NPD
director Ross Rubin stated, "The top three suppliers are solidly
positioned," Rubin said, "but slowing growth in the point-and-shoot
market could make it difficult for other brands, like Samsung and
Panasonic, which are still making in-roads in the digital camera
market." The question is how long these companies are willing to lose
money in this segment, funding the operations with revenue from other
segments.

The D-SLR growth is a natural progression as people decide that they
want better quality photos, faster AF, more lens choices, and more
control. As Australian Photo Information Council spokesperson Paul
Curtis stated last week, "Over the last five months, digital SLR sales
have soared by nearly fifty per cent. We believe it is the cheaper
low-end cameras and camera phones which became available over the last
couple of years that inspired people into the joys of taking better
photos. An SLR camera allows a photographer to be more expressive,
versatile and creative in their picture taking."

 

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:14:21 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
wrote in
<>:

>> So what you're really trying to say is, that the UK represents the whole
>> world ...

>I'd say the UK is fine as representation of all capitalist economies.

I'd say it's not, much less that "capitalist economies" is relevant --
there are great differences in the camera markets even in developed
countries (e.g., Japan versus UK), not to mention other major markets
(e.g., China).

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

 

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:04:46 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <>:

>Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>On 2009-07-02 23:37:32 -0700, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>>
>>> John Navas <> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:16:40 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>>> wrote in <>:
>>>>
>>>>> John Navas <> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>>>>> wrote in <>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ray <> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as
>>>>>>>> opposed to 42,000 dslrs.
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.
>>>>>>> Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue
>>>>>>> one way
>>>>>>> or another. How much did the *profits* change? We
>>>>>>> don't know, but that is the only number which counts...
>>>>>> To you, but not to the rest of the world.
>>>>> So if they can boost sales to half a million, they
>>>>> are necessarily
>>>>> doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember
>>>>> Adam Osborne selling computers like that...
>>>> How silly.
>>> Oh, so you *don't* remember Adam Osborne. Look it up.
>>
>>Yup. Compaq copied his suitcase portable. 8088, Keyboard lid, twin 51/4
>>drives amber 6" monitor.
>>
>>Lug fest!
>
>However, the point is that while Osborne created a
>wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate
>his cost of production and for the entire life of the
>product he sold it for less than it cost to make... and
>went bankrupt due to the "success"!

What actually happened is that sales of the Osborne 1 dried up, in part
because Osborne pre-announced major upgrades (Executive and Vixen), in
part because the Osborne 1 wasn't so wonderful as compared to newer
competitive models, in part because the pre-announced Osborne Executive
was actually *overpriced* as compared to better competitive models
(e.g., Kaypro), and in part because Osborne failed to properly manage
its manufacturing inventories and ran out of cash. The pre-announcement
part came to be called the Osborne Effect.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect>

>Along the same lines, to stay with the original
>discussion relating 434,000 compact cameras to 42,000
>DSLRs, another story that I've heard but have not
>verified, involves Henry Ford. Supposedly his invention
>of the production line to build cars was what brought
>him success, but that is not exactly the real story
>either. Seems he came up with the production line idea
>first... and applied it to making a $35 wrist watch!
>But he did do his homework, and it doesn't take much
>arithmetic to determine how many watches it takes to
>make a million bucks (too many!). So he literally went
>looking for something more expensive.

Even farther off the mark --
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford#Early_years>:

His father gave Henry a pocket watch in his early teens. At fifteen,
Ford dismantled and reassembled the timepieces of friends and
neighbors dozens of times, gaining the reputation of a watch
repairman.

Read on and you'll see that's it for watches.

Next time, to avoid posting more misinformation, do at least at least a
tiny bit of checking first.

(Will you be man enough to admit your mistakes, or will I get your usual
ad hominem instead?)

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

 

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:05:37 -0700, SMS <>
wrote in <_do3m.1970$>:

>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily
>> doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember
>> Adam Osborne selling computers like that...
>
>I used to work right next to Osborne Computer in Hayward, CA and I'd see
>Adam coming and going. We (Xerox) lost a lot of employees to Osborne,
>but they didn't last long there. But Osborne's real cash problems
>started when they pre-announced the new model, and everyone stopped
>buying the old model. They were under-capitalized, and couldn't survive
>the transition, it had nothing to do with losing money on every sale,
>there were just no sales.

That's the myth.
What actually happened is much broader mismanagement and lack of
competitiveness. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect>

>The fact is that the D-SLR sales are becoming a bigger percentage of
>total sales,

Meaningless, since dSLR sales are coming from a much smaller base.

>and the profit per D-SLR system sold is far greater than
>the profit on a commodity point and shoot, where you don't keep selling
>lenses and accessories far into the future.

The low end, higher volume part of the dSLR market is actually just as
price competitive as the compact digital camera market, likewise the low
end of the lens market; margins are no better than on better compact
digital cameras; and total profits from those products are only a small
fraction of compact digital camera profits.

>I don't think the question
>was ever whether or not the manufacturers are profitable overall in the
>digital camera segment. Some obviously are not, and have exited the
>business (Konica/Minolta) and probably Samsung and Panasonic in the near
>future. They just don't have the critical mass to survive. As NPD
>director Ross Rubin stated, "The top three suppliers are solidly
>positioned," Rubin said, "but slowing growth in the point-and-shoot
>market could make it difficult for other brands, like Samsung and
>Panasonic, which are still making in-roads in the digital camera
>market." The question is how long these companies are willing to lose
>money in this segment, funding the operations with revenue from other
>segments.

Industrial and technology giant Panasonic is actually doing very well,
gaining market share according to plan, and looks set to be a strong
long term player, just as in other consumer electronics products.

>The D-SLR growth is a natural progression as people decide that they
>want better quality photos, faster AF, more lens choices, and more
>control. ...

There's simply no real evidence to support that.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

 

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:12:55 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
wrote in
<>:

>Difference is? There is no PROFIT in selling P&S's except for the
>most expensive ones that sell in fewer numbers than DSLRs. DSLRs on
>the other hand (except for cheaply priced ones for what they offer
>like the A900) are profitable because the purchasing does not stop
>with the cost of the body.

The low end, higher volume part of the dSLR market is actually just as
price competitive as the compact digital camera market, likewise the low
end of the lens market; margins are no better than on better compact
digital cameras; and total profits from those products are only a small
fraction of compact digital camera profits.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

 

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:58:20 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in
<>:

>Scott W wrote:
>
>> I don’t know of many people who now do not own a compact camera,
>> including me. Doesn’t it make sense that perhaps the sales of compact
>> cameras is going to drop as most people have them? On the other hand
>> most people don’t yet have a DSLR, so there is still a large potential
>> market for them.
>>
>> If you are trying to say that sales of compact cameras are in trouble
>> due to DLSR you are about as deluded as some of the film people who
>> keep seeing a resurgence in the use of film and claim that large
>> numbers of people are giving up their digital cameras for film.
>>
>> I love my DSLR, but I also like my compact camera, I use both and
>> enough both.
>
>Looking around, I see a lot of people taking photographs with
>their phones, or (should I say) their all-in-one techno-centre.
>
>Some people (actually rather a lot, and rising) find their
>phone serves their record-the-moment need satisfactorily.
>
>I suspect the market for (single-purpose) compact cameras
>will be squeezed between phones getting better and DSLR's
>getting smaller.

Depends on what you mean by "squeezed". Phone cameras may take over
much of the very low end of the digital camera market, and dSLR cameras
may take more of the high end, but that still leaves a vast middle.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

 

Bob Williams wrote:

> Statistics are ONE thing.....
> Interpretation of those Statistics is quite ANOTHER.

> The raw data tells us essentially nothing.

LOL, it depends on what you want to know! If you want to know what those
changes meant in terms of profit or loss, and revenue, then you're out
of luck, and the manufacturers aren't going to release that data.

If you want to know which products are increasing or decreasing in terms
of unit sales, the data tells you a lot

 

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:03:29 -0700, John Navas
<> wrote:

>>The fact is that the D-SLR sales are becoming a bigger percentage of
>>total sales,
>
>Meaningless, since dSLR sales are coming from a much smaller base.
>

I am looking forward to your book on market analysis. In which
chapter will you explain how the market segment base size makes the
percentage of sales to that market segment a meaningless part of the
overall sales?

Also, in which chapter will you explain your concept of "base"? You
have evidently determined that purchases of point and shoot cameras
and sales of dslr cameras come from different bases. While it is
entirely possible that a person's first camera purchase would be a
dslr, it seems to me that most dslr sales are to people who already
own a camera of some type. Therefore, people who are in the same base
as the owners of point and shoots and camera phones. They have merely
upgraded to a different type of camera.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

 

bugbear wrote:

> I suspect the market for (single-purpose) compact cameras
> will be squeezed between phones getting better and DSLR's
> getting smaller.

What's happening, and the reason why D-SLR sales are increasing as a
percentage of total cameras sold, are just as Australian Photo
Information Council spokesperson Paul Curtis stated last week, "Over the
last five months, digital SLR sales have soared by nearly fifty per
cent. We believe it is the cheaper low-end cameras and camera phones
which became available over the last couple of years that inspired
people into the joys of taking better photos. An SLR camera allows a
photographer to be more expressive, versatile and creative in their
picture taking."

This is isn't limited to Australia of course, we've seen similar reports
out of the U.S., China, and the U.K.. All the experts agree that as
people want to improve the quality of their photos, as well as being
able to take certain photos at all, they are buying D-SLRs. It's quite
similar to the evolution of film SLRs, when they hit the mass market the
adoption rate soared. But with D-SLRs there's another thing driving the
growth. Back in the film days, everyone had access to the same full
frame "sensors;" you bought them on rolls. You didn't have the huge
disconnect in noise and low light performance that you now have with
D-SLRs versus digital point and shoot cameras, and you didn't have all
the autofocus lag issues. The D-SLR solves problems that exist in P&S
digital cameras that film compact cameras never had.

P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough
for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for
photography rather than "snapshots."

 

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:47:02 -0700, SMS <>
wrote in <mBq3m.11056$>:

>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> However, the point is that while Osborne created a
>> wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate
>> his cost of production and for the entire life of the
>> product he sold it for less than it cost to make... and
>> went bankrupt due to the "success"!
>
>That's not what happened to Osborne Computer at all.
>
>Several things killed Osborne.
>
>1. Kaypro came out with a 9" screen model hurting sales of the 5" screen
>Osborne 1.
>
>2. Compaq offered their suitcase computer which was IBM compatible.
>
>3. Adam pre-announced the Osborne Executive (7" screen) and sales of the
>Osborne 1 tanked because everyone waited for the new model.
>
>4. The company was under-capitalized so they could not ride out the
>sales lull and develop new products fast enough.
>
>5. He could not produce the original model in sufficient quantities to
>meet demand, and by the time he could, prices had fallen.
>
>Too bad, Adam was a good guy. Maybe he should have stuck to books.

I see you've now read the Wikipedia article and changed your tune but
without acknowledging or apologizing for your prior bad information:
<news:_do3m.1970$>
Why am I not surprised.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams