Okay,
it's a daydream. But I think it's a good one...
[I've
gotten quite a bit of feedback on this article, including some
off-the-record responses from various Nikon employees around
the world. I've considered all of those emails in my most recent
update of this article. 10/6/03]
Nikon
is an interesting company. I'm generalizing here, but unlike Canon,
which has a decided business and marketing outward focus
(be #1 or #2 in your product markets; advertise the brand advantage),
Nikon is more traditionally engineering based and mostly inwardly
focused. You're more likely to see a Technical Brochure on a new
product from Nikon than a coordinated and well-targeted advertising
campaign.
More
than once I've talked with a Nikon engineer who was justifiably
proud of a new product but perplexed about why it wasn't dominating
the market. Canon treats their overseas subsidiaries as part of
their primary business and expects marketing to drive sales; Nikon
seems to consider their overseas subsidiaries as necessary distribution
points that should be self-supporting, and expects quality engineering
to drive sales.
The
net result of these differences is that Nikon has built some
fine
products (though some seem to be more the pet projects of the engineers:
witness the FM3a and the 85mm PC-Nikkor), but has never broken
through
as the International leader in imaging that they should be (after
losing the initial leadership they had with the Nikon F [see
right
column]). Canon's fancier and more ubiquitous advertising is what
people remember (quick, which famous tennis player touted which
35mm SLR?). Nikon's surprise launch of the original D1 took the
whole industry by surprise and caught Canon flat-footed, but
it
wasn't particularly well supported on the business and marketing
side, so the early momentum Nikon had in DSLR sales didn't carry
them for long. Canon's marketing of the D60 and later the 10D and
Digital Rebel is a case in point: to get back market share, Canon
became very aggressive
on price, eventually undercutting the every-bit-as-equivalent Nikon
D100 by as much as US$500 with the 10D, which eventually
forced Nikon to lower their price. [As I update this article,
both the D100 and 10D are at the US$1499 street point, but the
Digital
Rebel at US$899 for the body once again puts price and marketing
pressure on Nikon. Nikon went from being the price leader in
digital with the D1 to playing catch-up, though the US$3199 street
price of the upcoming D2h forced Canon to match it with the 1D,
so the game isn't 100% one-sided yet. Still, Canon matched price
before the D2h appeared, while Nikon has only matched
price after Canon models have been successfully introduced
and built market share. That's a subtle difference, but a telling
one.]
But
it's not just "ramp up the marketing" that would help
secure Nikon's market position. Anyone who's used Nikon equipment
and dealt with them as long as I have can tell you that there are
multiple issues with Nikon's practices that essentially validate
one of Newton's laws: a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless
acted on by a force. Nikon is the body at rest. We Nikon users need
to be the force.
And
so, on to my suggestions. Here's what I'd do if I ran Nikon:
- Cut
the warranty run-around.
There are several ways to deal with the gray market camera
problem. The first would simply be for Nikon to stop supplying
excess inventory to the gray market. Still, let's assume for
a moment that gray market serves some purpose to Nikon (it serves
a purpose
for the customer, as it effectively lowers prices), and thus
should continue. The customer issue is that Nikon's current
warranty
and repair practices for gray market products are so unfriendly
and anti-consumer that it makes one pause before purchasing any
Nikon product. It most certainly hurts the used marketplace and
uninformed consumer. With my first act in running Nikon, I propose
to turn that around. First, out-of-warranty products will no
longer
be refused for repair. Second, in-warranty-but-gray products
will have a place that they can be shipped to for warranty work:
a
well-publicized repair station. Third, in-country-non-gray
warranties will run longer than gray warranties (note Nikon already
does a form of this in the US with lenses). Fourth, there will
be an obvious and publicized way to tell if a product is Nikon-imported
or gray (e.g., the barcode on the side of the box) and any reseller
found trying to modify that will be immediately prosecuted for
fraud. [I'll note in passing that Nikon Europe now appears to
be repairing gray market product, apparently because of EU law.
I've asked some specific questions of Nikon Europe about this,
for which I hope to eventually get some specific answers.] Why
is this necessary? Because
current practices make it impossible to purchase used equipment
reliably;
because Canon and some other camera companies have less rigorous
policies and thus attract consumers who are worried about possible
repair issues; because consumers want to know that the company
stands behind its products; because it's the right thing to
do.
- Work
with third parties.
That
means an SDK (software development kit) for every product, just
like Kodak is doing. Capture and other software products will
be made "open socket" and extensible, and information
on how to interface to these functions will be in the Capture
SDK. Proprietary connectors will be freed (either they won't
be used, or they will be made readily available to others).
[Progress is being made here. Nikon Europe appears to have changed
policies recently to make such information more readily available,
and an SDK is publicized
and available there. In the US, while it's possible to get
an SDK,
trying
to figure out where to apply is a bit of an issue.] Why
is this necessary? Because when there are two equal-sized
markets developers go where they get the most support, which
right
now would be Canon; because better supported products attract
more customers.
- Register
serial numbers. Here's my proposal: Nikon
will act as a clearing house for stolen Nikon equipment. As part
of the longer warranty offer (see above) you will have to register
the serial number. Should your camera/lens/whatever ever be stolen,
you can report it stolen to the database. First, the stolen numbers
would be publicly available on a Web site (hey, look at that great
bargain on eBay, what's the serial number?). Second, if an item
with a reported stolen number ever shows up for repair (and since
all equipment is now repaired by Nikon, it very well might), you're
notified and the authorities are given the information they need
to back-trace. Why is this necessary? It's
not, but it's a marketable advantage over any other camera company
that costs very little to implement.
- Improve
tech support. I can't begin to count
how many times someone has told me that Nikon's Level 1 tech
support
has told them that the problem they were having was because they
weren't using an approved CompactFlash card. I believe it to
be the incorrect posture. Nikon should be helping customers regardless
of why they're having a problem. Each week I get emails from
users who've given up on getting an answer from Nikon technical
support asking for my help, so I know that the current level
of support is not working for a significant number of users.
[Note: I had previously written that Nikon should test and approve
more
cards.
Someone
from Nikon
emailed
to tell me that they had. At present the D100 support list includes
42 cards, though from only four manufacturers other than Nikon,
and still only a small subset of what's available and what people
are actually using in the cameras. I had also suggested that
Nikon needed to have more information and
FAQs
posted. Apparently,
they have
been
working
at this,
though the information is
buried a bit in the NikonUSA site, so it's easy to miss. My apologies
to Nikon for not catching
this
earlier.] Why is this necessary? Because
photographic equipment isn't as simple to operate as a toaster,
and customers appreciate companies that understand that and do
things to address it; because the current tech support system
still needs work.
- Improve
parts availability. Here's an actual
customer nightmare that was related to me recently: a D1x body
was sent to Nikon for firmware upgrade, cleaning, and check by
an NPS member (Nikon Professional Services; members are working
professionals who get faster service and close attention due to
their verified status). Nikon's repair department told the customer
that the shutter appeared to be near failure and should be replaced.
The customer told them to replace it. Nikon said that the parts
were on back order and it might be a long while before they got
them. The customer asked for his camera back, figuring he could
at least shoot with it until the shutter failed. Nikon indicated
that they would not order a part for
a camera that wasn't in their possession for repair. Say what?
Essentially Nikon has told a working professional with whom they
have a relationship that their camera is about to fail, and when
that happens they will be without a camera for a long period of
time. This is unacceptable behavior. Yes, I understand that parts
are in short supply due to the rapid growth in the DSLR market.
Still, I wouldn't tolerate such behavior from my auto dealer,
and I don't think we should tolerate it from camera manufacturers,
either. Nikon's current policy shows that they do not value working
relationships with professionals (let alone consumers). Why
is this necessary? Because professionals can't
afford to be without their cameras for long, indeterminate periods
of time; because long repair times lead to unhappy customers and
bad word of mouth; because you shouldn't be stiffing your paying
customers by using the entire parts supply to make new cameras
instead; because short of having a working JIT (just in time)
inventory system, not stocking parts is a potential quagmire.
- Unleash
the knowledgeable.
Perhaps its an ombudsmen (see below), perhaps its an knowledgeable
engineer or two, perhaps they need to hire a few Thom Hogans to
be proactive, but Nikon needs a presence in the online forums
and photographic communities throughout the world. It is so much
better to simply give out reliable, useful, and accurate information
and respond to questions than it is to let consumer communities
run wild with speculation and innuendo, it's no contest. [Side
note: assuming spam blocking doesn't gobble it up, I try to answer
every email question I receive. I do not get paid by anyone to
do this. Just don't send attachments or photos with your email.]
There is one small, product-specific online forum that two Nikon
engineers follow and post responses on, and it's a breath of fresh
air. About one Nikon product we get accurate, up-to-date, and
useful information because of that (and indeed, it even seems
as if a few customer feature requests have been heard that way,
too). I'm sure the Nikon employees do this on their own initiative
and on their own time, but it's so much better than the alternative,
it needs to be encouraged corporately. No, I'm not advocating
that every Nikon employee get online or go to photo clubs every
week, and I'm not even advocating that they answer every
post/question. But a policy of monitoring and responding/involving
when necessary needs to be put in place. Why is this
necessary? Because Nikon employees ought to be best and
most knowledgeable Nikon product advocates, not Thom Hogan or
Moose Petersen or whoever.
- Hire
an ombudsman. Back in the old days, Nikon's
service for professionals (NPS) used to have what essentially
was an ombudsman. If you needed a repair expedited, weren't happy
with something, needed a loaner, whatever, you could call up one
of two people in NPS and usually get rapid satisfaction. These
days, by comparison, NPS seems to be nothing more than a way to
get equipment repaired slightly faster. I haven't heard a peep
out of Nikon since re-joining a couple of years back, their NPS
Web site is a joke, and I've heard tale after tale of professionals
who couldn't easily reach a human to find out where their equipment
went. But even when NPS worked, that only applied to professionals,
so I propose that there be separate consumer ombudsmen for Asia,
North America, and Europe. These ombudsmen would have a small
budget (not controlled by the subsidiaries!) and demo inventory
to "do what's right" by the customer. In order to keep
the ombudsman from being overwhelmed with every Nikon
user question and complaint, the process for getting to the ombudsman
would require that you show that you've first exhausted the usual
method of problem resolution (which is another reason why Tier
1 and Tier 2 tech support have to improve). Why is
this necessary? Because as cameras get more complex and
expensive, there's more chance of a single lemon causing a bad
taste in all consumers mouths (note, the auto companies have ombudsmen);
because it's another marketable consumer-oriented service.
- Fix
the delivery issues.
It's
been clear ever since the launch of the original D1 that Nikon
has product launch problems. With the D1h and D1x they attempted
to partially fix that by allowing NPS members to cut in line,
which was part of the right idea, but wasn't handled well and
didn't address consumer issues. Since then, virtually everything
Nikon has announced has been late to market and demand for it
has exceeded supply in such an overwhelming manner that most people
experience months of delay in getting a product. Long term, that
hurts. When products are relatively equal in quality/ability but
one is unavailable, the other product wins. Fortunately, Nikon
has been lucky that Canon has also had difficulties keeping up
with DSLR demand. But lenses are a real issue for Nikon right
now (As of 8/1/03 I still haven't received the 12-24mm lens I
ordered). There appear to be three things that need to be addressed
by Nikon: manufacturing capacity, demand estimation, and delivery
consistency. And until all three are fixed, this problem will
continue, and consumer frustration will build. Why
is this necessary? Because even professionals can't get
new products in a timely fashion, and guess what that means in
terms of brand loyalty? Because you waste enormous money and energy
building up the marketing message and then waste it when the customer
doesn't find the product in stock today, next week, or even next
month. By the time the stores have the product, the initial marketing
has been forgotten or overridden by some other company's newer
message; because you don't want to establish a pattern where every
new announcement is greeted by the customer reaction "who
cares, I won't be able to get one in the next six months, anyway."
- Find
a real marketing message.
I don't know if you ever noticed, but every new Nikon SLR
and digital camera has had a different slogan that follows it
around. This slogan is used in the advertising, in the product
brochures, on the boxes, basically everywhere the product is presented
(F5: "Imported from the Future," FM3a: "Crafted
for Your Personal Control," N80: "Engineered to Exhilarate,"
D1h/D1x: "Two Solutions, One Ideal," Coolpix 995: "Driven
by your Imagination," or the day the creative department
was out to lunch--F100: "Professional."). Personally,
almost none of these catch phrases manages to do much for me,
especially since so many of them seem interchangeable (can't an
F5 be "driven by your imagination?"). They also tell
prospective customers almost nothing about what to tangibly expect
out of Nikon products. You'll note that most of Nikon's messages
tend to have an engineering implication to them, which does reflect
the kind of company Nikon thinks of itself as. But did you notice
that none of the ones I list say anything about images or image
quality? Only when we get to the true consumer cameras do we get
anything that suggests that you take pictures with these things--N55:
"Make Sharp and Colorful Pictures," or N65: "Expect
More From Your Pictures." Still, all this word play is somehow
vague and insubstantial, and it really doesn't tell me much about
the brand. Nikon needs an overriding brand marketing
position that is communicated with all their products, in all
their materials. Of course, some of you will point out that Nikon
recently introduced such a position: "At the heart of the
image." Anyone care to tell me what that means to the casual
observer? We get no indication of why Nikon is any different
than any other imaging company, we have to understand that heart
is a metaphor, and "image" is not the word most people
would use to describe the end result. And I've yet to see Nikon
use that as anything more than a throwaway phrase in their materials.
Moreover, I find it interesting that a company that thinks of
itself of a precision engineering company would choose the heart
over the brain as the metaphor--this new slogan is going to be
a real stretch for Nikon to embrace, I think. A more direct and
meaningful variant would have been "We engineer the heart
of your camera," or if we can drop the heart metaphor for
a moment: "Better engineering makes better pictures"
or " Engineering products that make better pictures."
(These are, obviously, off the top of my head, and are used to
illustrate my point, not to say that these should be the final
Nikon marketing statements. Still, I wouldn't be complaining about
this point if either of the last two were Nikon's new image statement,
though I might mumble under my breath that they weren't very creative
;~). In short, Nikon needs something akin to "Like a Rock."
And they need to use it everywhere and for a long period of time,
just as Chevy has. And, lest I forget: this new marketing message
must not be contradicted by any of the other problems I've listed
above. Why is this necessary? Because Nikon's
chief competitor, Canon, is very much a sales and marketing driven
company that is very good at delivering consistent and understandable
messages to customers; because getting the message right will
help attract the right customer.
Now
you may have noticed something interesting in all my suggestions.
I didn't say anything about improving products! That's one of the
things that makes Nikon's current practices so bothersome: there's
nothing particularly wrong with Nikon products. Indeed, if you go
back and look through Nikon's product history, they have a long,
storied career of building excellent products and then engineering
them to be even better. Nikon does not tend to add features at a
whim, it tends to quickly fix UI mistakes, it eschews marketing
gimmicks for real engineering advances, and it builds rock solid,
excellent equipment. Yes, this means that they sometimes lag a bit
on a feature here and there (IS/VR being the most notable one),
but each generation of Nikon products moves forward, not laterally,
as I've seen with some companies. In short, it's not Nikon's engineering
that needs change. So if I were in charge of Nikon my primary goal
would be to keep the internal engineering nature of the company
intact while improving the external message, consistency, and customer
contact.
Is
Nikon listening, or will they suffer a heart-of-the-image attack?
Only time will tell. [Well, I know they're
listening. The question really is "when and how will they change?"]
|
