Craig,
I haven't noticed any digicam TV ads.
A saw the Kodak exec on CNBC and he felt that sales of digicams were not entering the mainstream because of their perceived complexity. I think the manufacturer's believe that they are still niche products for early adapters. To their point, at $300 for a good (not great) digicam, you are still far away from the price of the point and shoot stuff that probably 80% of the population uses. As we've discussed here, most folks will also buy a larger CF card and a printer, bringing the total cost towards $500. And you don't see many $400+ 35 mm SLR's advertised on TV either, the end market size just won't support the cost (Cannon is the exception).
My guess is that the price point where you start to reach the mainstream is $129, with good quality, and simple use. Today's component prices make that out of the question, maybe in two years.
How's this for a business model. Folks pay an upfront fee of say $99, they get a loaner digicam, which they can take to any photo retailer to drop off and be replaced with another (loaner) digicam, after they have taken their pictures. The photo retailer then mails them the prints or a CD, or they can wait for the prints or CD. Sort of like the "disposable" emulsion cameras available today. Simple, no PC involved. But the service end, the prints or CD "developing" would have to have pretty good margins to make up for the low initiation cost for the camera.
Probably wouldn't work, people like to own stuff, not pay to borrow it. I don't know how you get digicams into the mainstream, TV advertising type category without a significant reduction in component costs (including CF).
John |
