Re: Nimslo's marketing

[P3D Sam Smith <3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:18 AM 30/3/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Lawrence writes:
>>Was their faulty marketing plan the fact that no one wanted to buy
>>one of their cameras? I remember them spending a lot of money
>>on advertising and the cameras were gathering dust in a lot of stores.
> 
>No, it wasn't that people didn't want to buy them.  People were interested.
>(At least, I was at the time they came out!)  Nimslo learned the hard way
>that you can't sell a $20 camera for $200. 


The Nimslo was a $20 camera ?? Are you sure you're not mixing it up with the
Nishika? The Nimslo WAS a $200 camera. It was well made, mostly metal
construction, and precision optics. There's no way they could have sold it
for $20. 

> They should have priced the
>camera at $50 regardless of what they cost to build, and increased the
>price of the processing. 

You can't rely on just making money on the processing, as people will always
try to get around paying high prices for their prints. If the lenticular
process HAD taken off in 1980, other labs would have followed and competed
against the original. Don't forget that even now that there is a limited
success in lenticulars, several independant labs are in production. Plus
there will be people like us who  would use it as a stereo camera instead.


Sam
The 3D Hacker
website: http://www.cadvision.com/3dhacker/index.htm


------------------------------