HP Marketing...

[Steve Hamley]

Folks,

I had not kept up with the TK45S thread until referenced in this thread, and certainly understand how Scott feels. I'd feel the same way.

At the same time, I also know professional photographers that if they buy new, don't hesitate to pay the HP Marketing or Mamiya USA premium. The primary customers of HP marketing and Mamiya USA are clearly perceived to be working pros, not advanced hobbyists or fine art photographers, and they've constructed a business model to support those professionals, which includes fast turn around on good quality service for those who paid that premium.

In recent thread, Bob Salomon stated that the premium for Linhof-branded lenses was 200 - 400%. I know more than one pro who bought Linhof-branded lenses new but know of no one buying them who didn't practice photography as a primary occupation.

It is a model that penalizes those who cannot defray or justify that premium as a business expense, but it isn't necessarily wrong - even though it basically subsidizes professionals at the expense of non-professionals.

Again, vote with your dollars as we all do, but I really can't criticize HP Marketing and Mamiya USA for their overall business model to support a certain clientele, although going after folks selling new filters on eBay seems a bit "over the top". And there are always solutions for problems, they're just different from what we're used to.

Steve

[Paul Butzi]

As Steve points out, HP Marketing are free to pursue any business model they please. Steve suggests that this model shafts non-pro photographers primarily because it caters only to the pro.

I'd disagree. Bob is saying that Marflex (the corporate address for Marflex is the same as that of HP Marketing) will refuse to service any product which HP Marketing distributes in the US but which was not imported into the US by HP Marketing. Note that we're not discussing warranty service, here, which is what you pay a premium for. We're discussing out of warranty service.

That's not a matter of catering to professionals. It's a matter of protecting a monopoly on distribution. Sure, it's legal. Marflex/HP Marketing are free to refuse to do repairs on some cameras for whatever reason they like. And protecting the distribution monopoly by using the leverage of owning the only factory authorised service facility is probably legal.
But that doesn't mean that I think it's the behavior of a company I'd like to do business with.

Does that mean that I'm going to take my TK and get rid of it? No. I own the camera, I use it, I like it.

But it does mean that when someone asks if they should buy one, I'll suggest that they avoid enriching HP Marketing. Same thing for Rodenstock products, and the same thing for other brands that HP Marketing represents.

Will that hurt HP Marketing? Maybe, maybe not. Last year, 10,000 people visited my website looking for information on Rodenstock lenses, which HP marketing distributes in the US. Last year, some 3000 people visited my web site specifically to read my review of the Linhof TK45s. My web page lands in the first page of results returned for both products by Google. I get a fair bit of email on both subjects from people who visit my web site. How many Rodenstock lenses are sold in the US each year? How many Technikardans? Can I make a real impact to HP Marketing's bottom line? Maybe, maybe not. But it's worth noting that my website ranks higher in the google returns for those products than does the Rodenstock web site, the Linhof website, or HP Marketing's web site.

HP Marketing are faced with being the sole distributors of a bunch of products in a market that is shrinking fast. The global economy and the internet mean that it might not make any difference to me whether I buy locally or not (except in price) or get it serviced locally or not (overnight fedex times to Marflex in New Jersey are the same as overnight fedex times to Germany). Can HP really afford to do business in a way that alienates me?

As you said, it's their right to choose how to do business. Likewise, it's my right to decide where to spend my dollars, and what to say about their products and their business practices.

Mark Twain once suggested that it was unwise to argue with someone who buys ink by the gallon. HP Marketing's problem is that their business practices are rooted in the 1950's, and in 2005, the prevalence of the Internet means that even a guy like me effectively buys ink by the gallon. And it also means that, unlike 1950, in 2005, it's pretty easy for me to do business with someone in Germany directly. Why not cut out the middle man?

[Scott Rosenberg]

paul, don, patty, max, steve, and anyone i may have missed, thanks for voicing your sentiments. i'm glad to see i'm not alone in not taking issue with the way HP is doing things. we seem to have two threads running concurrently, so instead of explaining myself again, i'll simply paste my comments from the other thread here. hopefully, this will clarify my decisions.

kerry, et al...

firstly, i completely understand HP's policy. i may not agree with them, but nobody at HP asked for my opinion. the bottom line is that i'm not trying to hurt HP here, i am simply choosing not to support them through direct financial contribution or exposure. i made a decision not to buy my camera through HP's channels, and it is their policy not to recognize the camera. while seemingly asinine to me, as they say, those be the rules. i don't have my car serviced at the dealership i bought it in, but that doesn't keep them from taking my money everytime i need to have service done. no, i'm not asking for the camera to be repaired under warranty, and yes, i would GLADLY pay for services rendered. why HP marketing chooses not to open that channel of income is beyond me.

their position seems a thinly veiled way of forcing people to purchase through their channels, when it is perfectly legal to do otherwise. just the same, it is perfectly legal for HP to decide not to service cameras brought in through alternative channels. i find this to be somewhat bullying and monopolistic and i absolutely refuse to support a company that operates this way. kerry, i realize that i have not yet given HP one red cent through this transaction and though you may feel that i should not fret over such things and just go out and shoot, i don't feel that way. support comes in many forms, and i refuse to be an advocate for a company whose practices i find inexcusable.

kerry, when you say, "By keeping his camera, he is not "supporting" HP Marketing as he never gave them any money in the first place" you are failing to realize that there are many ways to support a company, beyond direct financial compensation. i am truly surprised to see this from you... how many 110 Super Symmar-XL, 150 APO-Sironar-S, 210 APO-Symmar, 240 Fuji-A, etc, lenses have been purchased as a result of your future classics page?

to illustrate, i was out shooting with the TK45S last thursday and an older couple approached me asking "That's a beautiful camera... what kind is it". this is not uncommon, as i'm sure many of you have experienced similar things. "It's a linhof," i replied, "and it's a wonderful camera". I don't know who he was or what his intentions were... he may have gone straight home and ordered a TK45S. this may sound outlandish, but I am often approached while shooting, and have made the decision not to use the HP products. there are options out there every bit as good, some better. now when someone approaches me in the field and asks what that beautiful camera is, i will gladly tell them it's an Arca Swiss and the finest camera i've ever used.

no matter what my broker tells me, i will not own stock in nor buy product from a company with poor environmental policy. these are decisions i make for reasons i feel strongly about. if i feel that the policies HP marketing enforce, though it is completely within their rights to do so, are reprehensible. as such i can not simply go out and take some pictures and stop worrying.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't see what the big deal is really. We live in a world where international communication, shipping, and banking makes it easy for us to shop anywhere for the best price. Doing so, we can calculate the risk that we might need international service for our international purchase, and how much inconvenience we are willing to tolerate for the savings resulting from the international purchase. We use the same means of communication, shipping, and banking to facilitate the international service that we used to facilitate the international purchase.

If the factory is willing to service a product that in general doesn't require a great deal of service, what's the big deal about sending it back to the factory? A difference of $30 in shipping cost? A few extra days travel? If that inconvenience is intolerable, then that's a reason to own a backup, and perhaps also to choose the convenience of the local distributor over the savings of the international purchase.

[Capocheny]

Well said, David... I couldn't agree with you more!

Cheers

[Mike Cockerham]

Companies refusing to repair grey market items are very common, Nikon, Canon, Bogen, Metz, Chrysler, most of the time the refusal is based on warranty issues, gray market items carry international warranty verses US warranty. These items were not intended for the US market so the company has no responsiblity to repair a product that was not brought in thru their system. they are tring to help your local dealers stay in business.

Mike

[tim atherton]

"Companies refusing to repair grey market items are very common, Nikon, Canon, Bogen, Metz, Chrysler, most of the time the refusal is based on warranty issues, gray market items carry international warranty verses US warranty. These items were not intended for the US market so the company has no responsiblity to repair a product that was not brought in thru their system. they are tring to help your local dealers stay in business."

However, the main issue here has moved on from warranty repairs. I can't recall ever having come across a company - photographic, musical instrument, electronics, fountain pens, watches, kitchen equipment, surveying equipment or whatever that has ever refused to repair one of their products at their authorised repair facility for hard cash - whatever its source of origin.

When I moved to N America 16 years ago I brought many such items with me - over the years since, many have been sent for servicing out of warranty at their various authorized repair facilities. I've never once been asked where the item was purchased or to prove I imported them "legally" - they have just done the repairs and I have paid the bill. It's good customer service.

I also had a Lecia M6 that was only a year old, obtained from Leica UK and which was dropped on one corner shortly after I arrived with the rewind getting damaged. Leica Canada (whoever it was at the time) repaired it without question under warranty - noting the warranty was from the UK, "but of course they would honour it". Again - good customer service

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

these are decisions i make for reasons i feel strongly about. if i feel that the policies HP marketing enforce, though it is completely within their rights to do so, are reprehensible. as such i can not simply go out and take some pictures and stop worrying.

Scott,

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly in the other thread. I am not suggesting you support a company whose practices offend you. I'm just confused about how continuing to own a camera that was not purchased through HP Marketing's channels is considered supporting HP Marketing.

But then, it's not for me to decide. If it makes you feel bad to use the camera, by all means sell it and move on. Life's too short. Large format photography is supposed to be fun (or at the very least fulfilling and uplifting).

Kerry

[Scott Rosenberg]

micheal, go back and read what i posted again. carefully. i never implied that hp was obligated to repair the camera. i am not angry with hp nor linhof. they have rules in place for their own reasons and as a result of a decision i made i am now subject to their policies. i take no issue with that. as you said, i had a choice as to where to buy my camera from. that decision was all mine and i hold myself alone responsible for the consequences. i have no problems with that whatsoever. i simply don't care for their practices and choose not to be an advocate of their products. end of story.

i think it's a little presumptuous of you to say who my personal boycott will and will not help... it will help me sleep, that's for sure.

[Scott Rosenberg]

no worries, kerry. there's a lot of words being thrown around here today. the way i see it is when i'm out shooting, i am, in a small way, representing the companies that i use. people very regularly come up and ask me about the camera, lenses, film, etc. as such, when i tell folks that i'm shooting with a linhof, i am supporting hp marketing, as the person might go home and buy something through HPM. it may be a 1:1,000,000,000,000 thing, but i never support companies whose policies i disagree with - photography or otherwise. never. there are other cameras/lenses/filters i can enjoy just as much.

bob, please take no umbrage by any of this. i respect the job you do and the contributions you make to this forum. i am simply choosing to shop elsewhere. i understand your organization has rules and am that when i use certain products that i subject to them. i am not urging others to do the same. i am not trying to hurt hp. i am simply choosing to not to use those products.