• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Why so many models? (1 Viewer)

St. Elmo

Well-known member
Nikon offers numerous models. The top Teutons offer relatively few. The same is true for fishing tackle. Go to Shimano and Daiwa websites and count the number of models of reels. Then do the same for U.S. made reels on the Avet and Accurate websites. Why so many models? Doesn't it cost more to conceive, design, manufacture, warrant, repair, replace, and market so many models?
 
Competition. Free market capitalism, like natural selection, is an extravagantly wasteful, horribly expensive and inefficient affair driven by its own internal dynamics and with no particular ends in view.
 
Last edited:
Most of Nikon's binoculars are relatively low cost models and I suppose it is because there is a large demand out there from a great portion of the public for lower cost optics. This itself is not new with Nikon. After the war Bushnell was the first binocular company to recognize that there was a large market for low cost optics and it made them available to this demographic. Then too there are many outlets frequented by this demographic where they can be sold at a profit and where the marketing costs are borne by retailers like Dick's Sporting Goods and the like in mass marketing newspaper supplements.

I think that the design costs of most of these models were reached long ago. What is left to cover is their manufacturing costs and warranties. My guess, based on my limited experience with friends who owned low cost binoculars that were damaged, is that most of the binoculars returned for these reasons are replaced with new ones, or equivalent models if the originals are no longer made, rather than being repaired. That way Nikon can keep it's repair staff of technicians small.

Bob
 
Last edited:
I somewhat disagree with fugl, in that I think Nikon has a very clear goal in its business model, and their cheaper bins are not "extravagantly wasteful" to those who can't afford "the best" or don't think "the best" are worth spending so much money on.

But I do agree somewhat in that having THREE Monarchs is redundant, and I think we will see at least one of them fall by the wayside.

Two things seem to be driving the optics market - different business models - Walmart vs. boutique shop.- and the global marketplace.

Nikon wants to be all things to all people, from cheapie Trailblazer roofs, to the inexpensive Aculon and Action EX porros, to the most popular roofs in the U.S., the Monarchs, to competition for the ChinBin EDs - the Monarch 7, to the mid-tier Premier (HGL), to the high end and high priced EDG, and two lines of compacts.

Leica and Swaro are only interested in high-end clientele, though they both now offer mid-tier bins, so even the Tuetonics are coming around to the reality of the global marketplace. They're not interested in competing at the bottom but they did see the mid-tier market growing and came out with offerings to compete in that segment in addition to the high end. This bit of diversity gives them more market reach without the risk of "tarnishing" the exclusivity of their high-brow brands.

OTOH, Zeiss is trying to move beyond the alpha two-tier strategy into Nikon's territory with the Terra ED. Depending on how sales go, we might see other models at this price point, perhaps a line of Terra ED compacts. Or maybe other models with larger objectives like the original Conquests.

Can you compete successfully in your segment(s)? That's ultimately what counts whatever business model you choose.

Some want high end products, some want low end products, and others want something in-between. Give the People What They Want.

<B>
 
Last edited:
Awesome market consciousness, and trying hard. Whether you live in a tiny housetrailer or are the King of England, are a subsistence hunter or a jetset bird lover, Nikon makes exactly the right binocular for you. Nobody beats Nikon at this game.

Ron
 
Awesome market consciousness, and trying hard. Whether you live in a tiny housetrailer or are the King of England, are a subsistence hunter or a jetset bird lover, Nikon makes exactly the right binocular for you. Nobody beats Nikon at this game.

Ron

That was funny! You're quite the comedian.
 
Swift has like 3 or 4 different lines of bins which IMO is a little wasteful. Ultra, Horizon, Reliant, Audobon, Eaglet... Out of their lower end/bargain bins they could have made just one line. But, on the other hand it's nice to have Swift, Nikon and others make affordable binoculars while providing some variety to choose from for people who don't want to (or cannot) spend loads of money.
 
Nikon offers numerous models. The top Teutons offer relatively few. The same is true for fishing tackle. Go to Shimano and Daiwa websites and count the number of models of reels. Then do the same for U.S. made reels on the Avet and Accurate websites. Why so many models? Doesn't it cost more to conceive, design, manufacture, warrant, repair, replace, and market so many models?

Nikon sells far more binoculars to a much wider range of customers than the high priced european brands. I think that is fairly obvious. You ask why Nikon sells such a broad range that spans plastic prepack bins for K Mart to high end bins that compete with the pricey euro names. Nikon has seen a business opportunity that many other brands choose not to exploit. Nikon has spent decades establishing a reputation for making quality optical instruments and that success has allowed the company to broaden it's lines considerably. So far they appear to be successful. In more than a few ways they are similar to Seiko and a lesser extent Citizen. Are you thinking Nikon should pull back to a few lines? If so why?
 
Last edited:
Consumer capitalism. Why so many models of cars, or computer games? Then again, the Trabant was a donkey with headlights, and Space Invaders was crap (although I mis-spent quite a lot of my youth playing it).
 
Roadbike.... without more, it appears to me if Nikon would reduce the number of models (not the range of models), it might just be able to offer more at each price point (from hard-to-open bubble-pak entombed models to really nice EDG presentation box models). While I profess no knowledge of the manufacturing and market forces that drive the decisions to inundate the shelves with closely-featured and -priced models, it just seems logical that if Nikon put its resources into fewer models they all would be better. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Thanks guys...(and gal) Mike
 
Last edited:
We tend to forget that Nikon is one of the oldest Optics Manufacturing companies in the world. It came about from a merger of 3 companies in 1917 so you could say it's roots are older than that. More than a century in the business.

So far what they have been doing has worked very well.

Bob
 
So far what they have been doing has worked very well.

But I wonder for how much longer? The company's certainly suffered serious setbacks in its core photographic business in recent decades and the competition in "sports optics" gets fiercer every day.
 
Last edited:
I am with you fugl. The sporting optics technology has reached its physical limit. All which is left is looking backward and trying to have a product at every price, color and size combination below the optimum. What is needed in this market is a "disruptive technology". I firmly believe that this disruptive technology is NOT going to be digital. It will be another breakthrough in optical design.

Examples from other fields:
1: Dyson vacuum cleaner was a major breakthrough in cleaning technology.
2: Compound bow was a major breakthrough in archery.

A digital video sensor with a good view finder is not going to kill optical binoculars. The situation is not like TV or Photography. It's a "sporting equipment". The semi-automatic rifles did not replace bolt-action rifles in hunting, same thing will happen here. Digital binoculars will be made but will not become dominant.

So, if Nikon want to keep its "image" as an optical pioneer, it should "innovate".
 
Swift has like 3 or 4 different lines of bins which IMO is a little wasteful. Ultra, Horizon, Reliant, Audobon, Eaglet... Out of their lower end/bargain bins they could have made just one line. But, on the other hand it's nice to have Swift, Nikon and others make affordable binoculars while providing some variety to choose from for people who don't want to (or cannot) spend loads of money.

What's even more amazing is that Swift still makes three models in their Aerolite porro line, which has been around since Abe was president. And they still use BK-7 prisms and the lenses are only coated, not even MC. That's pretty bizarre. Less than $100, but still, would it kill them to use BAK-4 glass for the prisms and upgrade to FMCs?

The 7x35 model has a 9.5* FOV. If they had better glass and coatings, I'd probably give them a whirl.

http://www.optics4birding.com/swift-aerolite-binoculars.html

<B>
 
I am with you fugl. The sporting optics technology has reached its physical limit. All which is left is looking backward and trying to have a product at every price, color and size combination below the optimum. What is needed in this market is a "disruptive technology". I firmly believe that this disruptive technology is NOT going to be digital. It will be another breakthrough in optical design.

Examples from other fields:
1: Dyson vacuum cleaner was a major breakthrough in cleaning technology.
2: Compound bow was a major breakthrough in archery.

A digital video sensor with a good view finder is not going to kill optical binoculars. The situation is not like TV or Photography. It's a "sporting equipment". The semi-automatic rifles did not replace bolt-action rifles in hunting, same thing will happen here. Digital binoculars will be made but will not become dominant.

So, if Nikon want to keep its "image" as an optical pioneer, it should "innovate".

Omid,

Are you arguing here for a "disruptive innovation" approach rather than concentrating on developing "disruptive technology?" Or is the technology development the first consideration? Perhaps the Perger Prism has the capability of merging the two approaches in the Sports Optics field. There may be patent issues to address before much can be done there though.

It seems to be asking a lot for large diversified corporations to accomplish both of these tasks while at the same time delivering profits to the share holders.

Wikepedia has a good discussion about the differences between the the two and when the new technologies began to create the new innovations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation

Bob
 
Last edited:
natural selection, is extravagantly wasteful

Fugl

Can't believe you really mean this.

Natural selection has been summed up as the 'survival of the fittest'. This actually means that the fittest individuals,on average, survive longer and have more off-spring than those that are less-fit.

You are surely not suggesting that the survival of the less-fit would lead to a more efficient system?

Lee
 
natural selection, is extravagantly wasteful

Fugl

Can't believe you really mean this.

Natural selection has been summed up as the 'survival of the fittest'. This actually means that the fittest individuals,on average, survive longer and have more off-spring than those that are less-fit.

You are surely not suggesting that the survival of the less-fit would lead to a more efficient system?

No, of course not. My reference was to process--which is an exceedingly wasteful one--not to end results (which, BTW, are often determined as much by chance as by "fitness" in some absolute sense).
 
Roadbike.... without more, it appears to me if Nikon would reduce the number of models (not the range of models), it might just be able to offer more at each price point (from hard-to-open bubble-pak entombed models to really nice EDG presentation box models). While I profess no knowledge of the manufacturing and market forces that drive the decisions to inundate the shelves with closely-featured and -priced models, it just seems logical that if Nikon put its resources into fewer models they all would be better. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Thanks guys...(and gal) Mike

Well certainly Nikon could pull back and shrink their models. But you still haven't addressed the question of why they would do so. Nikon has over many decades developed the manufacturing processes to produce a wide range of products at reasonable products. To pull back would purposelessly cede a massive amount of the market to others.
 
Well certainly Nikon could pull back and shrink their models. But you still haven't addressed the question of why they would do so. Nikon has over many decades developed the manufacturing processes to produce a wide range of products at reasonable products. To pull back would purposelessly cede a massive amount of the market to others.

You could be right. Or not.

I wonder how much the hordes of different Nikon models actually compete with each other. I would be surprised if they don't cannibalise market from each other which would mean fewer models (big decrease in admin, inventory and shipping costs) could be more effective, more profitable and less wasteful of resources.

But Nikon's agenda may be different from this. As a matter of corporate pride they may wish to be represented in every possible market niche even at the risk of duplication.

Lee
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top