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>