Technological Sales Behavior

Lowkus

Lowkus

Active member
After Red ships, the asian oligopoly will begin dropping their prices and producing higher performance camcorders in order to compete. They'll catch up in a year or two, and then Red will in turn have to lower their prices. How do you see the RedOne price changing over the next 5 years?

My guess is that it will be somewhere around $10k US.
 
Lowkus said:
After Red ships, the asian oligopoly will begin dropping their prices and producing higher performance camcorders in order to compete. They'll catch up in a year or two, and then Red will in turn have to lower their prices. How do you see the RedOne price changing over the next 5 years?

My guess is that it will be somewhere around $10k US.
Click to expand...

Red is already way too complicated for any run and gunner. I don't think it will ever compete with anything in the sub 10K market, an area generally more interested in getting something in the can than cinematography.
 
Who says red will down their prices rather than just up their technology to remain ahead of the game?

I think the Red Camera 2 years from now will be miles ahead of the competition who just be catching their breath trying to keep up.

The other thing, albeit a besides the point, RED is much more than "technology". Its also design. The body, the materials used to manufacture the body, the rails, the clip on system. The value of the intellectual design will always hold its value weather its 10 or 50 years down the line. Till this day, it costs the same to buy a good quality tripod as it did 70 or 80 years ago.

Edit: I actually bought a Large format film camera with a nice Schneider Lens manufactured in 1958 a year ago to shoot my buildings. It effectively takes 200 megapixel images on 8x10 sheet film. It cost me $6000. The whole package was $200 brand new back then! The reason it held its value today is because of quality of build. Value of craftsmanship will never change.
 
Last edited:
I am sure the price will come down over time somewhat, as components become cheaper, but I think the clue is in the RED philosophy of revolution. The thing that is significant about RED is not so much that it is pitched at a low price point, but that it has brought a high end philosophy to a different marketplace. It has created opportunities that didn't exist before. Ultimately they can't compete purely on price so they will have to keep innovating... But hey! that's what they do...Right!

Martin
 
Muttondraw said:
The thing that is significant about RED is not so much that it is pitched at a low price point
Click to expand...
Yes it is. The revoloution is what it is because of the low price. 17500 is LOW. Thats why its revoloutionary. Considering the nearest competitor is 100k +. 17500 is well within the reach of any half serious film maker.
 
acehole111 said:
Yes it is. The revoloution is what it is because of the low price. 17500 is LOW. Thats why its revoloutionary. Considering the nearest competitor is 100k +. 17500 is well within the reach of any half serious film maker.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that, but I was trying to make the distinction between just making something cheaper and having the vision to see the potential for changing the business model. If RED are to succeed long term they will need to keep innovating in this way, not just keep their product cheaper than anyone elses.

Martin
 
I understand what you meant now. I do agree. So far, no product has been released but they are already a success because of their 4k technology. If sony came along and released a 4k handheld cam for 13k next month, red would be in some serious trouble. And in that case, yes, innovation would keep them afloat. But to be perfectly honest, the camera has broken so many grounds besides 4k that I think this thing will set the standard for quite a while now..
 
One important fact about the price of Red One is it's being offered factory direct, cutting out the middle man/retail additional cost/price factor.

With that in mind, I think it's going to be very difficult for future Red competition to compete price wise.

Now if in the future, Red were to be sold through retailers, my guess is ...... that would be reflected with a much higher price point than the current 17.5K.

In fact, I don't see Red lowering there prices. I'm betting on it with my reservation. I think prices are going up and will continue to do so as the camera evolves in future generations.

Sam
Red #81 Zoom #23
 
Last edited:
just look at the oakley glasses - are they cheap ? as every company red has to follow their interests to make money - with a well done product. If Red one is a success - there will follow the next generation in a few years and they will complete their range with cameras and all the stuff you need to make films. Maybe they also will produce a "consumer" Red in any years like Sony HDR A 1...
 
I'm relatively certain I won't be happy with RED's quality for more than 3 years or so. Even if the Red camera delivers on all of its hoopla, there'll be a bigger fish in a couple of years. Maybe that'll be the RED Two, who knows but if history has been any lesson it's that time makes all things obsolete.

4k might stick around as the resolution of choice, but it's what those pixels are made of that counts. I think the red team just might hang in there even if they were to miraculously fail on the RED One, because they can always just replace the sensor. If the workflow is solid and the ergonomics deliver, it'll be no different than a film camera. Vision 2? Free camera upgrade.
 
The R1 isn't a pair of sunglasses. Sunglasses have a primary function of making the owner look cool, but the R1 is not for looking cool and (most) people aren't buying it as a fashion statement. It's a tool designed to capture images and the appearance of the camera is completely secondary to that task. If a competitor makes an uglier 4k camera for less than the R1, people will buy it instead of the R1 as long as the performance is the same. And no change in business model is going to alter the fundamental buyer behavior of wanting to spend less money if at all possible. As for people spending money on an 8k Red2 camera, it's not likely to happen if there are 4k cameras at a lower price. Exceptions will exist, just as some people buy the latest and greatest computer processors the day they come out, but the bulk want value for their money. Most people just want a camera that gets the job done, and 4k is the resolution that gets the picture quality necessary to rival film... 8k is overkill for most people's needs. So ultimately, with two products of similar performance, pricing changes are the only factor that will entice the masses into buying one 4k camera over another.
 
Sure, pricing can be an issue, but remember, with this camera there are MANY other investments and a huge learning curve. It's not meant for mass public use. Just like a full frame CCD still digital camera... Of course that's in the realm of affordability for professionals and serious enthusiasts, but my mom isn't going to pick one up just because the price comes down.

After investing thousands more in items whose prices are also high and many of which have been high for a long time (lenses, matte boxes, follow focus, filters, batteries, storage, etc) one still needs to learn a great deal to make use of this camera.

This is meant for filmmakers, and perhaps ENG. Of course, I do agree that if Red made more of an all-in-one camera MEANT for the masses, they could likely succeed in the future with such a model at a lower price point.
 
With the exception of certain storage items and some of the cages, your accessories could all be used with a different camera.
 
Lowkus said:
If you can use the equipment over again, where is the expense or added learning?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the "mass market" having a big learning curve for the camera and necessary accessories if they expect to be able to pickup a Red and shoot. It isn't a handycam.
 
My statements about purchasing behaviors was in regards to people who want to achieve a theatre quality recording from their video camera. But the Handycam buyers support my point as well. They just want something cheap and portable with a picture quality that will look ok on a television. They don't need 4k, so they don't buy 4k. Instead, they buy the cheaper option. Likewise, 8k will be unnecessary for most filmmakers and so they will buy the cheapest 4k videocamera that meets their criteria.
 
Lowkus said:
My statements about purchasing behaviors was in regards to people who want to achieve a theatre quality recording from their video camera. But the Handycam buyers support my point as well. They just want something cheap and portable with a picture quality that will look ok on a television. They don't need 4k, so they don't buy 4k. Instead, they buy the cheaper option. Likewise, 8k will be unnecessary for most filmmakers and so they will buy the cheapest 4k videocamera that meets their criteria.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree that 8k in its current intended use is pointless for most film makers, one cannot foresee the different types of narrative or usage that can emerge from a new technology or format.

8k could open up possibilities to multiple lens fitouts, a colleague of mine is working on a footage format that lets the viewer interactively and smoothely manipulate the camera angle as you please (think motion quicktime VR). The point is, new technology brings upon new application.

"No one will ever need more than 640KB of RAM" - Bill Gates
 
red competition

red competition

Lowkus said:
After Red ships, the asian oligopoly will begin dropping their prices and producing higher performance camcorders in order to compete. They'll catch up in a year or two, and then Red will in turn have to lower their prices. How do you see the RedOne price changing over the next 5 years?

My guess is that it will be somewhere around $10k US.
Click to expand...

red will never compete in the consumer market unless red introduces a smaller, low-end cam with built-in lens and simplified workflow. but i do anticipate that the higher end manufacturers will step up and offer similar technology. they probably won't be able to match red's price but they don't have to. many dp's, studios and rental houses have deep pockets and they're making plenty of money. they don't want a change in workflow or brand name. they'd gladly pay $100k for the same technology.
 
If you look at the way video cameras sel you wil notice they never really get that much lower in price. take any model of camera as an example. The initial rpice might be 10K and after a year or two go down to 8K but it doesn't increasingly go down after that it just gets replaced by newer technology that will render it obsolete in the price catagory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top