First, these are not only my observations from my small local market, the same thing is being said by people like Thom Hogan for the US market..
Secondly, allowing a lesser advertised price does not mean the margin loss is absorbed wholly by the distributor. This is solely controlled by the distributor price to the retailer. (BTW, AFAIK but I maybe wrong, control of the advertised price by the distributor / importer / manufacturer is something not practiced in the EU)
Thirdly, distributor companies are not the manufacturers. Even when they are subsidiaries or JVs they buy their stuff at the 'warehouse' prices from the factory adding their own flexible margin. If you take a look at the D3x vs 1DsMkIII pricing in markets other than the US you might be surprised with what you'll find.
Well, I don't know a thing about the intricacies of Canon's/Nikon's distribution rules and practices, as I am a greenhorn camera owner, but I am not sure anyone else here does either.
But what I
do know is that (for instance in the automobile industry) there is the concept of
perceived value that is crucial to a company's image and sales. The company spends x to make the product, and sells the product to the dealer for y,
under the stipulation that said product be advertised at z price. Auto dealers can't just come out with TV commercials advertising Car A at whatever price they want to,
they are forced by dealer contract to maintain the perceived value of the vehicle in their advertising.
If a particular car isn't selling well, you may see commercials with "Factory Rebates" of $x,000, but said rebates are all orchestrated by the automotive manufacturer, NOT the dealer. Dealers can't just make up whatever rebates they want, ALL rebates are manufacturer-set and manufacturer-controlled. So it is with rebates at B&H or at Adorama, when they show rebates on cameras, these online sellers can't just make them up, it is
Canon and
Nikon who are orchestrating said rebates.
Now, with new automobiles, there is the "advertised" price that the dealers are forced to comply with on TV and billboard advertisements, but we all know that once you get to the lot there is plenty of room for haggling. What the "advertised" price is, and what you wind up paying for a car, aren't going to be the same thing. You usually have between $500 and $4000 negotiating room on a vehicle, depending on make/model/etc. But NO dealer is authorized to just "advertise cheaper prices" than everyone else. And the reason is such advertising would lower the
perceived value of the vehicle in the public eye, which is taboo. And it would ultimately generate mutually-destructive price wars amongst dealers of the same make, which would cripple sales not help them.
However, what can happen in the industry is you can get upstart companies (like Hyundai) who enter the fray with very inexpensive automobiles and THEY now lower their own price point, which makes it uncomfortable for everyone else. At first such cars basically suck (as Hyundai pretty much did at first), but after awhile (if they endure) such upstart companies eventually make everyone else drop their prices too.
Such is the case with Sony vs. Canon and Nikon. I would imagine that Canon and Nikon had some sort of "mutual agreement" to keep their price points high ... so each could enjoy the spoils ... but Sony slapped them all in the face with the A900. Sony cameras were like Hyundays to Nissan and Toyota ... they were no real qualitative threat at first. Sony cameras didn't mean much for awhile, and the fact was if you wanted top professional gear you had to go to Canon or Nikon. And if you wanted 15-24 mpx in a pro camera, you had to pay $$$$$$ for them.
But Sony basically "declared war" on Canon and Nikon by offering these kinds of capabilities in the A900 for only $3000. What Sony has done is universally lowered the
perceived value of a 24 mpx camera ... in the same fashion that Nikon and Canon's solo efforts into 20+ mpx territory lowered the
perceived value of the medium format camera. And what is really interesting is that Sony is making parts for one of the very companies they're hamstringing, Nikon
Whether there is some agreement that Sony won't make sensors "as good" for themselves as they will Nikon, I don't know. But for Nikon to be entrusting its very lifeblood technology to what is now its own fierce competitor isn't too bright IMO. I guess it's already being done with Leica/Panasonic and with Ford/Mazda, where a major company makes parts (if not whole products) for a minor company, so maybe it's no big deal.
But I for one wouldn't want to be in Nikon's position of entrusting myself as a leader to a giant of a corporation that is seeking to dominate that very market I used to dominate ... but maybe I am just rambling on too much
Jack