Ventizz to acquire Hasselblad

[jimk]

I looked at this news a different way. That any group of VC's would consider buying a company whose main product line deals with medium format photography must mean someone thinks this market is not dying out. 

or maybe its a trophy purchase like the banker who always wanted to say "he owns " hasselblad
only time will tell if its good or bad

[DennisWilliams]

Maybe they scrap the existing product  line altogether and mine the patents and technology they now own to generate products marketable to the other 99% of the planet.

How many companies have been bought by ATT or Apple or Microsoft over the years for the exact same reason.

I find it an interesting coincidence that the H rebate deal at Calumet ended today. No sales tax, 500 Apple gift card. I wonder who the major stock holders of Ventizz happen to be.

[Rob C]

It doesn't always work out for the best when bean-counters start running the show. Let's wait and see.

That's probably the best comment of them all.

Larger market share doesn't always do great things to a brand; Mercedes created that horrid A-Class Elk and by coincidence (?), the quality of the top of the Mercedes range fell away until it became a real issue with buyers. The A-Class became the bulk purchase/fleet of the carhire department of easyjet until that was abandoned as uncompetitive; hardly an aspirational purchase anymore.

It sometimes makes sense to stay at the top and stay happy with a smaller, but better client list. It worked for me for many years; as Mrs T famously remarked, it's just like running a family business. Which, in this case, it used to be.

Greed; does nobody learn?

Rob C

[design_freak]

That's probably the best comment of them all.

Larger market share doesn't always do great things to a brand; Mercedes created that horrid A-Class Elk and by coincidence (?), the quality of the top of the Mercedes range fell away until it became a real issue with buyers. The A-Class became the bulk purchase/fleet of the carhire department of easyjet until that was abandoned as uncompetitive; hardly an aspirational purchase anymore.

It sometimes makes sense to stay at the top and stay happy with a smaller, but better client list. It worked for me for many years; as Mrs T famously remarked, it's just like running a family business. Which, in this case, it used to be.

Greed; does nobody learn?

Rob C

For me this is not the slightest importance. They may even sell the photographic frame. I like it your way of thinking. BUT ...  For example, Porsche Cayenne, for the true fan of the brand is not the product of which he is proud. But for Porsche was a product that allowed the brand to survive, even is a key product. Thanks to the true fans can enjoy brand cars such as the 911 turbo or GT. If in this case, so be it, I have nothing against a product for the masses. I keep my fingers crossed.

As for greed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muz1OcEzJOs
 

[design_freak]

If anyone here thinks that any manufacturer will have future proof financial security by selling MFD cameras to the niche MFD market then they are deluded.

I'm as sure as can be - and hope - that Hasselblad have no such delusions.

Exciting times.

Can you elaborate?

[David Watson]

These guys are bright and effective deal makers.  They will look at Hasselblad's cost base and plan to make the company "more efficient" by reducing these costs.  This is the conventional venture capital strategy for "improving" the performance of a business so that they can sell it on.  This is essentially a medium term (3-5 years) strategy and ignores the long-term view that many more financially secure companies can take.  They may also think that they can do a "Leica" and make the product a "must have" gadget.  Well - we will see.

One thing is sure IMO and that is that there will be investment but there will also be re-structuring and rationalisation of the cost base.  There will also be a focus on financial performance above all else but this may not be very short term as they will be looking at the medium term capital value of the business and the brand.  That is, after all, how they make money.  Buy cheap, cut costs and sell dear.

Be prepared - heads will roll!

[michael]

Now that Hasselblad has been sold it can be told that there were several companies that were in negotiations to purchase it from Shiro over the past 18 months. One of them, which I am quite familiar with, was prepared to make a serious investment in enabling the company to develop new products and technologies, not just in making a good quick return for investors.

I'm not saying that this is Ventizz's strategy. I know nothing about them. But at least that entity that was pursuing Hasselblad had photography in their blood, not just an investment strategy.

Michael

[David Watson]

Now that Hasselblad has been sold it can be told that there were several companies that were in negotiations to purchase it from Shiro over the past 18 months. One of them, which I am quite familiar with, was prepared to make a serious investment in enabling the company to develop new products and technologies, not just in making a good quick return for investors.

I'm not saying that this is Ventizz's strategy. I know nothing about them. But at least that entity that was pursuing Hasselblad had photography in their blood, not just an investment strategy.

Michael

I wonder if that company was a certain MFD back manufacturer which advertises on this site?  If indeed they were interested I am curious as to why they did not go ahead.  From their perspective it would have made a lot of sense - access to distribution, economies of scale, product rationalisation, administrative cost savings and so on all add up to a very good reason to buy.  Perhaps their pockets were not deep enough?

[David Grover / Capture One]

.

I'm not saying that this is Ventizz's strategy. I know nothing about them....

Thankyou for clarifying those important points.

In answer to you (and David) - I guess they couldn't afford it.

David

[eronald]

If we are lucky, Hassy will do a Pentax and go mainstream, like the old Hasselblads. Who knows, given the image quality, making cameras that people can afford might actually be profitable.

This would be pretty easy to do, just get rid of the specialist dealer margins, sell direct and via box-shifters like B&H, and have three techies do consults via Skype

Our beloved "pros" on this forum would of course be free to continue to purchase from C1 and benefit from the local assistance of knowledgable dealers.

Edmund

[michael]

I wonder if that company was a certain MFD back manufacturer which advertises on this site?  If indeed they were interested I am curious as to why they did not go ahead.  From their perspective it would have made a lot of sense - access to distribution, economies of scale, product rationalisation, administrative cost savings and so on all add up to a very good reason to buy.  Perhaps their pockets were not deep enough?

No. It definitively was not Phase One that I am referring to.

Michael

[eronald]

In the mean time, the only thing which really interests me is when the Nikon D4 is coming out. Available light calls!

Edmund

[design_freak]

Unfortunately, wherever there is big money, there is only profit counts. I know the truth is scary, but such are the laws of the market.

[design_freak]

Finally it got to be interesting in this market. I wonder how long it will take to implement the new strategy into practice. Will it be a few months or two years. Well I'm waiting impatiently for new products :-)

[feppe]

Unfortunately, wherever there is big money, there is only profit counts. I know the truth is scary, but such are the laws of the market.

That's not at all the case. Many companies value market share, some revenue, but mostly it's about stock price growth. None of those are necessarily related to profit, if at all.

And there's nothing scary about that. Let's not forget that Hasselblad and every other camera manufacturer is a business first to maximize shareholder returns, and everything else comes secondary. If the company's financials aren't in order, you won't be seeing any more of those cameras - unless one of you made millions from sunglasses and is willing to foot the bills

[jduncan]

That is interesting, even more in the light of this:

http://www.hoya.co.jp/english/news/latest/d0h4dj0000001fv8-att/d0h4dj0000001fwi.pdf


Best regards,

James

[jduncan]

Now that Hasselblad has been sold it can be told that there were several companies that were in negotiations to purchase it from Shiro over the past 18 months. One of them, which I am quite familiar with, was prepared to make a serious investment in enabling the company to develop new products and technologies, not just in making a good quick return for investors.

I'm not saying that this is Ventizz's strategy. I know nothing about them. But at least that entity that was pursuing Hasselblad had photography in their blood, not just an investment strategy.

Michael

This comment is painful. It reflects what I consider my main concerns (beside people, since we are in a recession I will not like people been fired).
Let see what will happen.

Best regards,

James

[bcooter]

snip......
unless one of you made millions from sunglasses and is willing to foot the bills

I don't know if RED is profitable or not, but it doesn't take a degree in economics from Yale to calculate that RED probably has sold close to a billion dollars worth of product in their short life.

I have clients that don't know what a Phase, or Pentax or Leaf is, (they probably know the name Hasselblad) but to a person they all have heard of the RED.  RED has a lot of buzz.

Whether any of us want to admit it or not, that makes a difference.

RED, like the medium format companies faces pressure from the bottom from prosumer devices and unlike the medium format companies also takes heat from  the top from established players like Sony and Arri and still  essentially found their place.

If product was more easily available I would assume they would sell another billion quite quickly, regardless RED  had the right products for the right time;   A cinema camera that shoots a raw file that is affordable.

I'll admit they are quick to announce, but slow to deliver, though they do eventually deliver and compared to professional cinema cameras RED's are a bargain.

I'm all for professional cameras but I kind of wonder where medium format still cameras are going?

It took them a decade for one manufacturer to finally produce a good camera lcd, but how long will it be before the three MF makers Hasselblad, Phase/Leaf, Pentax go to cmos sensors with high iso and on camera live view, or  evil viewfinders?

I haven't bought an expensive professional still camera in nearly 4 years, though I've bought a lot of expensive professional equipment in that time.

The reason is simple, I haven't needed to.   That's usually how professionals buy, what they have to buy to stay competitive.  The movement to motion imagery dictated continuous lighting, better motion cameras, more lenses, etc. etc, but with stills I haven't had that compelling reason to write a large check for just more file size.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to look around and see that professional image distribution and display is changing by the month, not the year or the decade and because of this we need cameras that don't keep up, but actually get ahead of the market.

You can't really have a camera conversation without talking about the 5d2.   That camera kind of changed everything and forced a lot of camera makers to up their game.

Look at Sony with there $5,000 FS100.  For video that camera does about 40% more for twice the price of a 5d2, but for most professionals, 40% more usability is worth twice the price.

Medium format is kind of the opposite.  They may have 30 to 40% more image quality but 30% less usability for 3,4 and 5 times the price so when it comes time to buy you have that weird pause.

Buying the RED I didn't pause a second, buying the Sony I only paused for an hour to research it.

I don't know how or where medium format gets their information.  I'm sure from a lot of sources, piad and unpaid though if I owned a professional camera company, I'd obviously talk to the users, but I'd also talk to the use's clients and ask them what they wanted to see in a camera.

I'm hopping that the new owners of Hasselblad and Pentax walk into the R+D room with a 5d2 and say "make our camera do everything this camera does, but make it do it better". 



IMO

BC

[design_freak]

I don't know if RED is profitable or not, but it doesn't take a degree in economics from Yale to calculate that RED probably has sold close to a billion dollars worth of product in their short life.

I have clients that don't know what a Phase, or Pentax or Leaf is, (they probably know the name Hasselblad) but to a person they all have heard of the RED.  RED has a lot of buzz.

Whether any of us want to admit it or not, that makes a difference.

RED, like the medium format companies faces pressure from the bottom from prosumer devices and unlike the medium format companies also takes heat from  the top from established players like Sony and Arri and still  essentially found their place.

If product was more easily available I would assume they would sell another billion quite quickly, regardless RED  had the right products for the right time;   A cinema camera that shoots a raw file that is affordable.

I'll admit they are quick to announce, but slow to deliver, though they do eventually deliver and compared to professional cinema cameras RED's are a bargain.

I'm all for professional cameras but I kind of wonder where medium format still cameras are going?

It took them a decade for one manufacturer to finally produce a good camera lcd, but how long will it be before the three MF makers Hasselblad, Phase/Leaf, Pentax go to cmos sensors with high iso and on camera live view, or  evil viewfinders?

I haven't bought an expensive professional still camera in nearly 4 years, though I've bought a lot of expensive professional equipment in that time.

The reason is simple, I haven't needed to.   That's usually how professionals buy, what they have to buy to stay competitive.  The movement to motion imagery dictated continuous lighting, better motion cameras, more lenses, etc. etc, but with stills I haven't had that compelling reason to write a large check for just more file size.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to look around and see that professional image distribution and display is changing by the month, not the year or the decade and because of this we need cameras that don't keep up, but actually get ahead of the market.

You can't really have a camera conversation without talking about the 5d2.   That camera kind of changed everything and forced a lot of camera makers to up their game.

Look at Sony with there $5,000 FS100.  For video that camera does about 40% more for twice the price of a 5d2, but for most professionals, 40% more usability is worth twice the price.

Medium format is kind of the opposite.  They may have 30 to 40% more image quality but 30% less usability for 3,4 and 5 times the price so when it comes time to buy you have that weird pause.

Buying the RED I didn't pause a second, buying the Sony I only paused for an hour to research it.

I don't know how or where medium format gets their information.  I'm sure from a lot of sources, piad and unpaid though if I owned a professional camera company, I'd obviously talk to the users, but I'd also talk to the use's clients and ask them what they wanted to see in a camera.

I'm hopping that the new owners of Hasselblad and Pentax walk into the R+D room with a 5d2 and say "make our camera do everything this camera does, but make it do it better". 



IMO

BC

It's quite interesting 

[Erick Boileau]

any news or announcement ?