Mark ups on cameras? (Page 2): "CEOs made a median $20 million last year." There has to be a lot of markup to keep the CEOs happy.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

goldenyears wrote:

This is just a curiosity question. From watching Shark Tank I've seen that there is usually a very big difference between a manufacturer's cost and a retailer's selling price. At least that has to be the case in order to get offers from the sharks. Does anyone know what the total markup is for DSLR and Mirrorless cameras?

"CEOs made a median $20 million last year." There has to be a lot of markup to keep the CEOs happy.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

Interesting comments. Thanks.

BebuLamar

jerryc41 wrote:

"CEOs made a median $20 million last year." There has to be a lot of markup to keep the CEOs happy.

Yeah but not the CEO of Canon, Sony or Nikon. They do make millions but not 20.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

BebuLamar wrote:

Yeah but not the CEO of Canon, Sony or Nikon. They do make millions but not 20.

Canon CEO makes about $235k a year.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

goldenyears wrote:

This is just a curiosity question. From watching Shark Tank I've seen that there is usually a very big difference between a manufacturer's cost and a retailer's selling price. At least that has to be the case in order to get offers from the sharks. Does anyone know what the total markup is for DSLR and Mirrorless cameras?

What’s the difference? Anything anyone buys has a markup! Even at steep discounts, most items are still higher priced than MSRP.

BebuLamar

Architect1776 wrote:

Canon CEO makes about $235k a year.

It is Tim Cook that makes $99 millions running a company that actually manufacture nothing that they sell.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Festus wrote:

What’s the difference? Anything anyone buys has a markup! Even at steep discounts, most items are still higher priced than MSRP.

Capitalism.
Basic economics.
Determines the price.
Refuse to spend the high price of a Z9 and it will come down.
If anyone thinks that even development and production in China is anywhere close to retail is delusional.
Remember that even the sensor is an off the shelf Sony product.

BebuLamar

Festus wrote:

What’s the difference? Anything anyone buys has a markup! Even at steep discounts, most items are still higher priced than MSRP.

Few items would be sold for more than the MSRP. The MSRP has all the marked up figured in it already.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

goldenyears wrote:

This is just a curiosity question. From watching Shark Tank I've seen that there is usually a very big difference between a manufacturer's cost and a retailer's selling price. At least that has to be the case in order to get offers from the sharks. Does anyone know what the total markup is for DSLR and Mirrorless cameras?

Putting a price tag on "research and development" is very difficult to do. Bean counters can justify all kinds of expenses. TV programs are designed to cause false hope by manipulating what the viewer sees and hears. Do you really think the manufacturer's viewpoint is ever honestly presented?

St.Mary's

Anecdotal: Once bought a small audio stereo amplifier from Radio Shack. It retailed for $59.95. Brought it home and in the box was the store receipt from Tandy, the corporate owner or franchiser of Radio Shack stores. It showed the cost of the amplifier to the store was $22.00. Considering the manufacturer of the amplifier had to make a profit, ship it from the Far East to the U.S., and Tandy had to make a profit, it appeared the store was the winner price wise. But then you have to realize the retail store would not have sold many of these products, and had a cost to keep in on the shelf, it is hard to figure ultimate profit for the store.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

We must also consider that the camera companies keep on investing in improving and up grading the equipment. This may be to beat coipition or any there reason but, the equipment is complicated and the market is limited.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

BebuLamar wrote:

Yeah but not the CEO of Canon, Sony or Nikon. They do make millions but not 20.

Here are the Nikon guys - no salaries mentioned, though. They look pretty rich.

https://www.zippia.com/nikon-careers-32940/executives/

camshot Loc: Peterborough ontario Canada

Camera companies dictate the retail price for their product, so all sell for the list price. Markup is lean, so you would think the store is taking a beating when they have to clear older cameras. This fortunately for them is not so, as the reps, see your older stock is sitting, reimburse the store with a credit for what sits, so they can clear the older items.
The markup from the camera companies is high enough for them to easily do this.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

They are protecting them selves as well as protecting the stores. They need good stores with good people to sell the cameras. If we had a, free for all, we would wipe out your reputable stores the pay and higher good knowledgeable people .

pendennis

davidrb wrote:

Putting a price tag on "research and development" is very difficult to do. Bean counters can justify all kinds of expenses. TV programs are designed to cause false hope by manipulating what the viewer sees and hears. Do you really think the manufacturer's viewpoint is ever honestly presented?

After working in the auto industry for nearly 40 years, I can tell you that the toughest costs to amortize are those which aren't volumetric. For instance, safety tests in the lab have all kinds of ancillary costs. How many sheet metal setups do they need? How many hours setting up the tests? Now, if the crash tests, e.g., have multiple car lines, the test costs get amortized over a lot of volume. In years past, sheet metal was generally left for three years, so tooling, crash tests, road tests, etc., could be amortized over a fairly short model year life. But costs were amortized over forecasted volumes.

Even the "bean counters" don't get that bogged down in minutiae. At some point, lump the costs together, multiply by the forecasted volume, and that becomes the per-vehicle cost of R&D. We had, as a guideline, just what the IRS found acceptable. And don't forget that the Feds get into the act with FMVSS.