Value is measured not just by price

John Chan | May 22, 2009

Entry-level dSLRs are all the rage these days. Just this week, Sony announced three new models, closely following Canon and Nikon's recent product announcements that target the same audience. Yesterday, Gartner released a report which told us that smartphone sales are going up even though total global mobile phone shipments have dipped.

Now, dSLRs are more expensive than regular point-and-shoots, while smartphones traditionally cost more than regular handsets. It seems odd that these products are flourishing when we are supposed to be in a recession. But if you think about it carefully, it makes perfect sense.

Though some people have been badly affected by the economic downturn, the majority of us still have our jobs. Pay increments and bonuses may have been frozen, but there's usually still some spare money for extras like tech gadgets--though not as much as before. It makes sense then that people will want to get the most out of limited cash. So, instead of buying a cell phone that will feel boring in six months, a smartphone will provide the ability to install apps and feature firmware updates that will last you much longer. It's similar for dSLRs--great image quality in a camera that will serve you for years.

The initial outlay may be greater, but value can and rightly should be, measured in more than just dollars and cents. Do you agree? Let us know what you think.

Filed under: Digital Cameras, Handhelds, Mobile Phones
2 Comments | Bookmark | Share

Slashdot

Digg

Facebook

Twitter

Delicious

Google

StumbleUpon

close this

Add tag

To add tags, you need to become a member. It's FREE.

Cancel

Log in or sign in

wilswong

View profile

Send mail

wilswong says...
Value's denominator is always money.

Value = perceived benefits divided by amount of money spent.

And value is different from everyone. For seasoned shooters, anything less than a good SLR is not worth the money but for others, it may be a quantum leap in the ability to take better photos.

For example. Why would people buy the Leica Lux 4 and not the Lumix LX-3? It is the perceived quality of the picture through the Leica's firmware and ability to milk more clarity and colour from the same hardware that may convinced people to shell out the extra mollah for the leica and I am one of them.

A lot of people would equate more features to more value but wouldn't it be a waste if the functions are not used and thus a waste of 'value' too?

That's what the majority of consumer DSLR users are in right now. They may have the tool, but not the knowledge and cry foul once they don't get the image that they want because of the lack of skill and certain lens or even the need to get an external flash.

So do we call that value?

May 22, 2009 16:09

Flag as offensive

ubuntu904

View profile

ubuntu904 says...
If value has to do with perceived benefits, then it becomes subjective. When we evaluate a product based on this assumption, then the results of the evaluation is subjective. I think this may be one of the reasons why there are inconsistencies in product reviews in general.
To overcome this issue, we need to establish real tangible benefits, regardless of whether the user chooses to, or is capable of maximizing them.
In theory, more functions = more benefits.
If these functions purchased are not utilized, then it is a waste of money and not value.
Based to the question on the value of dSLR. I would look at it from the common denominator perspective. Over time, more functions and advances in technology has added value to the product. Usability issues are also resolved in later models. When these are sold at lower or the same price, then the value goes up. In short, value is measured by price.

May 22, 2009 16:58

Flag as offensive