Adox raising their prices by 25% ??

[marcmarc]

I didn't even realize this the other day when I went into Freestyle and picked up a batch of CHS Art 100 and 50. I figured it was only a matter of time before the prices on Adox film went up so I purchased handfuls every time I went into the store when they were $3.99 a roll of 120. I've got about 45 rolls of the 50 (which is my most used film in 120) and about 20 rolls of the 100. What really is killing me is the damn 9.75% sales tax we have here in LA. That's almost $.50 a roll. I know it doesn't sound like much, but when you shoot as much as I do, it adds up to quite a bit. So for me I've reached the point where I have to look online to purchase Adox/Efke film. So far the shipping rates are such that it cancels out the saving in sales tax. I hope to work something out where I can get reduced shipping charges if I order in large quantities.

 

[AgX]

What really is killing me is the damn 9.75% sales tax we have here in LA.

In Europe the equivalent to the US-sale tax is ranging from 15% to 25% depending on country.
The average is 20%.

 

[23mjm]

Dear All,

Look at the price per ounce of silver 4 weeks ago and the price today.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

I guess you guys missed this post--this is probably the story behind the majority of the price increase!!. When the raw materials skyrocket the price of the final product tends to have a price increase too.

 

[Yamaotoko]

When the raw materials skyrocket the price of the final product tends to have a price increase too.

While that's very true, there's something I've always wondered about, and I've very open to the possibility (fact?) that this misunderstanding is purely due to my naivety when it comes to business, so please indulge me:

Okay, so the price of silver (or any raw material) rises, so all products made using silver will cost more to produce... but, how much of the stock held by these stores was produced with the higher priced material? I kind of see it as (and again, please excuse the naive, small-town country boy perspective here) "Hey, this stuff is costing more to produce, so we'll raise the prices of product we already have in stock (this is the retailer talking here), and no one will question it, because it is costing more to produce. One day, if prices go back down, we can keep our prices up for a little while, justifying it by saying that our stock was purchased during the high price period." ...just some extra profit for the end retailer?

It makes me think of a situation we had here in Australia a few years back: Cyclone Larry (yeah, we even have a sense of humour in naming our natural disasters ) touched down and wiped out nearly all of of Queensland's banana crops. The prices of banana's in supermarkets went from $2.99/Kg to around $15.99/Kg almost overnight. That's understandable, perishable product, high turnover etc, but what really got me, is that, while limited stocks of banana's from QLD were coming in at the huge prices, banana's from WA (on the other side of the country, completely unaffected by the cyclone) were suddenly also commanding the high price... Supply and demand? I guess so, but beyond that, it was just profiteering, those banana's weren't costing any more to bring in than they always had, and a LOT ended up being wasted, because people said "Heck no, I ain't paying $15.99+ for freakin bananas! That's bananas!".

Anyway, like I said, naivety in big business is probably to blame for my misunderstanding, I grew up in a town where the cost of a product was worked out by wholesale+overheads+profit margin, if wholesale price went up, then retail followed, but not before (and in a small community, quite often after, otherwise people get upset). ..these are just rambling thoughts on an early Sunday morning...

 

[Oren Grad]

It seems odd to me that Kodak and Fuji report ("admit to," I would say) consistently falling demand, but everything is peachy for Ilford.... Is the market for Ilford products really all that different than for Kodak or Fuji ones?

Harman has never said that "everything is peachy"; Simon is always speaking with carefully chosen words about how difficult market conditions are.

But yes, Kodak and Fuji on the one hand, and Ilford on the other, are playing in very different markets. Kodak and Fuji sell mostly color materials; for them, B&W is a drop in the bucket, albeit now probably a relatively larger drop in a shrinking bucket. Ilford sells entirely B&W.

And although all of the companies have pulled off extraordinary feats to consolidate production in a way that allows them to remain viable at much smaller volumes, for whatever combination of infrastructure and accounting reasons, at the level of individual SKUs Harman seems to be able to make it work with shorter runs than either Kodak or Fuji can.

I'm sure B&W is continuing to decline overall, but it seems plausible to me that the trajectory is somewhat different from that for color. B&W is now a small specialty market; within that market, certain niches may well be holding their own.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

While that's very true, there's something I've always wondered about, and I've very open to the possibility (fact?) that this misunderstanding is purely due to my naivety when it comes to business, so please indulge me:

Okay, so the price of silver (or any raw material) rises, so all products made using silver will cost more to produce... but, how much of the stock held by these stores was produced with the higher priced material? I kind of see it as (and again, please excuse the naive, small-town country boy perspective here) "Hey, this stuff is costing more to produce, so we'll raise the prices of product we already have in stock (this is the retailer talking here), and no one will question it, because it is costing more to produce. One day, if prices go back down, we can keep our prices up for a little while, justifying it by saying that our stock was purchased during the high price period." ...just some extra profit for the end retailer?

It makes me think of a situation we had here in Australia a few years back: Cyclone Larry (yeah, we even have a sense of humour in naming our natural disasters ) touched down and wiped out nearly all of of Queensland's banana crops. The prices of banana's in supermarkets went from $2.99/Kg to around $15.99/Kg almost overnight. That's understandable, perishable product, high turnover etc, but what really got me, is that, while limited stocks of banana's from QLD were coming in at the huge prices, banana's from WA (on the other side of the country, completely unaffected by the cyclone) were suddenly also commanding the high price... Supply and demand? I guess so, but beyond that, it was just profiteering, those banana's weren't costing any more to bring in than they always had, and a LOT ended up being wasted, because people said "Heck no, I ain't paying $15.99+ for freakin bananas! That's bananas!".

Anyway, like I said, naivety in big business is probably to blame for my misunderstanding, I grew up in a town where the cost of a product was worked out by wholesale+overheads+profit margin, if wholesale price went up, then retail followed, but not before (and in a small community, quite often after, otherwise people get upset). ..these are just rambling thoughts on an early Sunday morning...

Hmm. Small town thoughts. But I come from that side of the fence too and know where you're coming from. Right now we are reeling from paying $7.00 a kilo for Pink Lady Apples — the most extreme cost any of us have seen (the store won't source from growers in our State, only those interstate!). In July, they were $2.68 a kilo. In the same vein, petrol is also subject to these bizarre economic vagueries, more like making a tidy profit through collusion rather than any genuinely valid economic reason. So I don't believe one jot about this price of silver going up and somehow affecting existing stocks sitting in the fridge or on the shelf. That should not be subject to any price movement — only newly ordered stock.

 

[lxdude]

In Europe the equivalent to the US-sale tax is ranging from 15% to 25% depending on country.
The average is 20%.

Sales tax is imposed by states, counties and municipalities here, but no general sales tax yet by the feds. So it varies. Some states don't have any sales tax. Well, not yet.

There is talk of a federal VAT.

 

[marcmarc]

If Sacramento could raise the state sales tax to 20% they would do it in a heartbeat. Since they can't they nickel and dime us to death with so-called "fees" instead: The highest car registration in the nation, bogus recycling fees on new TV and computer purchases and on and on. It wouldn't as bad as it is if this money was being used for the greater good for the public at large. Instead it goes toward the corrupt politicians pork projects, union pay offs, grossly overpaid state workers and their almost full pay and benefit retirement contracts etc. Meanwhile, each year more businesses move out of CA (taking much needed jobs with them) and the idiots in Sacramento just shrug their shoulders.

Now that that rant is over I agree that whenever Kodak or Fuji drops a product, it will have some sort of benefit to the other companies. I wish this was not the case, it's nice to have as large of a selection of papers, film, and chemistry as possible plus of course this creates competition which keeps prices low. Let's face it - prices on everything go up sooner or later especially in a market like film where demand has shrunk considerably.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

So I don't believe one jot about this price of silver going up and somehow affecting existing stocks sitting in the fridge or on the shelf. That should not be subject to any price movement — only newly ordered stock.

We have NOT increased our prices, but we are obviously monitoring and reviewing the situation on a daily basis.

Ken

 

[MaximusM3]

I'm just glad I can still buy film

 

[hpulley]

I'm just glad I can still buy film

Amen!

 

[Yamaotoko]

I'm just glad I can still buy film

True, true, big picture...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I'm just glad I can still buy film

Mmmm. Cuddles for MaximusM3!
Couldn't agree more.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

Oren Grad is absolutely correct, I have never referred to specific sales volumes, nor have I ever pretended, ever, that everything in the world of analog is rosie.

All manufacturers of silver halide products face challenges in relation to the totally different market dynamics we now have. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology have always been in a niche, monochrome, we have never had a mass ( high volume ) consumer colour business.

I repeat, we have not put up our prices because as a manufacturer we hold parent roll stock, we continue to monitor the situation very carefully.

Regards

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[marcmarc]

I stopped in Freestyle today to pick up some chemistry and noticed the old $3.99 price tag for the 120 Adox films. They sold me the lot at that price lucky me! However, now that the 120 CHS Art 50 is more then 120 Ilford Pan F+ (which is holding at $4.49) once I get through the 60 rolls or so of Adox I have, I'll re-consider Pan F+. I started using the Adox when the price for Pan F+ went up some time ago. Now I may go back to Pan F+. No reason not to, I shot Pan F+ for years, it's a fantastic film. I did grow quite fond of Adox 50 though so I'll wait and see what the prices are like in a couple months when it's time to restock the freezer with slow film. Like I mentioned I shoot a few hundred rolls of slow 120 film a year and with my modest income, I have to save where I can.