Direct Film Sales 2 Users?

Figital Revolution, which I subscribe to, wrote, or rather made an oral argument, that the film industry should change its film sales strategy. He argued that Kodak and others should sell directly to the film public and not through a middleman store. Since camera stores are not pushing the sale of film and there is a mark up why not sell film (minimum order) to individuals directly. If more film is sold this way maybe both parties could benefit. The film industry would sell more film and the users would purchase at a lower price. Anyone have any ideas of how to market this idea to the film companies?

while shitching to that system does make some sense, any move that way would instantly dry up the existing distibution chanels, unless the local dealers still were to participate.

The other concern is that film does not enjoy getting x-rayed and it takes some smart logistics folks to avoid or mitigate that when shipping film to some locations. That would be difficult to maintain if the shipments become many small packages of 5 rolls at a time, rather than a Shipping TEU or two at a time.

The other thing is that if I order a package of film from a suplier in for example the czech republic, it would take a week at the adsutle minimum for it to get to me in Canada, and the shipping would only be worthwhile for say 40 rolls. If I decide to go for a walk tomorow, and decide I need film, I can likly get at least a few rolls at Henry's if I dont care if it is Tri-X or HP5 that they have in stock. I shoot enough film that I have always a 6 months supply, but many others are not in that position.

The great majority of film manufacturers do so (did so) though partly on a limited basis (limitations on products or region. And the rest just does not want to.

The long-standing fundamental is that a film company must first want to sell more film. Sadly, in Kodak's case this is not the state of their current primary business model. The previous head of Kodak relegated film to a legacy classification and discontinued most of the film product lines. He told Wall Street that film could disappear overnight and he wouldn't be concerned at all.

This is still Kodak's long-term strategy, as evidenced by the selling of their film marketing business in its entirety to Alaris. Companies that want to be in the business of selling something do not normally off-load that business.

It would, of course, be nice if they experienced a sudden change of heart. But to position themselves for the long-term viability of selling film, they would need to rework their processes and retool their facilities in ways that would require more money than they are willing to invest.

In these types of massive changes in direction you generally only get one chance. There aren't sufficient resources to fail and then return to the starting point as if nothing had happened and try a different direction. Or even resume the original direction.

If they wanted to keep selling film, they likely would have been better off sticking with it originally and defending their technology in the marketplace.

Instead they chose a rapid digital replacement strategy and ended up going bankrupt.

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

Instead they chose a rapid digital replacement strategy and ended up going bankrupt.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with that statement. There was nothing 'rapid' about what happened; it took over 20 years. In the early days of digital imaging, Kodak tried a number of products designed to promote film use like the Premiere Image Enhancement System and several film scanners.

Ken Nadvornick said:

The long-standing fundamental is that a film company must first want to sell more film. Sadly, in Kodak's case this is not the state of their current primary business model. The previous head of Kodak relegated film to a legacy classification and discontinued most of the film product lines. He told Wall Street that film could disappear overnight and he wouldn't be concerned at all.

This is still Kodak's long-term strategy, as evidenced by the selling of their film marketing business in its entirety to Alaris. Companies that want to be in the business of selling something do not normally off-load that business.

I

Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure Alaris even wants to sell film and film related products. Here in China, one of the largest markets in the world, Kodak products are drying up in supply. HC-110 seems to be the latest casualty. My last bottle, bought over 1 year ago, had a large sticker on it saying, "for sale in the USA only". This means that it's a gray market item, imported into China by someone other than Alaris. Today, my film supplier cannot get HC-110 at all. This is in Shanghai, a city of 25 million people at a film store located in a professional grade camera mall.

Film is quite popular in Shanghai, and China in general. There are thousands upon thousands of film cameras for sale in this mall. I dare not go there with a credit card! There are multiple film stores....FILM stores(!!) in this mall. Yet no HC-110. Ridiculous.

At the film store that I frequent, there is a HUGE Foma film display, that dwarfs Kodak's. Again, ridiculous.

Manufacturers need volume, lots of volume. The dealers lost would not be made up via direct sales. In the end, film would have to be so expensive that most users would abandon film altogether.

As things are now, many people (even photographers) don't know anyone still sells film. I doubt that pulling it from stores and just having people buy from the companies who make it would increase sales. And when I buy from Freestyle, I can buy some Ilford and some Fuji and some Kodak if I want to. If I only bought from the company making it, I'd likely buy from one only. If everyone did that, it would probably weed the numbers of manufacturers down to even fewer than now if survival was just a popularity contest.

Perhaps we ought to ask what evidential arguments Figital used and what the OP has in mind in terms of ideas to do this which covers all cons and pros in terms of cost etc

pentaxuser

Prof_Pixel said:

I strongly disagree with that statement. There was nothing 'rapid' about what happened; it took over 20 years. In the early days of digital imaging, Kodak tried a number of products designed to promote film use like the Premiere Image Enhancement System and several film scanners.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I might be persuaded to strike the "rapid" modifier. The remainder, however, stands.

But then again, perhaps not. One could also make the argument that 20 years ago the tactical focus was to integrate that new-fangled digital thing into the existing film infrastructure. Not to replace it entirely.

My sense is that once a strategic decision was made to replace film with digital—the point more or less when the previous CEO was so promoted and tasked—the death spiral was relatively rapid, lasting only six-plus years from May, 2005 to January, 2012 when bankruptcy was filed.

Early on even the idea of moving to an all-digital consumer photo model which could, at least in principle, have leveraged a still existing film customer base was itself abandoned in the rush, and a move to commercial printing as the primary business model took in its place. They needed money, and fast.

I well remember reading in the news of the mass departures from the board of directors right before the bankruptcy filing as the failed rodents sought to quietly desert the sinking ship.

So I don't see Kodak as being interested at all in direct-marketing their remaining films going forward. They have already required a massive bailout from the MP industry just to keep those product lines temporarily afloat.* Their long-term interest in selling more Portra to consumers has got to be close to zero degrees Kelvin.

Ken

* Ostensibly for the MP industry's benefit, not for Kodak's.

Ken,

I would argue (based on my personal experience at Kodak) that right from the start (late '80s) Kodak recognized that it was going to be very difficult to survive in a digital imaging driven marketplace because the profit margins would be so much lower than film. Thus they did all they could - things like the Premier Image Enhancement System, film scanners, and PhotoCD and even the APS System to extend the life of film. Once the 'digital genie' was let out of the bottle (and Kodak wasn't the only company to do this) it could never be put back again.

if george eastman was still alive that is exactly what would have happened, film would have been left behind. ...
and they would have transitioned faster and better instead of leaving
film to linger. we are lucky the patriarch of the company wasn't alive
when digital was invented... the true democratisation of the photographic medium
and equivilant of a 21st century box camera ( cellphone)

he transitioned plates to sheet film ( after he stole the idea of celluloid film from someone else
and nearly went bankrupt after losing the court battle saying he stole the idea and
owed the inventor $$$ for infrnigment ) ... and didn't really look back. you can't be nostalgic in business.

while i am happy kodak hung in there keeping film alive for us, even now
it was only because they had to, seeing they were late in jumping in with both feet
in a technology they invented but did notihng with.

Prof_Pixel said:

Ken,

I would argue (based on my personal experience at Kodak) that right from the start (late '80s) Kodak recognized that it was going to be very difficult to survive in a digital imaging driven marketplace because the profit margins would be so much lower than film. Thus they did all they could - things like the Premier Image Enhancement System, film scanners, and PhotoCD and even the APS System to extend the life of film. Once the 'digital genie' was let out of the bottle (and Kodak wasn't the only company to do this) it could never be put back again.

Click to expand...

You realize that if your premise is accepted, the outcome is even more damning than simply making a wrong strategic turn on a remote dark highway, right?

To wit, they—or at least their employees—invented it, so they were first out of the gate by a mile. Which means they had knowledge of it before any of their competition. Then they had 20 years to figure out what to do with it. And they still couldn't keep it from destroying their world-leading film business and bankrupting their entire company??

Let me ask you this. Do you think there is any regret as to the decisions they made that led to this mess? Meaning, regret up in the corner offices on the top floor? I'm certain there's huge regrets by those who dedicated their careers to Kodak, then had their life's work trashed.

I'm reminded of the news conference held on the day they blew up the Kingdome in Seattle. The head demolition guy was very careful in his opening remarks to pay generous tribute to the Kingdome's original designer, for whom that structure was the pinnacle of his architectural design career. He said how strong it was, how innovative it was, how suited to its purpose it was, how beautiful it was. An hour later it was a pile of rubble.

So, any regrets at Kodak that maybe it might have been better to more vigorously defend their original film technology in the imaging marketplace? Worth noting is that other film companies did survive the exact same digital storm. Perhaps not easily. But they survived.

And back to the OP's question, any chance of Kodak wanting to change their minds and begin direct-marketing their film to consumers? Presumably through Alaris. Or perhaps all by themselves?

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

Then they had 20 years to figure out what to do with it. And they still couldn't keep it from destroying their world-leading film business and bankrupting their entire company??

Click to expand...

We've spent many hours at retirees lunches discussing the 'what ifs', but in reality, there never was any magic bullet that could save the Kodak's consumer film business.

Kodak was fixated with thermal dye sub printing technology, which made great prints but at a higher cost than inkjet.

Ultimately, they tried to pull a 'HP' who was able to transition from test equipment>calculators>computers>personal computers into inkjet printing & large format printers.

Did Kodak have some bad leadership? Yup - but if they had completely followed the HP model, Kodak film would be gone (so be thankful for the bad leadership).


BTW, I've never supported the claim that 'Kodak invented digital photography'. Sensors were being made by Fairchild (and several other companies) and used in digital cameras for scientific use, but initially were way to expensive and limited for consumer cameras. With, or without Kodak, there would have been consumer digital cameras when the hardware price point got low enough.

back to the O>P> has anyone had face to face contact with a sales manager from any of the larger film manufacture's and asked about this? like ilford, Foma, Adox, Fuji, Kodak?. On Foma photo you can buy directly from them, correct? I think adox has something similarly, Also Macodirect has a lot for rollei, although they are a distributer. In don't know ?? Buy in volume, see if you get a discount. Buy once a year ???? More importantly though is PRINTING! buying PAPER

Steve Bellayr said:

Figital Revolution, which I subscribe to, wrote, or rather made an oral argument, that the film industry should change its film sales strategy. He argued that Kodak and others should sell directly to the film public and not through a middleman store. Since camera stores are not pushing the sale of film and there is a mark up why not sell film (minimum order) to individuals directly. If more film is sold this way maybe both parties could benefit. The film industry would sell more film and the users would purchase at a lower price. Anyone have any ideas of how to market this idea to the film companies?

Click to expand...

i think it would be a great idea to do that.
but the only downside would be like now
people will hoard buy an excessive amount all
at once and the supplers will be twiddling their thumbs
until people realize they should buy small amounts constantly instead of all at once.

as the leader of the figital revolution spoke about farm to table ..

Film manufacturers aren't typically organized for even high volume retail sales. If they add that capability, not sure the end result would be much different than buying from B&H, Adorama, or Freestyle. Of course, those are all US based retailers - the situation might be different in other countries.

I have read through this thread and I see many good points raised - pro and con.

Of course making film and selling film to the public are entirely different areas of expertise and most film companies have chosen to focus on the former.

Besides, film was ubiquitous and there were vast networks in place to take your containers of palettes and sell them box by box.

We think this has changed radically in the past 8 years or so and we are exploring our options.

In the end, we just want film in cameras and we will do whatever we need to do to make that happen.

Jnanian raises a point that we will continue to discuss at length within FILM Ferrania:

Buying film bricks in order to get the lowest possible price - then freezing them to use over months or even years - is antithetical to running a viable factory. Buying film in small volumes and using it regularly is better for everyone. Fresher film, better cashflow, machines running all the time, etc. And room in the freezer for food!

Online shopping does not tend to encourage small-volume purchasing. Having a local shop, on the other hand, does. It's a puzzle that we are going to expend extensive efforts to solve.

Most manufacturers of any kind, at least large ones, don't really want the hassle of dealing with individual small orders. That's the retailers' job. Before the bankruptcy, at least, Kodak _did_ have an online storefront you could order film from. Did you use it or even know about it? The store was set up by an external company that specialized in making online storefronts for manufacturers, and fulfillment came from a distributor. I'd guess the main problem is getting enough business direct without cutting off your retailers, and losing the volume.

At this point the number of retailers is a lot lower than in the past, so maybe the online storefront model would be more viable. But I wonder if there is still enough business to make online sales economically viable or not. Not sure what proportion of film sales is online vs in-store for retailers that already have online stores like Freestyle, B&H or Adorama. I was expecting Alaris to head in that direction with Kodak products but...

Fewer and fewer users represent a larger and larger percentage of film sales. These users are likely to buy in bulk (say 10 or more rolls) regardless of the source. But the costs of buying film and related chemicals from the local camera store are getting higher. And, in many cases, harder to justify on the basis of selection, freshness, and expertise.

I'm afraid we're past the tipping point. And many of those retailers who do stock film and chemicals probably do so more out of a sense of commitment to photography rather than pure economic gain.

mgb74 said:

... And many of those retailers who do stock film and chemicals probably do so more out of a sense of commitment to photography rather than pure economic gain.

Click to expand...

I get that impression too.

Ken Nadvornick said:

And back to the OP's question, any chance of Kodak wanting to change their minds and begin direct-marketing their film to consumers? Presumably through Alaris. Or perhaps all by themselves?

Click to expand...

Kodak once did have a webshop. But only for some still films and only for the USA.
They can't sell still films directly anymore as they sold that business.

Kodak sells their cine films directly to customers in the US an Canada.

gzinsel said:

On Foma photo you can buy directly from them, correct? I think adox has something similarly, Also Macodirect has a lot for rollei, although they are a distributer.

Click to expand...

No, in both cases:

-) that Foma shop is not run by Foma the manufacturer.


-) Maco is not a distributor for Rollei films, but a manufacturer in the wider sense. Those films are converted, sometimes even made, on their behalve.

AgX said:

Kodak once did have a webshop. But only for some still films and only for the USA.
They can't sell still films directly anymore as they sold that business.

Kodak sells their cine films directly to customers in the US an Canada.

Click to expand...

Kodak Alaris only markets stills film.

In the UK the cine is still Eastmann Kodak to distributor to end user, but you may be able to get it direct for large orders.

Think ORWO cine is the same in UK.

They lost the still film as part of the creditor settlement horse trading really to exit from chapter 11.

Big companies die from Hubris.

The history of film is muddy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetoscope

Cine films was high volume but lower margin than stills (in its hay day) and by !980 Kodak had lost their monopoly on still film in pharmacies (ie every UK pharmacy) as Fuji was more entrepreneurial as the colour negative & mini lab market expanded. This was the Jam on their bread and butter, Fiji got a lot of Kodak Jam, Ilford 'existed' on the mono crumbs...

They also lost a complete market and massive patent violation penalty to Polaroid, same period.

Kodak employees told me this in 1980 ... I live in a Kodak town...

Kodak was a sick man by 1990, only held together by cine volume.

By 2010 they were not using Excel spread sheets - to avoid chapter 11.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hubris