Direct Film Sales 2 Users?

Xmas said:

Kodak Alaris only markets stills film.

Click to expand...

According to what has been published by both companies Kodak Alaris has purchased the complete cosumer still photography business. That means Alaris has their films produced by Eastman Kodak on their (Alaris') behalf. Eastman Kodak only serves as toll-manufacturer. Thus can't sell still film directly. Though they most probably have a lorge input in deciding on the portfolio Alaris are having produced.

AgX said:

According to what has been published by both companies Kodak Alaris has purchased the complete cosumer still photography business. That means Alaris has their films produced by Eastman Kodak on their (Alaris') behalf. Eastman Kodak only serves as toll-manufacturer. Thus can't sell still film directly. Though they most probably have a lorge input in deciding on the portfolio Alaris are having produced.

Click to expand...

'has purchased' implies Alaris gave Kodak money (in English),

'had to relinquish all title to profits from stills sales to settle a debt' may be a more exact description of the transaction, agreed by the chapter 11 court proceedings.

Alaris have not revealed the exact commercial position. But if they are not able to get the resellers to comit to buying a film type in sufficient volume (to make a profit) then they wont ask Eastmann to finish or make a master roll, Eastmann will want an order.

None of the cine and stills have common coatings.

Eastmann's incorporated (and audited) accounts are available for share holders, and they do separate out their 'legacy' business.

I was able to buy Agfapan100 (old emulsion) until fall of 2013 in retail shops, quite cheap.

Fuji stopping Neopan 400 and Kodak stopping Plus-x is (or were) driven by reseller perception of volume sales.

It is like butter cheeze and milk if you cannot sell at a profit you kill and eat the cows.

it seems to me if the "big film/paper Manufactures want to make money. They need a "hub" (brick and mortar shop) in every major city. Where you can buy All Ferrina, foma, rollei, kodak, ilford, etc. . . They should also Have color darkrooms to rent, they should also rental camera operations. In order to sell film and paper, they need a "security" or "the fix is in"" i.e. yuou need to guarantee a film camera, and guarantee a film processing and PAPER processor for the professional serious amateur photographer, or else people just go digital. These brick and mortar shops should also have classes, out reach to the community. I mean. . . . . "together they stand, Divided they fall" If they are not out championing film/ community access, I have a hard time believing they will be around for much longer. The idea of just being a manufacturer, and "just let someone else" deal with sales is a bunch of non-sense. These Manufactures need to be more pro-active. All I am going to say is. . . If Tamerind Institute of Lithography could bring bring back lithography in the U.S. AFTER WWII, in New Mexico. then. . . .. I mean . Take a look at almost every major city there are a few, to dozens of private and community print shops. Due in large measure to the commitment of Tamarind, establishing master printers, those master printers opening shops around the U.S. and those students of master printers opening community print shops for serious artists working in lithography and etching. well thats all I am going to say . . .. . .. . for the moment.

In general, the manufacturers cannot undercut their dealers and wholesalers with direct sales. This is as true for film as it is for any other product. The manufactures don't have the resources to sell their stuff to every individual buyer who may be interested. Even though they take in more by selling at the retail price on direct retail sales, the costs of selling 1 roll or even a pro-pack to a single user is much higher than selling thousands of rolls to Freestyle once a quarter (as a theoretic example).

I am not sure where they are now with Alaris, but Kodak has done direct consumer sales and I've bought various films from them from time to time, and it wasn't huge orders either.

Sometimes what appears to be a direct consumer sale from a manufacturer really isn't.

Totally a bad idea ... You alienate your distributors this way... Besides, how many of us really used the web sales portion when it did exist... I'd rather give my money to a smaller shop to keep them going... Either way, when the web store was alive they still sold film at msrp so there wasn't any real savings


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They could have a "drop sale" presence.

You buy from the internet presence, they ship to their local dealers and you pick it up there.

Local dealers get a small fee, as well as increased traffic and the chance to sell you another camera bag.

And with respect to Kodak Alaris, as I recall it, the UK Kodak employees pension plan did have to pay a substantial sum ($200 million?) into the bankruptcy in order to complete the settlement.

1) no matter if the UK pension fund doled out actual cash, or accepted the business in exchange for money they were owed, amounts to the same thing. (Imagine them paying money, The bankruptcy trustee accepting it with their left hand, passing it to their right hand and handing it back saying OK thnaks here is what we owe you)

2) the Kodak shop was run by a internet firm called "Digital River" WHo DID sell in Canad for a while, but with shipping from the states and delivery VIA UPS. Considering what UPS typically charges to do customs clearance they must have lost 200% on each sale. I recall buying one brick of 400TX when the service was open.

3) if you want to keep dealers engaged, thay DO need some incentive to help you. You will note for example that the ULF deal that Ilford runs is ordered and delivered through their dealer network and distibutors. This adds the overhead of shipping teh product 3 times. (Distributor to dealer and dealer to end user, in addition to factory to distributor)

3) Distributors really only want to ship case lots. there was a dealers called something like "ilforddirect" here in canada that took orders online and had product shipped to the end users. Turns out they ordered from the Canadian Distributor and had the goods drop shipped. I was delighted as I was using 9 1/2 by 11 paper for proof sheets. BUT I had to order 10 packs of 10 sheets, because if I wanted a 100 sheet box, I would have needed to order a case (1000 sheets). The 10 pkacks came in the original factory box. The fellow who was running the shop gave up as anything that was not mainstream got back ordered to england and was shipped out when the distributor got their next regular monthly order in about 6 weeks. I suspect the lag is why Henry's does not list products like 9 1/2 by 11 sheets. I decided that cutting down 11X14 was easier and one day I am going to have to make a whole bunch of 4 1/2 by 11 inch prints.

just saying, Id buy from a kodak factory store. I buy about 6 months of stock at a time.

cmacd123 said:

1) no matter if the UK pension fund doled out actual cash, or accepted the business in exchange for money they were owed, amounts to the same thing. (Imagine them paying money, The bankruptcy trustee accepting it with their left hand, passing it to their right hand and handing it back saying OK thnaks here is what we owe you)

Click to expand...

The Kodak Limited (UK subsidiary of Eastman Kodak) pension fund had and has substantial assets, and those assets were protected from the bankruptcy. What was at issue was the shortfall between those assets, and the projected liabilities of the fund.

The UK pensioners are and were better protected than the US pensioners. The settlement occurred because the UK legislation gave a sort of super priority of the pension fund's shortfall claim. In order to satisfy that priority claim, the bankruptcy trustee transferred a number of EK's valuable assets, including the paper manufacturing plants and business, some potentially valuable digital business, and the exclusive rights to sell the Kodak branded chemicals and the Eastman Kodak manufactured still film.

Those assets, together, were valued at an amount worth more than the pension settlement. Thus the need for the cash to be paid back into the trustee's hands in order to make the settlement happen.