Film Cost Management

Nodda Duma said:

Forget about the profit. Profit could be $0.01. Just because a business is making profit doesn’t mean they can afford to invest in further developments, a real sign of corporate health. Cranking out product doesn’t equal growth. From what I’ve seen on past threads here about their financial reports is, at best, they are managing losses very well with continuously-decreasing sales.

Click to expand...

Can you show me where you've seen Ilford running at a loss and their decreasing sales, because I've seen the opposite.

TonyB65 said:

Can you show me where you've seen Ilford running at a loss and their decreasing sales, because I've seen the opposite.

Click to expand...

You could have found it yourself in the time it took to post your reply.

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...ology-Limited-financial-performance-2005-2016

I did misspeak... they are managing declining profits in an era of declining sales.

Nodda Duma said:

You could have found it yourself in the time it took to post your reply.

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...ology-Limited-financial-performance-2005-2016

I did misspeak... they are managing declining profits in an era of declining sales.

Click to expand...

I couldn't have found it and I can't see it, because I'm not a member. Also, how is a 5% increase in film sales overall "declining sales"?

Don't know about you, but I read these statements somewhat differently. Cutting Sales/Mktg staff is usually an obvious but typically wrong place to lay the axe. Fair question: Would it have made a difference? My guess is that if university sales are under-exploited, perhaps.

But the fact is that there's not a lot of meat in these statements from an analyst's perspective, especially without some sense of how they classify their expenses, I'd be rather uncomfortable relying on the presentation, or expecting that operating expenses are as substantially fixed as shown. As shown, if you took 2005 as a good year and the following year as full of one-time charges, you'd estimate some significant fixed charges. My guess is that the private equity boys are getting a good enough cut to keep things going and the nominal profits shown are to satisfy the banks (I'd assume if I'm private equity I'd still borrow as much as I could) covenants. Figuring the Amazon nets only about 1% in a good year, 5% ain't too shabby as a percentages go, but percentages only go so far. But if I'm trying to keep competition at bay, I'd love to show my company as unprofitable as possible to both 1) justify price increases, and 2) keep competition from wanting to enter the biz (without buying me out). I'm not saying the numbers aren't real, only that how you classify your expenses makes a material difference in how you present them.

Bottom line about the bottom line: Let's not lose sleep over this.

RattyMouse said:

That's what +30% price increases do, kill off part of your customer base. People's salaries never get raises anywhere near this level. There really needs to be some explanation why Ilford needs to raise prices so dramatically.
Is the company in trouble? It simply is not normal for such large price increases. I can't imagine what our customers would do it we tried to hit them with a 30% increase. Most would walk over to our competitors right away.

Click to expand...

They are probably trying to recover cash and losses from the wynit implosion. There’s no telling how much inventory they lost when that happened and it’s been a lot more disruptive and costly than any of us are probably aware of.

When I got the new ilford master price list from Roberts, the only thing that didn’t change price was HP5 135-36. *everything else* was a different price, some a little more, some a lot more.

MattKing said:

The notice of increase was in the form of a communication that came from Harman Technology and appeared to be addressed to the US dealers that buy from Roberts, the new US Ilford distributor.
It included price information that appeared to not be intended for anyone not buying wholesale.
We have seen other information that indicates that B&H and Adorama's old retail prices were often less than what other dealers were paying wholesale.
It may be that with the old, now bankrupt distributor, B&H and Adorama were receiving the benefit of special preferential pricing, and what we are seeing now is simply a result of B&H and Adorama having to pay the same price that other retailers are paying.

Click to expand...

+1

For a discretionary purchase, like film, I'm not interested in the cheapest unless it is what I wanted anyway. My preferred b&w film is Ilford FP4 so that is what I buy. If FP4 becomes much more expensive than other films, I'll either shoot less b&w or make economies elsewhere. I don't see the point of going out with a camera that is loaded with film I didn't really want to buy.

pentaxuser said:

In the context in which it was written I think that Mirko meant that in the equivalent of "real" prices i.e. allowing for inflation we could expect to pay what he quotes and if nothing had changed then if we were paying that we'd still only be paying out of our income what film users were paying out of their income at that time . This is not the same as saying that we should pay this, anymore than it is saying that we should pay say $10,000 for a television today although in real terms compared to the mid 1970s that would be the "real price." I quote televisions as an example. My prices quoted is to illustrate the point I believe he was making and is not to state these are exact prices. A better example and perhaps more pertinent example here, is one quoted several times on Photrio, namely camera prices in real terms

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I had to read his post a couple of times to fully understand (I suspect if he had written it in German for those who understand German it would have been clearer).

What I think he's saying is that when you factor in inflation and the size of the market (which allows you to amortize fixed costs) film costs today would have to be 5-10 times higher than they were back then to achieve the same level of profitability to the manufacturer. So if a roll was $2 in the 80s, it "should" be $10-20 now.

"They are probably trying to recover cash and losses from the wynit implosion."

Don't think so. My bet would be they'd like to know the price elasticity of demand. Specifically, how sensitive volume is to price at different price points. For every person who feels that the film they use is not chosen by price but quality, Ilford is giving each of us a chance to put our money where our mouth is. So I think the question is more one of will the price increase stick. Will volume drop off by more or less than expected? My bet is that unlike the food market, there is no competitor with sufficient capital to snap up Ilford film just to distort their price-volume data and misguide them into bad decisions (I've actually heard UK food execs talk about this in their industry).... so the market will actually speak clearly.

B&H and Adorama and the like have historically been very disruptive to the industry due to their low margin pricing and (apparent) ability to obtain product at a price that no-one else is able to. It can only be healthy to the industry if they are required to pay the same as any other high volume purchaser.

MattKing said:

B&H and Adorama and the like have historically been very disruptive to the industry due to their low margin pricing and (apparent) ability to obtain product at a price that no-one else is able to. It can only be healthy to the industry if they are required to pay the same as any other high volume purchaser.

Click to expand...

It used to be the case that ordering a camera from NY netted you a 30%-40% discount. Now, with minimum retail pricing, I find the mail order price the same as my local brick and mortar establishment, tax excepted.

pentaxuser said:

In the context in which it was written I think that Mirko meant that in the equivalent of "real" prices i.e. allowing for inflation we could expect to pay what he quotes and if nothing had changed then if we were paying that we'd still only be paying out of our income what film users were paying out of their income at that time . This is not the same as saying that we should pay this, anymore than it is saying that we should pay say $10,000 for a television today although in real terms compared to the mid 1970s that would be the "real price." I quote televisions as an example. My prices quoted is to illustrate the point I believe he was making and is not to state these are exact prices. A better example and perhaps more pertinent example here, is one quoted several times on Photrio, namely camera prices in real terms
pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I too think he was trying to say this. The problem though is that according to this site https://www.advisorperspectives.com...9/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective the median (middle) average U.S. household income adjusted for inflation grew only 33% between 1967 and 2016, so nothing even remotely close to 5-10 times.

aleckurgan said:

I too think he was trying to say this. The problem though is that according to this site https://www.advisorperspectives.com...9/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective the median (middle) average U.S. household income adjusted for inflation grew only 33% between 1967 and 2016, so nothing even remotely close to 5-10 times.

Click to expand...

Yes, Mirko seemed to be attacked because some thought he was saying he ought to be getting 5-10 times what he is getting for film and the fact that he isn't was unfair. I think he is realistic enough to know that "things are what they are". His figures may be wrong but it is clear to me that film and almost everything else analogue cost a lot more in real terms 30-40 years ago that what it costs now. Of course this is true of most consumer goods such as cars, white goods etc

The problem for film producers is that they have the perfect storm of attempting to make a profit out of "old technology" where productivity rises and lowering of production costs may be limited and a vast decrease in demand so that sales revenues have dropped a lot

pentaxuser

MattKing said:

B&H and Adorama and the like have historically been very disruptive to the industry due to their low margin pricing and (apparent) ability to obtain product at a price that no-one else is able to. It can only be healthy to the industry if they are required to pay the same as any other high volume purchaser.

Click to expand...

I would rather use B&H and Adorama and let the free market balance the prices. I would be very unhappy if I lived in a country that added heavy taxes and tariffs.


.

Sirius Glass said:

I would rather use B&H and Adorama and let the free market balance the prices. I would be very unhappy if I lived in a country that added heavy taxes and tariffs.

Click to expand...

A free market is great, when there is the possibility of the market actually being free.
If one or a few retailers have access to wholesale prices that others do not, it isn't a free market.
And as you live in a country that levies more tariffs than mine does, I think you might want to review your perspective .

Last year I was able to buy a couple of 100 foot rolls of HP5+ for my bulk loader much cheaper than the UK price by simply having it mailed from B+H to friends visiting Florida. Now I understand how it could be so much cheaper when I could probably drive to Mobberly in under four hours.....if B+H were getting special pricing on Ilford material. Now the US price is similar to the UK price, within a few $ and do remember that UK prices have 20% VAT added before any prices are quoted to customers.

I understand why products like Kodak Ultramax 400 might be cheaper in the US, as they are manufactured there. But it really was a surprise to find Ilford so much cheaper.

As for general ways to cut costs? Film photography ain't a truly cheap hobby any more but I find that for 35mm B&W, bulk loading is the way to go. I have settled mostly on Fomapan 100 for and Ilford HP5+ as between them they cover virtually all lighting situations and are both excellent films. For colour, I bought a stash from B&H as described above and also seek out deals on Kodak Colorplus 200 when I see it offered for £2.50 per film and buy a brick.

With 120, I look out for best prices on the cheaper films. I bought a load of Fomapan 100 from the factory in the Czech republic...postage to the UK was very reasonable and the stuff came in three days. Rollei Retro 400S is a nice film in 120 and can be had for £3.50 or so per film. Buy a brick or two to save on relative postage costs and use it as and when. Boots sometimes have a sale on Lomography branded colour negative film, I got some of their excellent Kodak-sourced 400ASA 120 films in a pack of three for £9 from Boots in December.

Just look for deals on films you want. Consider bulk loading 35mm B&W especially if you like Foma or Ilford.

faberryman said:

It used to be the case that ordering a camera from NY netted you a 30%-40% discount. Now, with minimum retail pricing, I find the mail order price the same as my local brick and mortar establishment, tax excepted.

Click to expand...

We don't have minimum retail pricing in the UK any more. That battle was fought and lost somewhere around the late 70s, early 80s iirc.

However, some manufacturers dislike their wares being discounted and manage to 'persuade' their retailers not to do it.

One is a well known German manufacturer of professional and prosumer power tools.

The online price might be fixed but you can often get a generous discount from one of their bricks and mortar dealers just for the asking.

MattKing said:

B&H and Adorama and the like have historically been very disruptive to the industry due to their low margin pricing and (apparent) ability to obtain product at a price that no-one else is able to. It can only be healthy to the industry if they are required to pay the same as any other high volume purchaser.

Click to expand...

Kellards is doing that right now on Amazon with a number of Ilford emulsions. If they paid the same price as the rest of us, they are losing their shorts big time. By the tine you take away what Amazon takes to pick, pack, ship, and handle all customer service, what is left over is way less than what Is on the Ilford master price list.

I think you are better off price-wise shopping at B&H than at Kellards through Amazon. I assume Kellards prices are higher because of the added Amazon overhead.

faberryman said:

I think you are better off price-wise shopping at B&H than at Kellards through Amazon. I assume Kellards prices are higher because of the added Amazon overhead.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. A single roll of hp5 135-36 on Amazon is $8.99 with nationwide 2 day prime shipping from Kellards. It’s currently ranked in spot 30 of 100 in Amazon’s sale volume ranking for the film category, which translates to several thousand rolls per 30 day period.

A significant number of people buy film 1 roll at a time, and $8.99 with free 2 day shipping is difficult to beat.

MattKing said:

B&H and Adorama and the like have historically been very disruptive to the industry due to their low margin pricing and (apparent) ability to obtain product at a price that no-one else is able to. It can only be healthy to the industry if they are required to pay the same as any other high volume purchaser.

Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that other retailers with similar volume are not getting the same deal from Ilford as B&H and Adorama. Is that the case?

Right now, Samy's and Freestyle has Ilford film as cheap or even cheaper than B&H.

I agree that a manufacturer or wholesaler should offer the same price to anyone who matches the same terms (volume, returns, credit, etc). But I don't know that is not already the case.

Adrian Bacon said:

Maybe, maybe not. A single roll of hp5 135-36 on Amazon is $8.99 with nationwide 2 day prime shipping from Kellards. It’s currently ranked in spot 30 of 100 in Amazon’s sale volume ranking for the film category, which translates to several thousand rolls per 30 day period. A significant number of people buy film 1 roll at a time, and $8.99 with free 2 day shipping is difficult to beat.

Click to expand...

Hands up Photrio members: when was the last time you bought one roll of film by mail order? I bought five rolls of SFX once.

faberryman said:

Hands up Photrio members: when was the last time you bought one roll of film by mail order? I bought five rolls of SFX once.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous. I cannot fathom why someone would order a single roll of film online. I never order under $100 worth of film.

RattyMouse said:

Ridiculous. I cannot fathom why someone would order a single roll of film online. I never order under $100 worth of film.

Click to expand...

OT but reading your post with a aristocratic British Lady accent makes it funny. It's blunt.

I did infact recently, for a single roll project of Kodak Aerochrome. Two rolls were a bit out of budget so made with one. Thinking of it, might have been the only time I did this. Otherwise of course bulk ordering makes much more sense, and depends on the shipping as well.

RattyMouse said:

Ridiculous. I cannot fathom why someone would order a single roll of film online. I never order under $100 worth of film.

Click to expand...

That’s you and your needs. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people do buy film 1 roll at a time. You can say the same thing about 24 vs 36 exposures. Why would anyone buy a 24 exposure roll of film? Well guess what? A lot of people do. 36 exposures is more popular for sure, however, a significant number of people buy 24 exposures a single roll at a time. It’s not the cheapest way to go, but people do it. It just depends on your needs.

You can say the same thing about other things, like milk for example. I don’t know why you can buy milk in 1/2 gallon sizes. I never buy anything but gallon jugs, however, enough people do buy in 1/2 gallon size that it’s kept available for sale.