Notice the situation from Super 8 that was a precedence of later situation with Film photography!The only way increased demand is likely to lower the prices is if it is significant enough to create manufacturing efficiencies that allow manufacturers to charge less and still make a profit. I don’t see the “film resurgence” dying that. More likely it is leveling out the decline and the die-off. If, 10 years from now, all the currently available film are still available, and prices have kept pace with inflation, I’ll be happy. If we have new films to play with, I’ll be overjoyed.
Well, there certainly is LESS of a monopoly than there was 30 years ago. So many more players seem to be at least peripherally involved. ADOX is very informative and I think that my thread piqued his interest (by necessity). I am not a master economist, only an astute observer. I guess that I cannot fully appreciate how difficult it is to cut costs for a roll of (all R&D bugs long ago ironed out) film. Thus said, I seem to have opened a Pandora's Box of influential opinion and objective analysis. Thank you all.
Trendland: You are a master of the emoji. I have never used one in my life, but sometimes images create added impetus to one's thoughts.
However, one more thing to note: C-41 film is cheaper than traditional B&W, although the C-41 is far more complex to manufacture. Why? Because it sells far more rolls than traditional B&W does. That was my point: If B&W takes on a mini 'resurgence' there might be available options to lower the price. Again, I am not being definitive here, just projecting an opinion. My wishful thinking has not gotten me into trouble just yet. - David Lyga
Not wrong about anything you just posted. Spot on....Trendland...accepts that it slowly falls further apart...but I might be wrong...
Thanks for an authoritative response!I disagree. At present there is no manufacturer making any considerable money in producing film and this is with written off machinery, buildings, R&D and training. Competition is as high as it always was. Everyone is afraid of raising prices even though this is long overdue. Every single manufacturer -except us- could easily take on the entire market share of all the others. This would actually lower their costs per piece and enable them to lower prices (which they would not do in a monopoly though unless they are certain about the price elasticity curve). Even more (dreadfull) competition however means that the remaining, much to small, market is spread out onto even more players actually LOWERING economies of scale for every one and calling for immediate PRICE INCREASES (because there is no profit to cut this from).
I am repeating myself but really it´s not a lack of competition. It is a lack of quantity.
OK Mirko - then lets talk about " internalization " of cost of manufacturers!I think it is necessary to clarify once more what my keynote was about because I can see arguments here which point into the opposite direction.
My intention is to put the costs back into the film prices which are currently not in. The idea behind this is to restructure the industry back into the state of a "proper" industry where costs are covered. This would allow for a stable setup for the future because then we have funds to:
- R&D new products (or adopt current ones to impact on the usability side of certain substances)
- Eventually build new buildings and/or moove
- Eventually design and build new machines (precipitation, coating, confectioning)
- Train young people and move on
Trendland seems to favour that the industry stays in exactly the shape it is in, which allows products to be put out at a minimum price with a minimum profit. He accepts that it slowly falls further apart with the people overageing. His solution to the dilemma is to freeze cheap film (as long as it is available).
In my opinion this solution is not appealing to a 20 year old analog enthusiast but I might be wrong.
Mirko
Mirko I am just on your side but the costs you have actualy are currently calculated within your
prices - hmm - it is true !
Be aware of to have sharholders with such sentence!
with regards
The value of any product is what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller. However due to the need to procure materials and make a product there are always up front, investment costs. Then there there on ongoing production costs. For the seller the price they are willing to sell at is the price that covers their costs, investments and returns a reasonable profit. A company with mulitple products may balance some loss making products with others that make a good profit. In practise this probaly happens less than people imagine.
Manufactured products usually have an economic batch quantity that needs to be achieved before manufacutre and sale is profitable. Improvements in manufacturing and control techniques has reduced the quantity of many products that need to made before all cost are covered. For film the major production cost is coating the film base followed by the cutting and packaging. Computers and modrn sensors no doubt make it easier to control the coating process, one it is up and running. The width of the rolls to be coated and the associated machinery are the major manufacturing mechanical investments.
I suspect the Economic Batch Quantity requirements for film manufacture as smaller than they once were, but even so it still requires large quantitis of the product to be sold to make it a profitable process.
That's one of the finest theories I ever heard since Ford [cars are unable to buy cars]!The value of any product is what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller.
That's one of the finest theories I ever heard since Ford [cars are unable to buy cars]!
the simple reason is : The market will not pay!
The stuff Lomography palms off as color film for "artists" at $9.00-$10.00 a roll is more expensive than normal film, and they seem to be doing a good business.The young generation is willing to pay. Look at the price of some rebranded new films.
I do not see the future as black. The young generation is willing to pay. Look at the price of some rebranded new films. We are already seeing a good acceptance with the young enthusiasts and our size is so small that we can live just of them.
But we want all the others to understand as well.
Mirko
John51 you forget your car what was responcible for you couldn't afford a brick of film in the 70th:
View attachment 219929
A 68 Dodge Charger R/T ?
with regards
PS : There must be something wrong from your remind /calculation!
A huge part of the prices we pay here in Canada arise because of the inefficiencies of a dysfunctional distribution system. A significant increase in volume could make the prices paid in stores here a lot lower.
But we will never be able to enjoy here prices as low as the big New York retailers.
Film and paper and chemicals are always going to be expensive to distribute and sell.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?