Harman Technology vs. Ilford Photo vs. Ilford Imaging...what's in a name?

[mshchem]

It would be interesting to see the boxes labeled (Harman Phoenix, from the maker of "Ilford" brand black and white products)

 

[MattKing]

It would be interesting to see the boxes labeled (Harman Phoenix, from the maker of "Ilford" brand black and white products)

I think Don may be suggesting the exact reverse .

 

[Ian Grant]

I think Don may be suggesting the exact reverse .

Reality is Harman should really own all the Ilford brand names, they are the company Alfred Harman founded, and branded as Ilford. This is a case where law is an ass.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

Reality is Harman should really own all the Ilford brand names, they are the company Alfred Harman founded, and branded as Ilford. This is a case where law is an ass.

Ian

Not really.
But they are the corporation that bought the most interesting parts of that corporation, and have had the most success with those parts, and maintained the most connection with that origin.
And it would be good if they could buy the other parts - or at least the other parts that have the most to do with the original Ilford - and bring them all under the same roof.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I could see them switching to increasing the visibility of "Harman" and using "Ilford" as a reference to their very special, black and white product line.

That would make sense for Harman and for the film buyers. Giving the legal limitations on the Ilford name, that is probably the only sensible way to handle all the legal tripwires.

 

[cmacd123]

I would guess at thePoint of the management Buy-out, the group was very careful to only buy the rights that they expected to be able to use, as do doubt every Right costs money up front that they were a bit tight on (as seen by the sale and rent back of the Buildings)

the folks at Adox were recenty saying that as they have a big chunk of what used to be ilfords Swiss operation, that they can alsoclaim to be part of the original company.

I am guessing that each redesign of the packaging of Hp5 will find the word Harman being in bigger fonts compared to the previous version. if the "other" holder of the trademark dilutes it too much (like repacking random film as being an "Ilford" product) they may want to have the rename as an Option.

 

[Agulliver]

Note that Harman have also trademarked "FP4" and "HP5", and the Harman logo appeared more prominently on the Ilford packaging two or three years ago with a slight redesign.

It may well be too costly for Harman to buy the full rights to the Ilford name from the company that owns it, especially if the other non-B&W uses of the name continue to bring in a revenue stream. The only problem for Harman is the confusion created by the recent "Ilfocolor" film which most non-expert observers probably had no idea wasn't connected to the makers of HP5 and which was sufficiently poor to potentially damage their reputation. There was even some confusion in the run up to Phoenix being launched with people saying "Oh it's this Ilfocolor, I've already seen it"

I would hazard a guess that the trademarking is protecting two of their biggest sub-brands, should the move away from the Ilford name be necessary. Legally speaking Harman is not the company that Alfred Harman set up. They only have rights to use the Ilford name as long as the owner lets them, and as previously indicated that's all up for renewal in 2025. Logically it makes sense for the owners to continue with the status quo as it is mutually beneficial but maybe Harman are hedging their bets.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I think the redesign was in 2018.

New Film Packaging

It's nice to freshen things up a bit. the eagle-eyed amongst you may soon notice that our 135 and 120 ILFORD film cartons have been updated.

www.ilfordphoto.com

I wouldn't say the Harman name was made any more (or less) prominent. Here's the old style, in a photo uploaded to Flickr in 2012:


and the present style with Harman in the black stripe is at the ilfordphoto site:

HP5 PLUS 35mm

35mm, ISO 400, medium contrast, all-purpose black & white film. Ideal for action, documentary and available light photography. High speed ISO 400 Great results in varied lighting conditions Wide exposure latitude 35mm, 120 Roll & Sheet Film available

www.ilfordphoto.com

Where it used to say Harman Technology (sort of 'HARMAN technology') in the middle of the box, it now says www.ilfordphoto.com; and the end panel has @ilfordphoto; that's what I would call the big change, highlighting the web address and social-media identity.

 

[ph]

A long time ago I used Hyfin to develop HP3 and was quite satisfied. i have given up darkroom work and use one of the few remaining silver iodide labs for the rare occasions where i excerzie my analog equipment.. No hesistation when buying Ilford whatever the company calls itself.

p.

 

[BMbikerider]

All this discussion about three company names all linked what does it really matter who owns what and make something we need. If you were to go to the Companies House website and trawl through the names you will be surprised who owns what but it is sold u der the original company name from the early part of the last century. Personally I don't care. I am not a shareholder in any of those 3 the subjects that get folk all wound up over trivia. That's how wars start.

 

[cmacd123]

I am not a shareholder in any of those 3 the subjects that get folk all wound up over trivia. That's how wars start.

I think the discussion starts when someone sees something labeled with a familar name, and discovers that the source is not the folks who the buyer was expecting.

recall that Trade mark was originally a form of Consumer Protection. Fred Smith makes a better tool, and so he marks it as "SmithTool (tm) . paul graves then could not sell a a "SmithTool", and the consumer would have a resonable confidence that anything marked "SmithTool" was made under the control of Fred Smith. Mr. Smith would have an incentive to develop a good reputation for His products.

here we have two firms who both can sell different products under the Name "Ilford". one has proven that they want a Good reputation for their products, and the other sells repacked movie film as usable to consumers, when the consumer is unaware that it will require special processing to be useable.

 

[BMbikerider]

Reply to cmacd123. But we are not dealing with trade marks or individual companies here. These are three individual companies inextricably linked and the new film that has been marketed under whatever name will be sanctioned by the boards of all three so it is not someone adopting the name of a separate rival company to sell there wares. If you don't like - then don't buy it. As simple as that.
Heavens above, why make all the fuss about who makes what? It is probably what we need but is still not in its final form yet and in the words on the press release there is still development to be done. Think about it, Ilford at Mobberley in UK is probably the only plant in the group of three companies that can coat the film anyway. If it had been farmed out to the likes of Kodak then yes there would be a question mark but not when all three are linked.

 

[koraks]

These are three individual companies inextricably linked and the new film that has been marketed under whatever name will be sanctioned by the boards of all three

No, that's not accurate. Ilford Imaging is disjunct from Ilford Photo/Harman. Managerial decisions at Harman don't have to be sanctioned by Ilford Imaging and vice versa. They're unrelated apart from the fact that they both use an Ilford brand name and that there are some legal restrictions associated with this.

when all three are linked.

But they're not. In fact, they're not even three companies.
Harman Technology is a company. One of the brands it markets is Ilford Photo, the one we know of the film and paper. Kentmere is another one of their brands. Neither Ilford Photo nor Kentmere are companies. They're not legal entities. They're just names they (Harman) put on boxes.
Ilford Imaging Europe is a company. It's owned by Chugai (JP) and CR Kennedy & Co (AUS). Its only relation to Harman is through the name 'Ilford', but there's no relationship in terms of overlap of ownership of managerial relations (which tends to come with ownership, obviously).
So they're actually two companies, not three. And the link between these two is weak and mostly historical.

what does it really matter who owns what and make something we need.

It matters to the extent that it confuses people. Keep in mind this thread spun off of the Harman Phoenix thread and over the past 6 weeks there's been several people who pointed out that Ilford already had a colro C41 film, while this was actually not Harman-Ilford. It's easy to see how people can even be mistaken to the extent that they'll purchase some Ilford Ilfocolor film in the expectation that they're purchasing what is correctly called Harman Phoenix.
It matters not as long as you can get your hands on whatever product you want and you're happy with it.
It matters a lot if you're one of the many people with an inquisitive mind who like to get to the bottom of things because of curiosity and not much else. Nothing wrong with that either as long as it remains within legally permissible boundaries.

 

[Don_ih]

why make all the fuss about who makes what?

At least in the context of film, the answer to "who makes what" often tells you what to expect from some otherwise unknown "new" brand of film (like CatLabs 320 - which was Aviphot 200). It helps deal with the marketing fudge.

 

[Agulliver]

Clearly there is *still* confusion over Harman/Ilford Imaging/Ilford Photo. As demonstrated on this very page.

For someone new to film photography, seeing the "New Ilfocolor" film and vaguely knowing that people who make Ilford B&W film have a new colour film coming out....it would be easy to make the mistake of thinking the Ilfocolor marketed by Ilford Imaging is the new film they're seeking....when it's not, and the two have zero relationship to each other. Add to that the tendency for some retailers to be less than transparent with marketing and you're in for a whole lot of confusion.

I've read that relations between Ilford Imaging and Harman have been frosty since 2005 but are thawing. Which can only be good.

But basically there are two entirely separate, unrelated entities with rights to use the Ilford name and familiar trademark on different kinds or products. Many of us here are familiar with the history and are not confused or concerned. Harman do their thing, Ilford Imaging do their thing. It's all cool. But those who haven't chosen to go down the rabbit hole or who are new to it all are genuinely getting confused over this.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

At least in the context of film, the answer to "who makes what" often tells you what to expect from some otherwise unknown "new" brand of film

This exactly. With knowledge one becomes immune to marketing diarrhea (cha-cha-cha). With knowledge you get the same emulsion way cheaper. With knowledge thou art sending liars to rot.

 

[MattKing]

If you don't think names matter, you have never been near a dispute between a franchisor and a franchisee .
This discussion actually arose because of confusing observations about changes that have happened over the years to Harman Technology - confusing because while "Ilford" was the name used, some of the changes referenced were actually changes from pre-receivership Ilford.

 

[Agulliver]

This exactly. With knowledge one becomes immune to marketing diarrhea (cha-cha-cha). With knowledge you get the same emulsion way cheaper. With knowledge thou art sending liars to rot.

You're better armed to make choices. If someone wants to market an existing film in a box with a cute cat on it under a new name at a higher price....I've nothing against that if people know they're getting the same film they can buy elsewhere....and effectively paying extra for the box with the cute cat on it. That's fine if people want to pay it.

But we know marketing isn't like that....they'll do what they can within the law to sell it as something different. Ref CatLabs claiming a new film three years in the making....turned out to be AviPhot again. It's a decent enough film, but I can get it cheaper elsewhere.

And regarding Harman/Ilford/"other Ilford"......at least two companies own/lease rights to use the name and trademarked font for "Ilford" on different kinds of products. Most people probably don't know this. It's an arrangement that has largely worked. But there has been confusion where Harman, who are often referred to as "Ilford" announced a new film which we fairly quickly surmised would be a colour film.....and the "other Ilford" were meanwhile marketing a respooled cine film as "Ilford Ilfocolor" and some people definitely confused the two. The fact remains that everyone is abiding by the agreements made and sticking to their permitted uses of the Ilford name.

At least the Ilford name hasn't yet been attached to a cheap Bluetooth speaker or a bargain basement Chinese toaster or something.

 

[ph]

Marketing people may even try to sell Leica washing-up lquid but serious photographers know that that companys reputation is founded on precicion mechanics and optics, so such labelling excersises are beound to only catch the fashion victims.

In the case of Ilford, only consistent quality maintenance will suceed .It is us, the last members of a vanishing tribe, who can keep them alive by maintaning demand for quality products.

p.

 

[MattKing]

In the case of Ilford, only consistent quality maintenance will suceed .

Which of course begs the question - which entity are you referring to?
I ask rhetorically, because there are a few bandying that name around, and the one I think you are referencing isn't actually named Ilford.

 

[ph]

Quite so, I stand corrected, I did intend to laud Harman, both the original one and its current namesake. The respooler people do not yet deserve attention, AND one should systematically discourage name.camouflage business.

p.

 

[cmacd123]

At the risk of pulling this even more off topic. I got my Copy of "camera" magazine issue 2 from Germany today, which has several very detailed articles on that other firm with a non-masked Colour film "Original Wolfen" sems that that Firm (or collections of firms all controled by a Mr. Seal) only has the rights to the name "ORWO" in Some countries.

the article also implies that the distribution of Original Wolfen products is by a number of firms under various arrangements in different places which might explain some of the issues that have been reported by folks trying to buy their products. this is why it is important to keep track of what firm makes what you want..

the articles are in Issue 2 and the magazine is published by https://www.camera-mag.de/

 

[JWMster]

Personally this is a confused mess. Marketing won't change the name because there is zero brand recognition outside the film shooter's niche and even inside, many buy on price and their own experience - not some virtue made abundantly clear by marketing. Rebranded films by other people come and go like the change of the tides. The few people aware of these things already "know". Until a film company decides that they need to stand out from the rest of the market, advertising a brand name has no value over goign with the flow and letting the buyers figure it out for themselvs. This suggests that at heart, the film market isn't really on the verge of renewed growth where these things matter. When you see this cleaned up for Ilford, Adox, Fuji and Kodak (when is it Alaris and when is it not?), and when you see a brand try to stand out, THEN the film market will have gotten its legs back under it. For now, the "Let them eat whatever" remains. "Cake" is a branded product owned by Duncan (formerly Hines), unrelated to Dunkin' and totally confusing, and yes, the "cake" Marie Antoinette referred to was completely different from what we think of - or so I'm told. Does anybody really care?

 

[BrianShaw]

I like both cake and brioche.