How much will Kodak film prices increase?

[NB23]

What a load of bs.
I’m sorry if I hurt you, and I will gladly apologize if you can prove what you are saying.

sadly, photography forums have become economcs forums, management and business forums, opticians forums.

You are probably trying to explain economy of scale phenomena. But still, you can’t explain it well. The real answer is at the competitor’s. Compare Ilford’s pricing of bulk vs canisters. Do you see a discrepancy?

It costs more to create and distribute a roll of Kodak bulk film than it does to create and distribute 18 36 exposure rolls of the same film.
The cost of the unconverted and unpackaged film itself is a very, very, very small part of that - its all the rest of the costs that make the differences.
In Kodak's case, the unconverted and unpackaged film is much cheaper than in Ilford's case. It is also cheaper for Kodak to convert that film into individual cassettes, because of the machinery they have. The distribution costs are higher for Kodak, as are the costs relating to shutting down the high volume 35mm cassette runs and replacing them with the almost hand-made bulk roll runs.
Bulk film from a high volume manufacturer like Kodak is only cheap when volumes are high.
Low volume bulk film from a low volume manufacturer like Harman is likely to be similar in cost to individual rolls.

 

[pentaxuser]

I do wonder if our questions about (a) Kodak prices and (b) their bulk roll premium v cassettes is as much to do with it being perceived as an unfair attack on a once great U.S. company called Kodak as it is to its real purpose of getting a satisfactory explanation. As far I can recall there was a time not so long ago that the Kodak bulk prices at least matched the cassette prices as is true of the likes of llford and Foma today. I do wonder if we would met the same attitude from U.S members who buy Ilford and Foma films if the latter two companies were to reverse their pricing in relation to bulk v cassette and attach the kind of premium to bulk rolls that Kodak attaches to its bulk roll? However none on this may be Kodak's fault,. See below for the Kodak collective "defence counsel's" argument

What I am sure of is that we shall never get to the bottom of this issue on Photrio. Whatever actions Kodak takes will always be defended by most of the U.S. Kodak supporters. Indeed it may not be too far from the truth to refer to them as "Kodak champions". Some people will believe that there will always be good reasons for its actions and provided it continues to make film then nothing else really matters. That belief goes as follows: It is unfortunate that the prices have to be what they are but they are what they are and are justified on economic necessity grounds whether that be from Kodak, the distributor or indeed anyone else in the supply chain. Essentially no-one is at fault. I haven't seen one question asked of Kodak's pricing that appears to be considered valid enough to even "dent the armour " slightly for those who believe in Kodak

I wish those who wish to continue asking questions of Kodak's pricing policy especially in relation to the bulk v cassette issue every success but fear there will be no success. On the grounds of believing in A Einstein' definition insanity I have ceased to repeat my questions and engage in "matters Kodak" in relation to pricing

ITD said that it is possible that Kodak and its distributors know what they are doing to keep supplying film. Fine but if these prices in Europe vis a vis the U.S. remain as they are then I will leave the way open for all sales of Kodak film products to remain in the U.S.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I can only refer back to the discussions many years ago where Simon Galley discussed why the much smaller but much more flexible production equipment that Harman has was of such a great advantage over Kodak's high volume production equipment when it came to current market needs. Simon acknowledged that the master rolls themselves were much more expensive per square meter than Kodak's.
That and Kodak Alaris' comments about how the unit costs of bulk films were so relatively high, due to the differences between the highly automated production systems they have for 35mm rolls vs. the almost hand done systems they have for bulk films.
I have some other information about how Eastman Kodak's converting resources are currently stretched quite thin. To manufacture bulk rolls, those resources would have to be diverted to production of bulk rolls, and that would cost Eastman Kodak a lot of high demand sales at the cost of servicing a low demand market (bulk rolls).
Harman and their distribution network is much better set up to supply the bulk roll market. Kodak and their distribution system is much better set up to sell millions of rolls of colour film. The prices being charged reflect those realities.

 

[BMbikerider]

or maybe they're accurately reflecting their costs and risks involved in keeping and supplying a less popular product? Why ascribe greed or incompetence all the time? They’re just making a living.

Compared to the other suppliers, the one that is still offering bulk rolls of Tri x it is about £60 cheaper. Not only Tri X but T Max 100 and 400 as well is a lot cheaper. The other ones that sell Kodak film in 36 exp are all cheaper and what is more they have it in stock. Yes making a living at who's expence.

Conversely their Ektachrome prices are a bity cheaper.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

or maybe they're accurately reflecting their costs and risks involved in keeping and supplying a less popular product? Why ascribe greed or incompetence all the time? They’re just making a living.

Sadly, those days of "accurately reflecting" anything are long gone. Since stock market has been in the hands of gamblers and speculators for a good couple of decades now, anything goes if it makes a cent on a dollar.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

its funny how whenever the price of film goes up, people either blame the manufacture, kodak in this case, or the retailer. but my retail experience is that the is the distributor, the one usually hidden from the end user, who takes/makes a huge mark up and drives the price up. they always seem to be the one behind the curtain pulling the strings and makes the world frustrated, and do so anonymously.

so while the price is too high for some people, please don't jump to concussions about WHO is to blame. if the price is to high for you, then just dont buy it. I drove a nice car for a long time, then got a divorce and now cant afford the car I used to drive. I dont blame the car manufacturer or the car sellers.

john

yeah, but this is not an analogy to this problem. if distributors were hiking the prices, which are now crazy over the top, Kodak would have surely noticed and put a hammer down, but they cared not.

 

[MattKing]

yeah, but this is not an analogy to this problem. if distributors were hiking the prices, which are now crazy over the top, Kodak would have surely noticed and put a hammer down, but they cared not.

In most cases now, the distributors who deal with film do so as part of a larger distribution network that has little to do with photography.
There are exceptions - Ilford products are either self distributed by Harman in the UK, or distributed through Roberts Cameras in the US (after Wynit went bankrupt).
The network of distributors that handle Kodak products is patchwork at best, and certainly not exclusive. My favourite local retailer has, in the past, bought their "amateur" Kodak films through a distributor different distributor than the one or more other distributors that they buy their Kodak Professional products through - with that "amateur" distributor being one that supplies grocery stores and drug stores with lots of different non-film or health related products, because that distributor offered better prices and, most importantly, lower minimum order requirements than other distributors who offered other Kodak photographic products.
Kodak Alaris cannot legally exert any downward pressure on prices paid by retailers to the distributors they buy from.
In many cases, there is more than one layer of distribution between Kodak Alaris and the retailers. Minimum order quantities (of time sensitive product) are at the root of much of this.
If and when volumes increase than economies of scale in the distribution systems may very well improve the situation.

 

[Agulliver]

The late, lamented PE used to say exactly what MattKing said....that Kodak's costs for manufacturing a 30m bulk roll were way higher than Ilford or Foma's, and that it cost more than producing 18 or so individual cassettes.

 

[NB23]

The late, lamented PE used to say exactly what MattKing said....that Kodak's costs for manufacturing a 30m bulk roll were way higher than Ilford or Foma's, and that it cost more than producing 18 or so individual cassettes.

It’s very possible, but only because of the company’s management incompetence. Not because it is actually more expensive. A textbook case of incompetence in which normal customers don’t want to have anything to do with it.

I can imagine the (pathetic) reasons for it to be more expensive and it has everything to do with a lousy business model and nothing to do with real costs.

Rolling a bulk roll would need its own run. Would need its own machine, in its own space, which would need another worker from the union... and the way it would be calculated would take into account the fact that the bulk roll represents X number of rolls unsold, and blabla.

Are we surprised? The whole Kodak story from the past 20 years is a textbook case of incompetence.

It is the Bible itself, actually.

 

[pentaxuser]

The late, lamented PE used to say exactly what MattKing said....that Kodak's costs for manufacturing a 30m bulk roll were way higher than Ilford or Foma's, and that it cost more than producing 18 or so individual cassettes.

Interesting, are these his exact words in terms of "18 or so individual cassettes " I take it that by "or so" he meant 18-20(max)? Did he say why exactly in terms of reasons i.e. Kodak bulk loading machinery was more antiquated so less efficient than Ilford or Foma and did he say whether it was always thus even when Kodak was producing high volume.

It would look that Kodak's bulk roll costs have since grown rapidly based on BMbikerider's figures At £208 for a 30m roll the cost is now 27 cassettes not 18. If this represents or even comes near to representing the true cost of bulk rolls to Kodak then I wonder why Kodak appears to be able to do nothing to improve its cost for bulk rolls? Maybe they could ask Ilford for recommendations for changing the set-up

What is clear is that if this premium price of bulk over cassette price is reflected in the U.S. we have some U.S. customers who value the ability to make up short rolls as opposed to using standard cassettes very highly. Dare I say it, almost insanely more highly

There is of course the argument that Kodak is more efficient that Ilford or Foma with film volume and producing cassettes v bulk rolls but shouldn't this be reflected in pricing. As a company that may not be out of the woods yet wouldn't Kodak want to gain more market share over its rivals such as Ilford and Foma by exploiting this edge and yet the Kodak film prices compared to Ilford and Foma do not seem to reflect this edge that Kodak has?

A simple explanation of Kodak's set-up for bulk rolls that compares and contrasts with say Ilford's set-up for bulk rolls that makes it clear to all of us in the course of the explanation why Kodak has to charge its bulk roll premium compared to Ilford charging its bulk roll reduction should work and satisfy the doubters that Kodak's plight and lack of bulk roll competitiveness is in fact nothing to do with any deliberate strategy on Kodak's part

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

If it costs Kodak $10,000 USD to switch the cutting, edge numbering and packaging systems over from 135-36 to bulk rolls and then switch back, and they are only doing that for 250 bulk rolls at a time, that is going to add $40 USD to every bulk roll.
Or whatever the numbers might be.
Harman, which is set up to make much smaller runs, won't have nearly the same switch over costs. They also won't have the problem of having to stop production of high volume colour film product in order to produce bulk rolls.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have not checked recently, but the price of Kodak TriX in the 30m Roll was so expensive from most dealers, it worked out to be more expensive than the equivalent number of 36Exp cassettes. If it had only been one dealer then I would say they were being stupid and pricing themselves out of the market, but it was the same all round. At least 2 dealers are now not stocking TriX in bulk anymore it is so expensive.

For several decades Kodak has not been interested in selling bulk film and always priced it so that it was never much cheaper than package 36 exposure 35mm film. This is nothing new. Just get over it and buy Kodak's packaged 35mm film or switch to a competitor.

 

[darkosaric]

To compare: 30m roll of TriX is 189€, and I got perfect working Leica If for 169€ couple of days ago. Nobody should complain that Leica is expensive .

 

[BMbikerider]

For several decades Kodak has not been interested in selling bulk film and always priced it so that it was never much cheaper than package 36 exposure 35mm film. This is nothing new. Just get over it and buy Kodak's packaged 35mm film or switch to a competitor.

To be honest I don't use Kodak Tri X, but there are cheaper alternatives if I want a fast film. The only Kodak film I use is the Colour Plus 200 and occasionally T Max 100. I only got involved in this discussion because of the huge disparity of prices by the end seller. Because of this I in no way blame Kodak, it is down to those who actually sell it

 

[pentaxuser]

[QUOTE="MattKing, post: 2261602, member: 6437"
Kodak Alaris cannot legally exert any downward pressure on prices paid by retailers to the distributors they buy from.
In many cases, there is more than one layer of distribution between Kodak Alaris and the retailers. Minimum order quantities (of time sensitive product) are at the root of much of this.
If and when volumes increase than economies of scale in the distribution systems may very well improve the situation.[/QUOTE]
Will the distribution economies of scale ever account for the premium currently being charged. If none of this is either Kodak's fault or the distributor's fault then surely there has to be nothing short of an enormous change to volumes of a kind I find difficult to believe possible

Even a staunch supporter of Kodak, Sirius Glass has already strongly hinted that the premium charged for bulk over cassettes may be part of Kodak's plan. I strongly suspect he may be right.

Yes there may be no legal way for Kodak to exert downward pressure on distributors' charges for its prices but clearly if it was concerned that such distribution was seriously damaging its market share due to pricing then someone within Kodak would look at how the distribution cost might be improved but there is no sign of this and maybe, just maybe, there is no sign because of what Sirius in effect said above

However it is unfair to keep asking you Matt to keep repeating your argument which those if us not in the "no fault" camp are sceptical of.

I think there is a lack of will at best on Kodak's part to do anything about this issue and so be it. It's pay up or shut time for me and as I said in a previous post I have chosen the latter

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I think there is a lack of will at best on Kodak's part to do anything about this issue and so be it. It's pay up or shut time for me and as I said in a previous post I have chosen the latter

I had a fair number of communications with both Kodak Alaris and my favourite local retailer when the backing paper problems were at their height.
Both were challenged by the realities of the distribution network. And neither of them have the resources to take over the distribution themselves.
As for bulk film prices, if volumes are there, the prices will come down. It is just that for Kodak and the multiple distributors of its products, the volume necessary for that is much larger than for Harman.

 

[NB23]

So what is the reason for kodak bulk film prices to go from 250 down to 125, up to 156, then down to 85, then up to 125$, all within 2019?

The reason is absolute management incompetence, basing their pricing on computerized models, instead having one manager that is actually on the field and which understands its own product and market.

you see, kodak is run by managers that have no clue about what product they are managing nor about the market itself.

end of story.

 

[pentaxuser]

So what is the reason for kodak bulk film prices to go from 250 down to 125, up to 156, then down to 85, then up to 125$, all within 2019?

Wow that's quite a fluctuation. Whatever the reason for this is, it would seem that the various elements that make up the consumer end price such as Kodak's economics of production, distributor costs, retail margins are not as fixed as some would argue they are. It does tend to cast doubt on the proposition : "no-one is at fault because each party from maker to distributor to retailer has little of no influence on what each has to charge

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Silverprint now have 30m Tri-X at £119.

Process SUpplies have it at £111

I note that above supplier, Process Supplies, has the film that Tri-X is often compared to in the Ilford range for just over £68 That's quite a difference for a film that is usually compared to Tri-X Still we can take comfort in the fact that no-one is to blame for this unfortunate £42+ difference

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Meanwhile you are posting here instead of seeing that Adorama has a big sale on Portra 135 and 120 films. Maybe you should spend more time shopping and less time bitching on the web.

 

[removedacct1]

Maybe you should spend more time shopping and less time bitching on the web.

This is excellent advice in almost all situations, not just this thread.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Meanwhile you are posting here instead of seeing that Adorama has a big sale on Portra 135 and 120 films. Maybe you should spend more time shopping and less time bitching on the web.

Excellent advice!! There are always "experts" on the web who know more about marketing, transportation, logistics, packaging, distribution, taxes, duties, and industrial engineering than the engineers and executives at corporations. Here, it is about film. On the infamous Dpreview, it is about anything Leica and anything Fuji.

 

[darkosaric]

I think that discussion on the forum, and different opinions are what the forum is all about. If not - then we can just ask admins to shutdown the whole Photrio, and write on startup page "go buy / shoot some film". I would not call it bitching, I think that any discussion is ok, just without personal insults. There is always ignore button, that I use for some people / threads.

 

[Agulliver]

I don't see anything wrong with a discussion about why Kodak bulk rolls are more expensive than Ilford - which they have been for years. But selectively quoting the most expensive price around (an outlier) isn't exactly helpful. Yes, Tri-X in the UK is considerably more expensive than HP5+ but it's not typically £180. It used to be, however. Perhaps that vendor has old stock to shift. Kodak bulk film prices in the UK did go down maybe 18 months ago? Still not on a par with Ilford and of course Foma is cheaper still - though there's little doubt that the Ilford products are higher quality. Not knocking Foma, I use their films a lot, but Ilford is "that little bit better" especially for pushing.

 

[darkosaric]

selectively quoting the most expensive price around (an outlier) isn't exactly helpful.

Can you show us where in Europe is cheaper? Here in Germany 2 biggest players are Fotoimpex and Macodirect, and the prices there are very high indeed.