Ilford shooting itself in the foot

[aluncrockford]

I have just been told by my supplier that all Ilford film and paper prices will rise by 30% in February, the company has put the blame on silver prices.
Thank goodness for Adox

 

[PVia]

Have you seen the price of silver lately?

 

[23mjm]

Yea it will be interesting to see id it is true and will others follow. Not much you can do when raw materials shoot up. Wonder how much silver they use and what percent of the final cost it makes up.

 

[Moopheus]

Wonder how much silver they use and what percent of the final cost it makes up.

Didn't we just have this conversation?

Also, for Ilford, I'd imagine that the continuing weakness of the pound makes it worse.

 

[Wayne]

Can we be sure it will happen in Feb and not sooner? I can stockpile film in late January but not any sooner...Just when I'm really getting into B&W because I cant afford color anymore...

 

[IloveTLRs]

Is that price increase worldwide?

 

[2F/2F]

I already quit using most of their stuff because it is just too expensive for me here in the U.S.A. Alas....

 

[hpulley]

Hopefully Simon can set us straight shortly.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

If silver goes up they can't help but raise they're prices.

Jeff

 

[Sirius Glass]

Film, paper and chemical prices go up all the time. Sometimes faster than others. Saying the prices are going up is like saying there will be weather today.

Steve

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If true, I see it as neither a hole in their foot, or a problem.

Remember, Harman/Ilford is one of those film manufacturers who has publicly committed to supplying film for the long term. There will be times - and again if true, this would be one of them - where that commitment will come at a price.

Far better, however, than to watch them slowly and excruciatingly kill off their film product lines one by one after having publicly stated that they had no more long-term interest in the medium.

Be very careful what you wish for...

Ken

 

[ntenny]

I wish they didn't have to raise their prices, but if they have to, I'd rather they do it than not! I mean, what's the alternative?

-NT

 

[alanrockwood]

...Wonder how much silver they use and what percent of the final cost it makes up.

Here is a link to a thread that discussed this question.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here is a post I made in that thread in an attempt to try to estimate the likely price rise.

"Based on the current price of silver (about $1 per gram) and the amount of surface area in a roll of 35mm film (I estimate about 0.055 square meter) and about 6.5 grams of silver per square meter (midpoint of the estimates given in earlier post) I estimate a roll of film contains about $0.36 worth of silver. This represents something like a $0.14 increase over the previous year average price, and perhaps a $0.18 increase over the five year average. If we assume that the markup over the cost of raw materials is perhaps threefold (please supply a better number if you have one) then one might expect the cost of film to increase by about $0.50 per roll. If the markup is six fold then one might expect an increase of about $1 per roll..."

I think the announced price rise is within this estimated range, near the high end, or perhaps just a bit outside the high end of the estimated range.

 

[2F/2F]

Here is a link to a thread that discussed this question.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here is a post I made in that thread in an attempt to try to estimate the likely price rise.

"Based on the current price of silver (about $1 per gram) and the amount of surface area in a roll of 35mm film (I estimate about 0.055 square meter) and about 6.5 grams of silver per square meter (midpoint of the estimates given in earlier post) I estimate a roll of film contains about $0.36 worth of silver. This represents something like a $0.14 increase over the previous year average price, and perhaps a $0.18 increase over the five year average. If we assume that the markup over the cost of raw materials is perhaps threefold (please supply a better number if you have one) then one might expect the cost of film to increase by about $0.50 per roll. If the markup is six fold then one might expect an increase of about $1 per roll..."

I think the announced price rise is within this estimated range, near the high end, or perhaps just a bit outside the high end of the estimated range.

If the increase is 30 percent, it would raise the price of a $4.39 roll of HP5 by $1.31. This is 31 percent beyond even your sixfold markup scenario, if all your numbers are correct.

Call me a pessimist, but I guess that the steady and significant (huge here in the States) Ilford price increases since the company was "rescued" are due to lack of demand for analog products. No company increases its prices that much in such a short period of time unless they are looking at failure.

 

[lns]

Ilford is raising its prices because its costs have increased, and it can. There is no indication of failure. Ilford surely has calculated the impact of a price increase on sales volume, and surely knows what it needs to maintain its profit margin. The lines only run if film is profitable.

I cannot complain about Ilford doing what it needs to prosper. No one has to buy their films, chemicals and papers. Buy what you want. But recognize that Ilford is the only major company that is committed to film. Film, paper, chemicals. Fuji is leaving the business as we speak, and Kodak is too, eventually. Film isn't a commodity anymore. It's likely going to be a premium price product, reflecting a niche market.

-Laura

 

[johnnywalker]

If the increase is 30 percent, it would raise the price of a $4.39 roll of HP5 by $1.31. This is 31 percent beyond even your sixfold markup scenario, if all your numbers are correct.

Call me a pessimist, but I guess that the steady and significant (huge here in the States) Ilford price increases since the company was "rescued" are due to lack of demand for analog products. No company increases its prices that much in such a short period of time unless they are looking at failure.

We've had the 31 % mark-up in Canada for a while now, judging by the price of HP5+ here.

 

[Curt]

I can't blame a company when raw material costs go up. I only have so much money to spend on items so when prices go up I buy less. That's as simple as it gets. When it becomes too high I'll find an alternative or quit. Printmaking doesn't end with film.

The one thing Kodak did for me was to see reality, life without film.

 

[pgomena]

Let's see, at B&H today, a roll of FP4+ is $3.69. A roll of Plus-X is $4.99. It seems Ilford could raise its prices quite a bit and still be cheaper than Kodak. Maybe some of the price increase in the USA is not just the high price of silver but also the opportunity to float their prices a bit higher and maybe make a little extra profit. If that allows them to stay in business, I'm all for it.

Peter Gomena

 

[23mjm]

You might have discused it but I wasn't in on the conversation.

Didn't we just have this conversation?

Also, for Ilford, I'd imagine that the continuing weakness of the pound makes it worse.

 

[MattKing]

It would be very interesting to see data relating the exchange rates for UK currency (vs US$, CDN$ and AUS$, for instance) and the prices for Ilford product in those three countries.

This is one of the sad things about Kodak's retreat from much of the market. Otherwise, with the relative weakness of the US$, Kodak could have benefitted.

 

[Tim Gray]

Let's see, at B&H today, a roll of FP4+ is $3.69. A roll of Plus-X is $4.99.

Tri-X is $0.40 cheaper than HP5+ at the same place. Just so you know

 

[removed account4]

at least they haven't reduced the frames / roll of 35mm to 12 frames and made 120 into 4 exposure rolls.

 

[dnjl]

I'm willing to pay the increase if that helps Ilford staying steady in the market.

 

[Oxleyroad]

It would be very interesting to see data relating the exchange rates for UK currency (vs US$, CDN$ and AUS$, for instance) and the prices for Ilford product in those three countries.

This is one of the sad things about Kodak's retreat from much of the market. Otherwise, with the relative weakness of the US$, Kodak could have benefitted.

AU$ approximate parity with US$. Cost of FP4 per roll 36 in Australia $12.10 give or take and Tri-X is $9.13 also give and take a bit.

I personally have not bought Ilford locally for 20 years. Depending on our dollar I buy out of Germany or USA and still with the addition of freight it far cheaper than the local sources. Even at what I see you having to deal with these hefty price hikes, it still does not come close to what Ilford can retail for down here. Our brothers in New Zealand have an even higher price being commanded on regular film materials.

There has been other threads discussing how and why this is the case, but one of my gripes is that the distributor down here is not bringing in a lot of the Ilford products I use or want to try. One item that comes to mind is the post card paper - it just cannot be purchased down here.

My little rant anyway ...

 

[railwayman3]

If silver goes up they can't help but raise they're prices.

Jeff

Assuming this report is correct, such variances as exchange rates, distributors profits and similar factors are probably a bigger influence than the cost of one base component. However, if material costs rise and cannot be absorbed, what else can Ilford do other than raise the "factory gate" price? They're not a charity, and, if they made continued losses, they would soon be out of business. Our biggest consistent supplier of a reliable and comprehensive range of films and paper would then disappear....as. SFAIK, Ilford has never dropped any major product from its range in recent years.

IMHO, Fuji and Kodak cannot be relied on to produce B&W in the medium/long term, and the smaller players, while they are valued for adding to our choice of the more unusual films and papers, don't seem (if you read reports here and other forums) to always have the amazingly high QC of Ilford.