Manufacturers can't offer lower prices ........
It is more complicated:
1) Before the last two KA price increasing rounds we've had double digit growth rates p.a. in the CN film market. That was destroyed by these price increases. There is no double-digit growth anymore. The demand has suffered significantly. Lots of photographers have stopped using film because it has become too expensive in their opinion. And lots of photographers have reduced their demand and film usage because of costs.
2) We are in a very sensible / potential instable situation now: Further significant price increases will result in much further decreasing sales and the end of the film revival trend. For a continued film revival at low(er) growth rates we absolutely need stable or better (a bit) decreasing prices.
3) At the moment we have a de facto CN film monopoly of Kodak. Monopoly situations are always very bad for markets, as they lead to higher prices compared to a market with functioning competition, and to less innovation. The price level of colour film in the market is currently about 10-20% (depending on film type) higher compared to a situation with functioning competition.
Best regards,
Henning
Alan, the situation is not as simple, it is much more complicated in many markets. I cannot go into further detail because of NDAs.
But I can ensure you that there is space for improvements and more efficiency in film distribution in many national markets.
Best regards,
Henning
I'm sure there are. And now that a private investor has bought Alaris, we may see changes.
Unlike most public companies, which are frequently owned by insurance companies and pension plans
I'm really skeptical about that. To me, it looks like a combination of:
* Let's get rid of small-scale / single roll buyers because of the high transaction cost incurred (with Kodak possibly reasoning "when we set up direct sales, we were expecting to be dealing with wannabe Chris Nolans who would buy at least a stack of 50 cans of 400ft with the budget they scraped together using a small inheritance and the generous donation of the owner of Pete's Prep Palace who happens to be their uncle; not Jack Jones living at 50 Aspen Crest in Sticksville, Iowa, asking us to sell him a single 400ft can and 'is there any possibility you guys cutting it into 4 equal lengths for me, please - oh and can I pay COD because our dishwasher died so this month we're a little tight?'")
* Let's move some of the 'rogue' motion picture film buyers who use this for still photography back to our more profitable still imaging films. After all, "those confectioning lines pay for themselves only if we're going to get some good use out of them!"
* Quite possibly: "Let's appease Alaris in their requests to limit 'misuse' of motion picture film for still photography", with Alaris potentially being egged on by the financial targets set with/by their new owners. I can very well imagine Alaris having approached Kodak with essentially the message "it's bad enough that the Cinestill thing is allowed per our contracts, but could you pretty please stop the rest of the bleeding - we're trying to run a business here and you're not helping the way it's been going lately."
Pure speculation on my end, of course. But not entirely silly, is it?
It is a very reasonable assessment. And with the new owners of Kodak Alaris the last three points will probably become more important. Alaris now will certainly make more pressure on Eastman Kodak to minimise sales of movie film to respooling companies which then sell these films as 135 photo film, and by that reducing Alaris sales. This respooling business has become quite successful, with significant volume. Kodak Alaris wants certainly that that competition is destroyed, or at least significantly reduced.
The new owners need to make profit, they need ROI. The less competition, the higher their profits.
But of course bad for the market, and for us customers. I know of several lab owners who have become very critical concerning Kodak Alaris recent pricing policy in general, because they see daily the negative effects on demand caused by KA's pricing policy.
The team at Kingswood Capital Management who bought Kodak Alaris has business experience in depth. The members have gone to the best business schools in America.
Their success will be our success because this posits well for Kodak film availability in the future, one of the recurrent concerns of our community.
Hopefully they're more creative in business than Alaris's retirees.
So we might see better films and better distribution as well as interesting related photographic entrepreneurship. Let's hope so.
Maybe Hollywood Cine film will be made available in single rolls through Alaris so you don;t need to roll your own.
Other film might be made in formats not currently furnished.
Keep in mind that bypassing manufacturers by rolling your own to save a few bucks lowers their sales and opportunities for them to lower their prices as they would be able to increase supply. Per unit costs to manufacture will go down.
I do hope there is a room for something slightly less conventional like former Portra NC, though.
Stop dreaming, Alan. Their is absolutely no incentive for Alaris to do that. And Cine film is ECN-2. There is no mass-volume lab infrastructure existant for that globally . For decades the whole lab infrastructure is based on C-41, and the dedicated machinery. There are no minilab machines for ECN-2.
All relevant mass-volume films and formats are served - 35mm and 120. Sheet film is a tiny niche. In that area there are no significant profits possible.
They will try everything possible to get EK to reduce or avoid selling to companies who are respooling movie film, and selling it to the photo film market. To increase their own profits.
So why did they invest $100-200 million if they have little prospects or avenues to increase the value of the company? If high prices for Kodak film is reducing sales as FLic Flam says, how will Alaris raise prices further and not expect to reduce market share even more? All your arguments are arguments for why they should not have bought Alaris. I just don't think they're that stupid. Time will tell just how smart they are.That means absolutely nothing. Those managers who have run Kodak and Polaroid into the ground in the first decade of this century have also been these MBA guys. Those who are responsible for the big financial crisis 15 years ago have also all been educated at the best business schools and colleges. They were considered to be very clever people. History has demonstrated, they were not.
Look at so many other companies which failed and got into bankrupcy: You will find these MBA managers in about all these cases.
And the current Kodak Alaris managers have certainly also a similar or same educational background.
We don't have a problem with availability of Kodak film. The problem is the price: It has become so expensive that lots of photographers have stopped using it, and lots of others have reduced their consumption significantly.
In poorer countries it has become unaffordable for many photographers. You make a big mistake if you judge the situation only based on the US market. The US is not representative for the world.
The owner and CEO of Flic Film has the balls to say the bitter truth:
Answering the question 'what is the biggest threat to film':
"The price of film, affordability."
They will certainly be more creative in increasing profits, and in exploiting Kodak Alaris kind of monopoly in color film (which was certainly one of their main motivations to buy KA - having pricing power). The chance / probability for higher prices is definitely higher as for lower prices for us customers.
They don't have influence on the quality of film. That is Eastman Kodak's responsibility and business. And as they have no significant competition in color, the motivation / force for better products is Zero.
Better distribution would mean to kick-out unnecessary, price-increasing steps in the distribution chain. But I doubt they will do that. And if they do, they will use it to increase their own margins and profits, and not for lowering the price for end-consumers.
So why did they invest $100-200 million if they have little prospects or avenues to increase the value of the company? If high prices for Kodak film is reducing sales as FLic Flam says, how will Alaris raise prices further and not expect to reduce market share even more?
All your arguments are arguments for why they should not have bought Alaris. I just don't think they're that stupid.
Time will tell just how smart they are.
We don't have a problem with availability of Kodak film. The problem is the price:
The owner and CEO of Flic Film has the balls to say the bitter truth:
Answering the question 'what is the biggest threat to film':
"The price of film, affordability."
Use current Portra 160. It is based on Portra 160 NC-2. Almost identical color rendition, but with finer grain.
Portra 400 is based on Portra 400 VC-2, with a bit higher saturation.
That is all official info by Kodak. But I can confirm it by my own results with these films.
And before, when the price was not a problem, problem was the availability.
I still prefer expensive film to no film available.
I fail to see how that statement requires balls.
Showing balls would be selling Aurora 800 or Street Savvy 400 negative film for $10/roll.
Do you have reference to Kodak’s assessment that Portra 160 colour rendition should be the same as 160NC?
Yes, time will tell.
And I will remain cautious, and I will not put rose-colored glasses on like you, until I see real success from them.
And success means for me success for us customers:
- lower prices
and / or
- additional, good products
and / or
- improved service.
+1.
Your last point: improved service.
Yepp, in that regard Kodak Alaris is totally underperforming, to say it diplomatically: For example Harman technology, with much much less workforce and employees than Alaris, is offering
- two excellent websites with lots of information which are often going beyond their products and product descriptions
- regularly presenting the inspiring work of photographers in detail
- running an own youtube channel with additional information
- doing excellent customer service with the annual ULF programme
- very good customer support if you have questions.
And Alaris in comparison? Next to nothing........
If they at least would offer such services for their extreme high / too high prices. But no, they don't.
Very dissappointing.
It's been recently purchased so I expect the new owners to upgrade marketing.
The old owners were only interested in their pension checks.
When Alaris was set it is was OWNED by the Kodak Limited pension fund, but RUN by the folks who had been doing the same job for Eastman Kodak and it's related companies Before the Bankruptcy. one assumes the fund itself was set up with Professional Paid management.Hopefully they're more creative in business than Alaris's retirees.
Building up such services like Harman is doing would increase their costs. But one of the main targets of investment companies who have overtaken a company is generally to reduce costs and maximise profits.
And there will be no difference with the new owner in that regard. They have paid a 3-digit million $ price. They want their money back, as soon as possible.
They want their return on investment.
When Alaris was set it is was OWNED by the Kodak Limited pension fund, but RUN by the folks who had been doing the same job for Eastman Kodak and it's related companies Before the Bankruptcy. one assumes the fund itself was set up with Professional Paid management.
Sino Promise purchased the photo chemical group and photo paper group from Kodak Alaris. Sino had been the biggest Alaris distributor in Asia for many years. So they should have known the business very well.
But what happened after the purchase? Sino went totally bankrupt. End of business.
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?