It's already sad that Kodak has such a death grip on the American market; a monopoly of creative American film photography by a what was once part of a great company.
IMO
It will be a sad day if we're reduced to one major producer Eli
Kodak price gouging
When Foma, Adox and AgfaPhoto does it, for example, I feel it's a long overdue adjustment for inflation.
When Ilford does it - I get similar vibes, because increases are few and far between, but the quality is superb nonetheless.
When Fuji does it - I read it as Fuji shooting themselves in foot. Again. They seem to be eager to have Kodak position: to drop entire product lines to try to resurrect them say a decade later with overpriced product lol
Vince see my last post's clarification. I was referring to buying from overseas and shipped to your home in another country. Cash in Paypal is no more cash than checks that are drawn from your bank account or Paypal backed by a credit card. Other than the Paypal guarantee which is substantial. I would never use a cash backup with Paypal. though At least with a credit card you can complain to the credit card company. Do they stop payments through Paypal?
The contractual agreement between the parties. It actually is a revised version of the previous agreement, but Kodak Alaris continues to own many important legal rights which were paid for with, among many other things, the $600,000,000.00 USD paid to the Trustee as part of the settlement.
Eastman Kodak of course has no infrastructure to do what Kodak Alaris does - they sold all that, and were released as well from the huge financial obligations associated with that infrastructure as part of the contractual agreement that that $600,000,000.00 was related to. Among other things, to take on those obligations they would have to hire large numbers of employees throughout the world and greatly increase their staffing costs. Eastman Kodak is short of capital - there is no way they could afford to take on the distribution burden - a burden which was a major factor in what brought them into bankruptcy in the first place.
The photographic part of Eastman Kodak is mostly not interested in anything but making stuff and selling it to someone else to do all the complex and expensive stuff necessary to get it into the hands of end users. They are a B-to-B manufacturer for everything but some of their motion picture film.
Yes, I understood exactly what you said which said, or strongly inferred, that credit cards are required to buy something from overseas and have it shipped to another country. I was just pointing out that for those without a credit card at all, it is possible to complete the foreign transaction. And, yes, one can cancel a PayPal payment, sort of. It’s possible to cancel the payment before it’s been claimed and there is a process for disputing a payment such as when the product is not received.
For many, especially those who have been in credit card debt and have cut up their cards as part of the process of rebuilding their personal finances (as suggested by Dave Ramsey), alternate means of doing business is something they might be interested in.
Personally, I use a credit card for almost everything I purchase. This is under the direction of my wife, a CPA, who wants the points plus runs the household like a business and tracts every cent by category. Yes, she can, and does, tell me what I have spent on each of my various hobbies at the end of the year), For the nearly 50 years I’ve had a card, I’ve paid it off in full every month and see its use as quite convenient although now the card itself is largely been replaced by paying by phone, even online.
It's already sad that Kodak has such a death grip on the American market; a monopoly of creative American film photography by a what was once part of a great company.
IMO
. No one buys master rolls
I understand those things. But what guarantees to Alaris are there that Kodak can't shut down film manufacturing totally or how much they can charge Alaris for their film if they continue operations?
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to buying things overseas and shipped to another country where you live.
It is an enforceable legal contract, the specific provisions of which are confidential. Both parties are mature business entities with a lot at stake - Eastman Kodak can't afford to do their own distribution, and Kodak Alaris needs the manufacturing. And they both have access to really good, really experienced negotiators and lawyers.
How likely do you think it would be that the contract does not build in protections for both parties?
It all obfuscates an easy analysis of how Kodak prices their film often higher than might seem appropriate.
It would be silly to ship product from Rochester New York where Kodak is located to England and then reship it back to New York to sell it through B&H.
Well I'm curious what those arrangements are even though they're confidential. The problem of course from our standpoint is that it may cause higher prices since they're two levels of mark-up whereas with other manufacturers who handle the distribution as well, is only one. The other question is does Alaris actually ship or does Kodak ship directly to the end user or resellers like B&H photo? It would be silly to ship product from Rochester New York where Kodak is located to England and then reship it back to New York to sell it through B&H. So it seems that there must be some methodology where Alaris gets a percent of the sale price to the retailer. How much of course as you say is confidential. It all obfuscates an easy analysis of how Kodak prices their film often higher than might seem appropriate.
This reminds me strongly of a couple of very heated debates a few years back about Fuji's pricing policies on the large format forum. Of course, the whole thing was inconclusive, but emotions ran high. I'm not sure anyone involves was all the wiser by the end of it. I do know that at least one regular member who used to be active here as well has disappeared entirely, probably at least in part as a result of the whole thing.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is a matter on which we can try to exchange viewpoints, but in the end, it's going to boil down to two opposing views: (1) those who argue that determining pricing policy is at a company's own discretion, and (2) those who feel that pricing policies are (or should be) strongly subject to ethical considerations.
What I've never seen happen in a debate like this, is a comprehensive analysis of how a particular company determines its product prices. I guess anyone who's been involved in this kind of decision making especially in larger corporations or bureaucracies can attest to the inherent complexity of the matter.
Simply put, we're not going to get to the bottom of this one on this forum. Having said that - do carry on, if you feel like it.
Kodak Alaris doesn't inventory stock - they do the marketing to local distributors. Eastman Kodak essentially produces to order.
Kodak Alaris are the international marketing partner for Eastman Kodak. In healthy markets there are multiple distributors buying product from Kodak Alaris, and they compete against each other to supply product to retailers.
The distributors tend to specialize in particular market segments - distributors that sell to grocery stores, distributors that sell to pharmacy chains, distributors that sell to big box and "department" stores and yes, distributors that tend to service the remaining photographic retail market. It is those distributors who maintain local inventories, although in these modern times, there probably isn't much warehousing happening.
Whatever retail business you are in, you can check the prices, and most importantly the minimum order quantities, from a number of competing sources, and make your purchasing decision then.
It is for that reason that one of my favourite local retailers has at least in the past (pre-Covid) bought "amateur" film from distributors that were not focused on the photographic market (drugstores or grocery stores, IIRC), because the minimum order quantities and order fulfillment times were advantageous.
Harman and, if I understand things correctly, Fuji approach it in a different way. They enter into multiple exclusive distribution agreements - one per country/geographic area. They are then at the mercy of those individual distributors, who certainly are in business to add their own profits into the price.
Harman of course is a much smaller producer than Eastman Kodak. Their largest market is the USA. Harman's very existence was threatened when their initial exclusive distributor in the US - Wynit - suddenly and unexpectedly went bankrupt. Who knows how much product was shipped from Harman but never paid for there?
Each entity uses a distribution system that reflects their own circumstances.
Harman does its own distribution in the UK. And in many cases, it is more expensive to buy Ilford products there than it is in the US.
Eastman Kodak does its own distribution of its motion picture products.
Other than those two examples, every photographic film price includes some profit for other distribution entities. It also benefits from any efficiencies or infrastructure that those distribution entities offer. If the UK example is anything to go by, those efficiencies and infrastructure benefits result in lower prices.
Cinestill does - they get Eastman Kodak to make a special roll of a Vision film (motion picture and ECN-2) that doesn't have remjet on it and then contract with a third party to do the confectioning for them. Eastman Kodak doesn't currently have the excess capacity to do that with non-Kodak branded film, and I'm not sure they want to anyways.
Confectioning/finishing costs a lot of money. Just ask all the film sources - and there seem to be a lot of them - that pay Harman to do it for them. Each entity that does confectioning/finishing has its own staff, its own material sources, its own machinery, its own overhead costs, so the cost of confectioning/finishing varies, but no-one in the business considers it cheap.
I said no one buys master rolls. Of course companies buy them - and then they have all the extra cost of frigging around to get that film into saleable formats that someone might buy.
Yes, confectioning costs a lot of money and every film manufacturer has to do it as part of the cost of manufacture. In other words, it's not really that informative to talk about it separately. It's an expense for Kodak - it's an expense for Foma - it's an expense for Ilford - etc., etc....
Basically then, Alaris is just taking a percentage off the top due to the bankruptcy. Whatever it is just adds an extra layer of cost to Kodak film prices that other manufacturers don't have.
…Apple's loyal customers allow it to often get an astounding 45% gross profit margin which is simply amazing. Is that ethical? Well, it is if you own their stock….
Apple's loyal customers allow it to often get an astounding 45% gross profit margin which is simply amazing.
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?