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
Kodak price increase
-
- Thread starter Sal Santamaura
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: Pentax LX for parts, or.
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak TMax 400, expired, 150 ft rolls
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale FS: TTH Cooke Series V 12x10 Lens Eq. Focus 16.3 inch
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
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
@MattKing is one of the only people on earth that considers film confectioning and packaging as not part of the cost of film manufacture. No one buys master rolls - people buy already formatted film. And everything Kodak does to get the film into the hands of people also has to be done by Ilford and Foma. Kodak simply charges more. It certainly is an expensive and high-quality product, though - there's no doubt. But it's naive to think Kodak is doing anything less than maximizing the profit to be made (while there is profit to be made). That doesn't make them evil or anything, but they don't need to be defended. It's just how some companies do business. Customers are cows and you feed them and milk them.
Kodak price gouging alerts me, because as Apple - they're setting trends and prices. I know it's due to profit maximization in the setting of uncontrolled Crapitalism and I disapprove of it highly - it's not like Kodak has some unique expenses to cover, it's pure money grab and I read it as such. Kodak gouges them prices quite often - other manufacturers aren't adjusting their pricing much and this makes all the difference in my world.
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
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
Last edited:
Is it "gouging" if the business struggles to make ends meet? Look at their annual reports. I doubt "gouging" is the term to apply here. I'm more comfortable with Don's "maximizing profits", although it's already optimistic to put it that way.
If that was true, by now Kodak films should've easily been 3x the price of other films. Guess what? They are not.
Colour film from Adox (company that we all love) is relatively more expensive that anything Kodak offers at the moment. Adox Color Mission 200 is a great film, but strictly technically speaking, it's inferior to every current Kodak colour film. Yet, it's priced higher than Kodak Portra 160 and went up in price more than 20% since the introduction less than a year ago (and remember, Adox CM200 is currently not being coated, it's simply sold after converting the old master rolls). Is that price gouging?! I'd say it's just business. I really can't blame them, they sell everything they can convert within hours.
And don't forget that because of historical reasons Kodak film needs to bring enough profit for manufacturer (Eastman Kodak) to stay in production and marketing rights holder (Kodak Alaris) to generate enough cash for Kodak Pension Plan.
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.
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?
Here's an interesting recommendation. I use American Express or Visa Sapphire Preferred on all purchases of new equipment. Their card services include extending the one-year warranty by another year at no additional charge. So I basically get two-year warranties. You also get 1% - 2% back on points. There's also some coverage for the first few months against lost or damage like if your drop it and break it. Check their services for complete information.
Of course, when you use Paypal the charge and payment is made to them not the original manufacturer/seller directly. So assuming there is a warranty from the original manufacturer, would AX and Visa extend that warranty by one year anyway? I assume so because it's similar when you buy stuff through Amazon or even B&H.
Everything I've read here indicates there is no death grip. Photographers are going to other manufacturers here and from other countries. Plus they are competing with digital. THey have to price their film wisely.
MattKing
Moderator
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.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I had better buy that 50 sheet box of 4x5 TMY-2 before this price increase! 
MattKing
Moderator
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?
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 656
- Format
- Multi Format
Thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense now. Enjoy London!
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.
To avoid this, drop shipping (shipping directly from Kodak) is not the only option. Alaris could have just a warehouse somewhere in the US / near/in Rochester to ship to certain markets... So, they would place orders to Kodak and tell them to ship to the warehouse in America, Europe or Asia... And from those warehouses it gets further distributed.
(I don't know how they actually handle it, just want to mention shipping it twice across the Atlantic is not the only option...)
MattKing
Moderator
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.
My own experience in business is ethics rarely plays a part. In a free market, supply and demand are paramount. It comes down to what people are willing to pay. 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. But if Apple customers thought it was too high, they would go to Samsung or Google.
Everyone charges as much as they think they can to maximize profits. It's the competition that keeps it "ethical" although "honest' is a more accurate word. If you charge too much, people stop buying your product and go elsewhere.
Last edited:
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.
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....
MattKing
Moderator
Don,
The initial post about confectioning was in response to the references to the price of silver, as if that was a major factor in the current price situation.
Although not unimportant, those sort of individual commodity costs are relatively small considerations, when measured against all the other costs, including the very costs of confectioning and distributing the results. I was responding to what seems to be a relatively common belief - that the generators of price increases are at the manufacturing of master rolls end of the production and distribution chain.
MattKing
Moderator
No, they are doing the distribution work, and if the Ilford example is any guide, they are probably doing it cheaper than if Eastman Kodak had to rebuild the worldwide network and do it themselves.
B&H just got in 135-36 E100, same price as before I bought a 10 roll brick. Shipping included 6% discount using their card.
Final cost to me is 20 dollars a roll. That seems reasonable to me.
Final cost to me is 20 dollars a roll. That seems reasonable to me.
Or if you work there as my son and daughter-in-law do.
MattKing
Moderator
But what is their net profit? Gross profit means almost nothing.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |