Ed Sukach said:
Startling News!!!! I'll bet you are counting your "I win"s, by enlightening me. Do you really think that I am so stupid that I don't know that?
No, I don't think you're stupid. I failed to read your sarcasm. Online communication can be like that sometimes.
However we are talking about future predictions, and I would submit that a "Market Survey", couched as it is, with the understanding that any expansion to predict the future is more "truthful" about its inherent risks than "sales reports"... which in the last analysis are HISTORIES of what has happened before.
The sun came up yesterday, and the day before. This establishes a trend, and although the sun may not come up tomorrow, it increases the possibility that it will. This is what historical values do; establish trends. Trends change, clearly, but usually not without being acted upon by an outside force.
You say that the sales of film are down ... 20%. I won't bother to question that. .. even though I would be interested in the source of your information.
As you requested:
Kodak 2005 Annual Report:
http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/11/115/115911/items/189563/annualReport05.pdf
U.S. consumer film industry sell-through volumes decreased approximately 25% in 2005 as compared with the prior year. Kodaks sell-in consumer film volumes declined approximately 36% in the current year as compared with the prior year, reflecting a continuing reduction in U.S. retailer
inventories as well as a decline in market share.
From the Kodak 2004 Annual Shareholder's Report:
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/corp/annualReport04/annualReport2004.pdf
As previously announced, the Companys current estimate of worldwide consumer film industry volumes for 2005 could decline as much as
20%, with U.S. volumes declining as much as 30%
From the Kodak 2004 Annual Shareholder's Report:
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/115911/reports/ek_ar03.pdf
Net worldwide sales of professional sensitized products, including
color negative, color reversal and commercial black and white films and
sensitized paper, decreased 13% in 2002 as compared with 2001, reflecting
primarily a decline in volume, with no impact from exchange. Overall
sales declines were primarily the result of ongoing digital substitution and
continued economic weakness in markets worldwide.
Fujifilm does not break out their sales the same way - they consider themselves to be three organizations (imaging, documentation, and information systems) and they will only report revenue in that manner. That means sales revenue of digital and traditional film gets reported in the same set of numbers and they don't break them out that I can find. However, they have closed two of their film coating plants - one in South Carolina, the other in the Netherlands, in the past six months.
Agfa? Well, I guess we know where their sales went.
The industry is all over this as well:
http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=2&id=91
Note: September, 2005
New data on film sales was released on April 29 th by Matthew Troy, imaging analyst for Smith Barney, who must wear night vision goggles to stay on top of the industry the way he does. According to Matthew, "EK roll film unit sales fell 40% in the latest four week period (ended 4/16), steeper than both the 28% decline at Fuji and 15% pullback in private label. This was the sharpest decline in sales since the secular decline in film began."
Matthew continued: "EK single-use camera unit sales fell 11%, slightly better than Fuji's decline of 12.5%."Interestingly, he reported that sales of private label single-use cameras for the period were up 24%.
We all know what has been happening to film. Matthew's numbers just puts some reality to it. For the small photo specialist the impact is seen primarily on the processing end, not in film sales. He just orders one brick less next time.
Please note that my previous statements are supported by reality - single-use camera sales ARE up, but the overall trend of film sales is down. This downward trend is for the traditional photographic film in total.
How about bring some balance to the question? This discussion only makes sense as a comparison ... what are the sales trends relating to (pardon the expression) Digital Cameras and Media? I cannot speak with authority here - I have really never taken a great deal of interest in the money-making aspect of camera sales - but I seem to remember something about a precipitous drop in Digital Media sales as well - something to do with market saturation.
Digital camera sales have been predicted to reach saturation point for several years in a row now, but they have not done so yet. The industry reports say that 2007 will be the year - but they said that for 2006 and late 2005, and it didn't happen.
But what if it does? Well, it doesn't mean anything with regard to the lifespan of photographic film. It doesn't mean fewer digital cameras out there, it means a leveling off of sales - a flat market. What does that do for film? Nothing, per se.
Your pronouncements about the logic of some of the assumptions here are interesting - dismissing another opinion with one fell swoop, "Not logical", without any discussion.
When someone says "film sales are increasing" they are not being logical, because it is not true. There is no need for discussion. If they say that single use camera sales are way up, it means nothing - because the category that they inhabit, film sales, are still declining. I can't change the numbers - they are what they are. Unless you wish to engage in a debate about whether or not the film manufacturers are lying about their film sales, it is QED.
When someone says, "Well, I refuse to believe that film is going away," that's an opinion. Fair enough, we all get one, and his could well be right. But it's just a flat statement, not backed by anything other than his belief, as far as I can tell. If he has facts, let's see 'em.
I have opinions, and I present them strongly. I don't understand why others do not present theirs in a similar fashion. I have done the research, I have plodded through the financial reports, I follow the news releases and the news of plant closings and so on - I think my opinions are correct interpretations of the situation with regard to film - in other words, I think I'm right. That doesn't mean I *am* right - it means I believe it, and I have gone through the work to prove it to my own satisfaction. I share my data with whomever wants it - and it is out there for anyone else who cares to read it.
I thought about this discussion today, listening to a radio commentator when a telephone caller asked him about a public opinion poll, where the inference was that only 35% of the American Public agreed with his view of a certain question. His answer: "See - that PROVES that I am right. Only 35% of the people know what is going on!! The rest are totally ignorant, insensitive dolts, not worthy of citizenship!!!"
Translation: "It is right because *I* say it is right!"
What do you think of that brand of "logic"?
I think that brand of logic is silly and self-supporting. I don't think that is my brand of logic. I am not making things up - my facts are checkable. I am making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on what I know and what I believe - we all do that, every day of our lives. However, I am open and honest about what I believe to be true about the future of film, and I invite both criticism and contradiction - you have seen me do so in this thread.
And in the end, time will tell. I don't think I'm wrong, but it's always possible.