naturephoto1
Allowing Ads
Dinesh said:
Dinesh,
That might be pushing it, but Robert may put you up for a visit.
Robert, You beat me to the punch line.
Rich
Dinesh said:I don't believe it Robert. In fact if you want to prove it, buy me a ticket to Oahu, put me up in a fancy hotel, take me out shooting and then on the last day show me her store
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?Wigwam Jones said:I didn't say 'market surveys'. I said sales reports. As to whether or not anything is more important than sales, you'd have to ask that to the shareholders. I'd suggest that profits are the most important thing to them, and sales drive profits in the sense that if you haven't any sales, you probably haven't any profits. Companies without profits tend to absent themselves from the marketplace.
dolande said:I hate myself for reading this thread for the past 3 weeks.
MurrayMinchin said:I've commited myself to reading every 20th page
Murray
DBP said:The last year I have been able to find worldwide figures for is 2001, in which sales totalled 3.12 billion rolls, plus .37 billion single use cameras. If we assume sales reductions of 20% per year from 2001 to 2016, the figure that Wiggy keeps citing, then this year the market will be 1.1 billion rolls and in 2009 the market will be over half a billion rolls. I believe that for Wiggy to be correct all of those will have to be black and white and all the producers will have to decide to walk away from a 2016 market of 120 million rolls. I don't know what the minimum economic order quantity is for an emulsion, though I'm sure PE does (and probably can't tell us). But I sincerely doubt it is anywhere close to a million rolls, which is, after all, over two hectares of emulsion, or about 5 acres. So i think there will be a manageable market for a long time, even if sales do continue to decline at 20% per year, which I doubt.
Ed Sukach said:I would be interested in the source of your information.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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%
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
Wigwam Jones said:(snip) And in the end, time will tell.
DBP said:The last year I have been able to find worldwide figures for is 2001, in which sales totalled 3.12 billion rolls, plus .37 billion single use cameras. If we assume sales reductions of 20% per year from 2001 to 2016, the figure that Wiggy keeps citing, then this year the market will be 1.1 billion rolls and in 2009 the market will be over half a billion rolls. I believe that for Wiggy to be correct all of those will have to be black and white and all the producers will have to decide to walk away from a 2016 market of 120 million rolls. I don't know what the minimum economic order quantity is for an emulsion, though I'm sure PE does (and probably can't tell us). But I sincerely doubt it is anywhere close to a million rolls, which is, after all, over two hectares of emulsion, or about 5 acres. So i think there will be a manageable market for a long time, even if sales do continue to decline at 20% per year, which I doubt.
BrianShaw said:Now there's a great bottom line. That's what I'm waiting for.. time to tell. There is no better validation of a theory/hypothesis/prediction than that!
Agfa closed their doors because they couldn't remain competitive in the shrinking market. In other words, there is no longer room for three big lions and they couldn't compete with Fuji and Kodak. Survival of the fittest. But somebody will survive even if a fraction of their size today. There is a market for film that is $10/roll.Wigwam Jones said:Agfa Photo did not close their doors because they could not sell roll one. They closed their doors because they could not afford to sell film at the rate they were selling it. There is always a point at which it is no longer profitable to manufacture a product, and a that point, the manufacturer generally ceases to make it. No one intentionally 'rides it into the ground' down to sales quantity zilch. They get out while they still have inventory they can clear.
MikeM1977 said:Agfa closed their doors because they couldn't remain competitive in the shrinking market. In other words, there is no longer room for three big lions and they couldn't compete with Fuji and Kodak. Survival of the fittest. But somebody will survive even if a fraction of their size today. There is a market for film that is $10/roll.
Photo Engineer said:I wish you well, but I suggest that you abandon this thread or prove my worst fears about your motives or mental state or both.
You took that as something else? I can only say, !!!!!Wigwam Jones said:No, I don't think you're stupid. I failed to read your sarcasm. Online communication can be like that sometimes.
Another astounding revelation!!! More astounding still would be a situation where there were NO outside influences. Consider clouds.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.
As you requested:
Kodak 2005 Annual Report:....
Here we go again ... WHAT "Industry Reports"?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.
Arrgghhh!! Just as I was going to abandon this infernal keyboard and get to my darkroom...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.
Other than, "I thought we were", possibilities: Discretion! Tact. Pausing to consider someone else's opinion. Frustration. The presence of nude models in the studio. Pending darkroom work (!!)I have opinions, and I present them strongly. I don't understand why others do not present theirs in a similar fashion.
Yes - but not directly. Mostly with their images - but I've met a few who were ACCOMPLISHED photographers.copake_ham said:Hey Ed, does that "pending darkroom work" have anything to do with the nude model?
Black Dog said:Well, all any of us can do is offer an opinion (unless we have inside knowledge of course). But clearly some are more accurate than others:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
PS- a little knowledge is an even more dangerous thing
I'll be darnded. I always thought they were financial documents submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (Form 10-K for publicly traded companies) or to the IRS (Form 1120 for privately held companies). And that that had to account for sales and expenses according to procedures established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. And that these reports are submitted under oath. Et cetera.Ed Sukach said:"... Annual reports are PR - Sales documents, calculated to present the top management of a given corporation in the BEST (not necessarily the most honest - in fact, very rarely, honest) light possible. They are, to a great extent, salary reviews, written by top management FOR top management. Example: 'Our losses were far less than (we) predicted; we only lost $2 billion, instead of $5 billion, so we have decided to give ourselves a 200% salary increase, along with astronomical bonuses to celebrate the " + $3 billion in savings" figure'.
They also are the media for justifying top management decisions, some REALLY strange ... often bereft of the slightest traces of logic whatsoever.
I thought EVERYONE knew that..."
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?