Rollei RPX 100/400 film now more expensive than Ilford FP4/HP5. What gives?

[albireo]

Macodirect now sells Rollei RPX 400 for €6.90 (1-9 rolls) or €6.21 (> 9 rolls). HP5+ is priced at €6.20/€5.85

https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/black-white-films/1864/rollei-rpx-400-roll-film-120
https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/black-white-films/1805/ilford-hp5-plus-roll-film-120

Again Macodirect has Rollei RPX 100 for €6.60 (1-9 rolls) or €5.95 (>9 rolls). Ilford FP4+ at €5.80/€5.59.

https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/black-white-films/1854/rollei-rpx-100-roll-film-120
https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/black-white-films/1792/ilford-fp4-roll-film-120

(Fotoimpex is aligned on the above prices BTW).

According to unofficial sources, Rollei RPX100/RPX400 are manufactured by Harman Technologies in the UK and, at least in 35mm format, the following appears to be the case:

Rollei RPX 100 = Kentmere 100 = Agfaphoto APX 100
Rollei RPX 400 = Kentmere 400 = Agfaphoto APX 400

If the above also holds true for 120 format, then is Macodirect selling Kentmere 100/400-level emulsion for more than the superior FP4+/HP5+ emulsion?

 

[otto.f]

Quite willing to spend 70 cents more for something less hypernormal than the HP5+

 

[John Wiegerink]

Rollei film has always been much more expensive where I live, so it's been my film of choice now. JohnW

 

[albireo]

Quite willing to spend 70 cents more for something less hypernormal than the HP5+

What do you mean? I know and like Rollei RPX, but I've used little HP5. What makes HP5 hypernormal? I thought HP5 was technically a superior product?

 

[albireo]

Rollei film has always been much more expensive where I live, so it's been my film of choice now. JohnW

Here in Europe it has always been less expensive than Ilford - priced somewhere between Foma and Ilford. Seems like this is no more the case.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Since the companies are not connected other than sell quality film products, I am not surprised that the prices do not closely correlate.

 

[pentaxuser]

Quite willing to spend 70 cents more for something less hypernormal than the HP5+

albireo, I think we can conclude that Maco is doing what it is doing because it believes the market will bear the prices and premium it charges for Rollei compared to the two corresponding Ilford films and based on otto.f. 's post there may well be enough buyers who will pay it so it might be a sensible business thing to do.

We keep asking as reasonable human beings: What's the rationale that justifies this behaviour? It is a reasonable question but there may well be no reasonable answer other than the one I have given above

It can be helpful to announce what you have found in terms of the prices differences and get responses, not all of which will be supportive of course but as long as you can live with those responses and take comfort from those responses that sympathise then that is what a forum is for.

Whenever I see such happenings as matters as: price increases I cannot see reason for such as: is Fuji 200 really Kodak?; what reason is there for the Kodak premium for bulk rolls when Ilford and Foma have no such premium etc?; I need to tell myself that such is life

Oh, I should just add that we are not of course entirely helpless. We can all vote with our wallets and not pay the price asked for product X and instead spend the money on product Y.

These days I find that Ilford sells more and more product Ys

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

According to unofficial sources, Rollei RPX100/RPX400 are manufactured by Harman Technologies in the UK and, at least in 35mm format, the following appears to be the case:
Rollei RPX 400 = Kentmere 400 = Agfaphoto APX 400

There is contradicting data on this.

But the basic issue of Harman-made rebranded films being more expensive than Ilford branded ones, at a branding (RPX) that so far seemed intended at the economy side, is surprising. At other brands we indeed got cases where the rebranded films, marketed with a kind of specific aura, are more expensive than the manufacturer-branded versions.

 

[lantau]

Not everyone out there will know the background of film manufacturing as well as active members in this forum do. Despite the decades of propaganda spewed by the big dollar: Markets are inherently inefficient. Otherwise there couldn't be such a thing as marketing.

Some people just want film. They found that the RPX series is working for them and they keep buying it. There are even people, who buy Kosmofoto film for twice the price of the Foma film that is inside.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I'd choose Ilford over Rollei, and if the Rollei RPX is rebranded Kentmere, I'd be right to do so. Rollei Retro 80S is a bit different, so I'm happy to keep a couple of hundred feet in the freezer. I haven't bought much film for years - I can remember buying all the Adox CHS 100 II that argentix had in stock within the last year, and another 500' of XP2 just in case, but otherwise everything was bought so long ago it might as well be free now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I choose Kodak over Ilford unless I want ISO 3200 in 120 film. While my go to IR film is Rollei IR 400.

 

[otto.f]

What do you mean? I know and like Rollei RPX, but I've used little HP5. What makes HP5 hypernormal? I thought HP5 was technically a superior product?

I just don't see very much character, identity in HP5+, that's just my opinion and experience. TriX was a film that had character and had often something that could surprise you, very interesting grain for instance. In the Rollei 400 I also see something special, properties which make that you can recognize the film from its images.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Why the Rollei RPX in 120 is more expensive has maybe to do with the numbers produced. Maybe it's a rather small number, since there is no Kentmere in 120.
Or Harman prefers to sell their own 120 film and therefore asked Maco a higher price?

 

[MattKing]

A significant portion of the retail cost of any film has nothing to do with the FOB at the factory price. Distribution can add a large percentage to the costs.,
And the cost issues are made even more complex if different parties are doing things like labelling.
Macodirect is probably paying someone a more to buy the Rollei product than they are paying someone else to buy the Ilford product.

 

[AgX]

You all missed the OP's point of: "now sells"

 

[pentaxuser]

A significant portion of the retail cost of any film has nothing to do with the FOB at the factory price. Distribution can add a large percentage to the costs.,
And the cost issues are made even more complex if different parties are doing things like labelling.
Macodirect is probably paying someone a more to buy the Rollei product than they are paying someone else to buy the Ilford product.

Sounds as if the devil is in the distribution, Matt. No-one is to really to blame. Maco finds itself having to pay more for the other party that buys the Rollei and it may be that even that party is just not well enough organised/ efficient enough to be able to get it for less. However I got the feeling while albireo does not say this directly he was implying that at one stage Rollei was being sold for less than the 2 Ilford films but his thread has been prompted by a reversal of the price comparison so what I wonder has changed

So something may well have changed but there may well be a reason for this that is of the kind that no-one can categorise as a deliberate act in the sense that it was a free choice to raise Maco's Rollei prices

We must take comfort in the likelihood that when all is said and done no-one is deliberately acting against our interests and pockets as consumers. The same may, I suppose, equally apply to the Kodak bulk roll v cassette price situation where as I recall you said that on a similar basis Kodak has little or no control over this bulk roll v cassette costs that drive the situation that bulk rolls cost more than cassettes on a proportionate basis

In summary I think your argument was that for reasons that now escape me, it is simply that Kodak is trapped by circumstances that do not apply to Ilford or Foma. Again no-one is to blame

It is always nice when no-one is to blame whatever the situation and thus the conclusion has to be that pricing is what it is because of matters outside of anyone's control and I'd like to buy that argument but something inside me still says that it just sounds too good to be true.

I feel it is a little like the current fuel spike affecting our petrol(your N.American gas) and our gas/electric as in cooking and heating. Yes the price increases may be down to that wonderful term that is used to explain a lot of matters, namely "global circumstances" but usually within that complex chain there is on closer examination a few parties that have done well out of it and one party, namely, the end consumer who only suffers with no counterbalancing beneficial effects

I strongly suspect that within any business the above winners and losers analogy applies and I have difficulty seeing why the film up to and including the retail business is any different

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

In summary I think your argument was that for reasons that now escape me, it is simply that Kodak is trapped by circumstances that do not apply to Ilford or Foma.

Just as Ilford is "trapped" by other circumstances and Foma is "trapped" by other circumstances as well.
Low volume, niche industries with very thin but still worldwide distribution are always going to experience price uncertainties, and the problem will be compounded by the fact that many of the customers still remember when those industries were high volume and far from niche.

 

[AgX]

Maco finds itself having to pay more for the other party that buys the Rollei and it may be that even that party is just not well enough organised/ efficient enough to be able to get it for less.

There is no "other party that buys the Rollei". There are only 2 parties, Harman and Maco, unless Maco buys masterolls from Harman, which then would involve a 3rd, converting, party.

 

[cmacd123]

In North america - kentmere is less expensive then HP5, and both are less expesnive than Rollei. since the consensus is that Rollei is not any better than Kentmere, the lower price one is what I mainly use.

now it may be that Rollei is aware that their supplier is planning a price increase, and perhaps has already paid them the higher price on the last batch they ordered, with the other brands to announce a change later in the year.

 

[pentaxuser]

So looking at your #17,Matt, it would appear that none of the film makers are to blame so do we look elsewhere for the parties in whose hands any increases or in this case reversals of the retail price relationships between Maco's Rollei and its 2 Ilford films' prices exist

Where do we find who is responsible or it is simply that in the whole of the film sphere no-one or no single party can be held responsible for price rises? If so is this true for all price rises i.e. there is no price gouging when an opportunity is presented and the "hidden hand", lets call it governs all market actions. No parties in this great free enterprise economy ever seeks to exploit its position or take any opportunities to take advantage of what it sees as a position of opportunity for itself

It might be that I see business in a less rosier light than you do

AgX it appears that relationships between the parties in the case in question may be more complicated. Matt sees distribution as being a large player in all of film retail pricing. As I understand Matt's position the web involved here under the title of "distribution" is one in which we may not be see all the machinery or how it works but it is clearly a large part of how the final price is arrived at. In my world there is likely to be some attempt by parties to exploit their positions at the expense of others. In Matt's world there may not or at least not in the "film world" in the broadest sense of the word

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

So when I buy film, I am not responsible for the prices, right?

 

[MattKing]

Way back in the day, all the main film suppliers did some or all of their own distribution, and in large portions of the world the price that retailers paid for the film was a catalogue price that included shipping (provided that they bought a fairly reasonable minimum quantity).
As a result, the two entities that controlled the prices were the manufacturer and the retailer.
Now, outside of Eastman Kodak motion picture films, there are very few instances where the manufacturer also does the distribution - Ilford/Harman in the UK being an exception. I expect though that in both of those cases, there are substantial shipping costs involved. The Eastman Kodak minimum order quantities seem reasonable - in motion picture film terms - and I don't know what Harman's minimum order quantity requirements are. If they are high, that may mean a significant number of retailers are doing what they are forced to do with Kodak still films - pay higher prices, but make smaller orders.
pentaxuser talks about "blame" for prices, and refers to price gouging.
There just isn't any margin for price gouging - not in a world where most are buying over the internet. If one retailer adds a few cents to the price, like lemmings people move over to the next.
I understand why some might wish there was lots of room to lower prices at retail (or at the manufacturer) for a commodity like film, but it will only happen if there a large increases in volume combined by the return of some of the efficiencies and economies that used to be present - particularly in the areas like shipping costs and availability of core components.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why would anyone use “Rollei” film anyway?

Because Rollei makes the best high quality IR film. Their other films are probably quite good, I just have not used them. Other than not liking the prices do you have a real complaint about Rollei?

 

[MattKing]

Because Rollei makes the best high quality IR film. Their other films are probably quite good, I just have not used them. Other than not liking the prices do you have a real complaint about Rollei?

Rollei is just a brand name - no Rollei manufactured items remain.
Of course, you can say the same about Ilford .

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rollei is just a brand name - no Rollei manufactured items remain.
Of course, you can say the same about Ilford .

Tomato, tomotoe, potatoe, pototo, ... I am willing to pay money for good film products. If people are so upset about price rises how come they never say anything positive about price reductions? They are too busy hoarding to tell the rest of us.