Shocked at how much bulk TMY-2 costs

[koraks]

Looks like we should resurrect the Doom & Gloom subforum and rename it "Doom, Gloom, and Evil Corporations". What a load of codswallop.

 

[Duceman]

I can get 10 rolls of 36-exposure TMY-2 for $90 through Film Supply Club. Savings (for me) is $0.67/roll over individual cassettes.

What a difference three months can make... what was $90 in March is now $110.

And it appears the online going rate for 100' bulk rolls is now ~$175.

Up, up and away.....

 

[Radost]

Looks like we should resurrect the Doom & Gloom subforum and rename it "Doom, Gloom, and Evil Corporations". What a load of codswallop.

It’s not codswallop.
It is simple math.
If the corporations are applying the cost increases to the consumers, the profits will be in the the same ballpark as before. Not double.
So if the profits are double then the price increases are not just pure cost of transportation, labor and raw products.

 

[Radost]

Also I am always suspicious when so many monopolies are creating the environment for product shortages. Makes price increases easier to pass to a scared consumer. ’
Example C41 135 film.

 

[koraks]

@Radost
There are different ways of presenting an analysis of what you think is going on in a company.

One possible way involves a more or less neutral presentation of observations and an interpretation attached to it. Another possible way is to attach a strong normative judgement to it. My 'codswallop' comment was not so much about the analysis itself. It referred to the way it was presented. I find that an unfortunate, unconstructive and in the end undesirable way of discussing something like this. More so because the analog domain is a small world, and I personally don't believe that poisoning with malcontent and mud-hurling it is particularly good for its sustainability.

As to your analysis: I feel you're oversimplifying matters, which is of course understandable in the face of a complex environment and a total lack of company-confidential data, which you (or I) simply don't have access to. But in simplifying matters, I think you're letting a personal sentiment cloud your judgement.

It's not just you, though. Lots of people complain about 'evil corporations'. It must be very unpleasant to be so angry all the time about the entities that produce the stuff we all rely on.

 

[Don_ih]

"barely hanging on" and "knowing that if they try to pass on all their cost increases, they will lose even more business, and probably won't survive" don't get on very well with "Kodak .. .confirmed that they’re running their film finishing factory 24/7, just to have enough manpower" and so "increased their headcount by 100" and looked to add 75 more people.... (from an article from last year)

 

[AnselMortensen]

If you want to talk 'sticker shock' about the price of TMax 400, go price a 50-sheet box of 8x10 TMY.

 

[MattKing]

"barely hanging on" and "knowing that if they try to pass on all their cost increases, they will lose even more business, and probably won't survive" don't get on very well with "Kodak .. .confirmed that they’re running their film finishing factory 24/7, just to have enough manpower" and so "increased their headcount by 100" and looked to add 75 more people.... (from an article from last year)

You missed the most important word in the quote - "all".
One of the ways to deal with the squeeze that comes from radically increasing input costs is to try to maximize the production from those existing resources - plant, machinery and people - that you already have.
That and to do their best to increase some economies of scale, in an environment where capital is at a premium.

 

[Radost]

@Radost
There are different ways of presenting an analysis of what you think is going on in a company.

One possible way involves a more or less neutral presentation of observations and an interpretation attached to it. Another possible way is to attach a strong normative judgement to it. My 'codswallop' comment was not so much about the analysis itself. It referred to the way it was presented. I find that an unfortunate, unconstructive and in the end undesirable way of discussing something like this. More so because the analog domain is a small world, and I personally don't believe that poisoning with malcontent and mud-hurling it is particularly good for its sustainability.

As to your analysis: I feel you're oversimplifying matters, which is of course understandable in the face of a complex environment and a total lack of company-confidential data, which you (or I) simply don't have access to. But in simplifying matters, I think you're letting a personal sentiment cloud your judgement.

It's not just you, though. Lots of people complain about 'evil corporations'. It must be very unpleasant to be so angry all the time about the entities that produce the stuff we all rely on.

I am a simple man and there is acces to information.
Here is an example.
Kodak net profit is up 11.87% while their cost is down 11.28%
This is 23% benefit to the company.
But I am not a business Person to really understand it.
But any logical person can see Kodak is price gauging while keeping the supply low. 135 cassettes that is because there is a sudden demand.

 

[Radost]

I am not judging it. Just pointing the obvious.

 

[Craig]

Kodaks's number for the film division are not publically available, but Ilford ( Harman)'s accounts are. Net return over the last 2 years for them was 1.7%. That's really not a sustainable amount of return to have enough capital reserves to pay for unexpected things, like a machine failure.

Consider the shareholders could have made a greater return doing something like winding up the company and buying government bonds, it's a good thing for us that they are willing to keep the company going.

Lets be clear, silver halide based technology is no longer the cash cow it was in the last century.

 

[koraks]

Kodak net profit is up 11.87% while their cost is down 11.28%
This is 23% benefit to the company.

You're misreading the numbers. Their profit isn't "up 11.87%". It was 11.87% in 23Q1. Their cost of revenue was down by 11.28%. Assuming the otherwise the same numbers for the previous quarter (not accurate, but let's step aside this for a bit), this means their profit went up from roughly 11% to where it is now. No 23% 'benefit to the company'.

Now for the bit that we stepped aside: you'll notice that their profit in that particular quarter went up by more than 1200%. This means their net income in the preceding quarter was pretty much zero. Zilch. Nada. Break-even. Whoohoo. So they had a pretty bad quarter at the end of 22, as they have had many over the past 2 decades and the first quarter of 2023 they finally did a little better.

If you look at the numbers over a longer timeframe, you'll see they're balancing at the brink of existence. It's a marginal enterprise from a financial viewpoint. A healthy high-tech manufacturing company like them should run something in the order of 20%-30% operating profit so they can keep investing. The way Kodak is currently going is hardly keeping their pants on.

And no, all the relevant information is NOT publicly available, because the kind of numbers you pulled up there paint only a shadow of a far more complex picture. Bluntly put, you don't have a clue what's going on, and that's perfectly reasonable since it's virtually impossible to tell from the outside what's going one exactlym - save for the fact that this whole Kodak thing is barely alive as it is.

I am not judging it. Just pointing the obvious.

Obviously misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, or both. But either way, you're mistaken pretty badly.

 

[Radost]

So their cost went down and the profits went up. Is this a misrepresentation?

 

[Radost]

Cinema roll of color film -36 exposures $4.20.
Still roll of Kodak color film 36 exposures -$18.00
Somebody is getting “forcefully made to participate in a sex act “.
And it’s the consumer.
Nothing to do with market forces.

 

[Radost]

But to be honest my frustration has to do a lot more with Kodak being a monopoly for color film more than anything else.

 

[Prest_400]

But to be honest my frustration has to do a lot more with Kodak being a monopoly for color film more than anything else.

I have mixed feelings about it, considering Kodak has been critical a few times and we are in an age where film has gotten more popular. For some reasons Fuji isn't up to it and yeah, what the heck, discontinued a lot of products.

Kodak pricing has madly shot up in the last couple years in the EU. Mainly OT that I track 120 film, and when Gold was released in 120 one could still find Ektar and Portra at 7-8€/roll which has doubled 18 months later (now). TMax has roughly followed the same trend.

Ilford has had quite a moderate pricing to their range and I standardised on them for my BW. I have not insisted in Tmax but had the odd roll that has been quite interesting. TMX in 35mm is so outstanding that it can rival medium format in some cases.

In a positive note, as Mirko from ADOX described in the forum, pricing was unsustainably low time ago. 8€/roll was deemed for them high enough to cover new product R&D as well as development. I don't have the exact link to that discussion however.

I do understand that it has been an extraordinary price increase, together with general inflation. As my small home stocks dwindle, will put up to them.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Kodak is no longer a huge octopus corporation able to subsidize certain competitive categories. They no longer have huge cash reserves on hand whenever they undertake some significant new project or backlog maintenance issue. All the specialized machinery they need is extremely expensive to replicate or replace. They also need to source supplies in high volumes which they aren't entirely in control of. And the days of an open-ended line of credit are long over, or of Kodak being a hot ticket on the stock market. It's pay as they go, which, in the long run, is often the smartest anyway. And skilled technicians have to be paid more than they were 20 years ago.

And as far as Kodak being a "monopoly" on color film? They didn't choose that. For awhile, Fuji had a monopoly on chrome film; and it was their decision to scale that way back, as well as almost completely duck out of the color neg business. Let's just be extremely appreciative that Kodak is still making a solid selection of excellent color film, while Fuji continues to make superb RA4 color printing paper.

But one person has a grudge on Ilford, another on Kodak, another on Fuji ... They're all raising prices, and there aren't a lot of options out there. I don't like paying higher prices either. But film is just the tip of the iceberg. Mounting and framing supplies have gone up even worse; and one can't blame any of the above for that - neither Ilford, nor Kodak, nor Fuji.

 

[koraks]

So their cost went down and the profits went up. Is this a misrepresentation?

Oh, absolutely. So much so that it's almost comical, if not for the fact that you're probably serious.

 

[MattKing]

About 20% of Eastman Kodak's revenue comes from the division that is related to photographic film. It isn't all photographic related - that is the division that also includes their burgeoning business in other types of coating - like flexible circuit boards and manufacture of other materials using polyester films.
Most - 80% - of Eastman Kodak's business relates to commercial printing. Any global short term financial reports will reflect that business much more than the business we are interested in here.
In respect to the division that includes film, if you compare the December 2022 and December 2021 financial results, the loss for EBITDA and Consolidated Income from Continuing Operations before Income tax went from $6 million down to $1 million.

 

[koraks]

the loss for EBITDA and Consolidated Income from Continuing Operations before Income tax went from $6 million down to $1 million.

Yeah, that's due to the ongoing malpractice of price gouging. It's come to the point where they have nearly stopped giving free money away. It's outrageous.

 

[Craig]

Kodak is a diverse company and if you looks a bit closer at the annual report they are actually losing money on their ongoing operations.

Kodak Alaris, which is the division responsible for film, represents about 6% of their business by revenue. That is part of the Advanced Materials and Chmicals segment and division also lost money in 2022 and 2021.

On turnover of $1.2 Billion this does not make for happy reading:

 

[Craig]

But to be honest my frustration has to do a lot more with Kodak being a monopoly for color film more than anything else.

You never heard of Fuji? They make this thing called Fujicolor and Fujichrome.

 

[Don_ih]

One of the ways to deal with the squeeze that comes from radically increasing input costs is to try to maximize the production from those existing resources - plant, machinery and people - that you already have.

You cannot maximize the production from your existing resources to feed a dead lion. The lion has to be hungry. So, if you are pumping up your productivity, the goal is to sell all of that. And they would not pump up that production unless it was selling. So, what is anyone talking about here?

Well, Kodak is not a struggling company, anymore. It's just not the multinational conglomerate it once was.

They are pricing their products in such a way that they do manage to sell all of them. They seem to have keyed into their market particularly well. And, if you think about it, all those people were buying Instax before - and that, at its cheapest, is a dollar a photo. Instax is the most popular film in the world.

Kodak doesn't need to be pitied. They are fully capable of being reviled for not caring whatsoever about any "loyal customers" - they don't need them. The "loyal customers" were those that, for the most part, dumped Kodak products at the first available opportunity.

But let's not forget that it's just a company. It makes crap for people to buy. Its main interest is in keeping its employees employed and selling enough crap to increase its valuation to keep investors happy. So what it does, how it prices its crap, and what kind of crap it offers is completely and totally its business - and not the business of naysayer nor of unrepentant fanboys.

 

[koraks]

You never heard of Fuji? They make this thing called Fujicolor and Fujichrome.

Except that the Fujicolor stuff is at least partly and possibly entirely made by Kodak now. In that sense @Radost does have a point - it's virtually a monopoly. But this still doesn't put Kodak in a position to exploit it.

 

[MattKing]

Somehow I don't think Don is in the market for my Kodak bomber jacket, or the bits and bobs of Kodak memorabilia that I have around here .