The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control

[138S]

101: you are not a charity, charge as much as possible.

In the MBA I was teached that optimal strategy is not that one.

Look, Jeff Bezos and ex-wife are not that rich because of "charging as much as possible".

Best is not charging as much as possible but what it's optimal for highest profits in the long term, or for the short term if you need urgent cash to survive.

A retailer has relatively moderate fixed costs, so mostly it's about maximizing (sells x profit_per_sell) variable, but there are nuances: A retailer may lower price to sell more and to purchase goods cheaper from volume discount... many factors go to formulas and a theoric optimal price is calculated, that price is fine adjusted depending on practical factors, like products expiring, offers in the competition or key operations, but usually it is not "the highest as possible", if speaking about an important operator.

A manufacturer is a different case, E. Kodak has stratospheric fixed costs and retail price has to ensure a large volume of sells, so an important manufacturer needs to control what retail price will be effective and what margin each step in the supply chain will enjoy. I looks that EK is not controlling that...

Going back to Kodak, Alaris and E.Kodak have opposite interests, Alaris wants highest margin in the short term, while E. Kodak requires long term volumes to make trusted investments in the manufacturing plant and etc, and to distribute fixed costs to more produced units so own product are the most competitive possible.

For this reason K Alaris vs Eastman K may have an explosive relationship. Probably that exclusivity agreement was made under the suposition that film had to dispear in a few years anyway, but now film is profitable and EK is captive from the exclusivity rights Alaris holds, while Alaris is crashed, for sell, pumping more cash to KPP2 thans it can, with insane debt and sporting a contractive market policy that is to seriously harm EK.

A good reference for anybody interested:

We have very few choices left in color sheet film to play off against each other.

Drew, I've none yet, like many other, Kodak/Fuji LF prices are prohibitive in the EU, way more than in the USA, so as I explained before I've a single non sheet choice, 120 roll film back: 6x12cm, 6x17, 6x9... "6 x Something" !!!

And to hell with color sheets, sadly.

I have a frozen/sealed haven of 50 8x10" CDU-II sheets and one day I'll enlarge best MF velvias, for the rest , 120...

 

[koraks]

A good reference for anybody interested:

With all due respect, but MBA's generally do a pretty poor job at explaining industrial evolution and in particular the dynamics of niche industries that are at the end of their lifecycle. The problem is in the boundary conditions, which are really very different for mature/plateau industries than they are for dwindling ones. In that sense Drew's remark is actually closer to reality, even though it's a simplification of matters.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

In the MBA I was teached that optimal strategy is not that one.

Look, Jeff Bezos and ex-wife are not that rich because of "charging as much as possible".

Best is not charging as much as possible but what it's optimal for highest profits in the long term, or for the short term if you need urgent cash to survive.

A retailer has relatively moderate fixed costs, so mostly it's about maximizing (sells x profit_per_sell) variable, but there are nuances: A retailer may lower price to sell more and to purchase goods cheaper from volume discount... many factors go to formulas and a theoric optimal price is calculated, that price is fine adjusted depending on practical factors, like products expiring, offers in the competition or key operations, but usually is not the highest as possible, if speaking about an important operator.

A manufacturer is a different case, E. Kodak has stratospheric fixed costs and retail price has to ensure a large volume of sells, so an important manufacturer needs to control what retail price will be effective and what margin each step in the supply chain will enjoy. I looks that EK is not controlling that...

Going back to Kodak, Alaris and E.Kodak have opposite interests, Alaris wants highest margin in the short term, while E. Kodak requires long term volumes to make trusted investments in the manufacturing plant and etc, and to distribute fixed costs to more produced units so his product is the most competitive possible.

For this reason K Alaris vs Eastman K may have an explosive relationship. Probably that exclusivity agreement was made under the suposition that film had to dispear in a few years anyway, but now film is profitable and EK is captive from the exclusivity rights Alaris holds, while Alaris is crashed, for sell, pumping more cash to KPP2 thans it can, with insane debt and sporting a contractive market policy that is to seriously harm EK.

A good reference for anybody interested:

View attachment 241493




Drew, I've none yet, like many other, Kodak/Fuji LF prices are prohibitive in the EU, way more than in the USA, so as I explained before I've a single non sheet choice, 120 roll film back: 6x12cm, 6x17, 6x9... "6 x Something" !!!

And to hell with color sheets, sadly.

we will have to agree to disagree. All products start at a high price and settle down at what the market will bear over time. If you want to test the market or reset the settled price, jack the price way up, then gradually lower it over time. What the market will bear is the definition of charging as much as possible.

 

[138S]

we will have to agree to disagree. All products start at a high price and settle down at what the market will bear over time. If you want to test the market or reset the settled price, jack the price way up, then gradually lower it over time. What the market will bear is the definition of charging as much as possible.

It depends, if you are your company size is the one you want then charge what the market bears.

...if you want to grow then you have to expand your market, you make an agressive policy to grow in sells, and if you have luck you'll make more profits from increase in sells, from scale in the purchases, from the higher stock rotation and from more efficient fixed costs.

For you it's a choice, because you are a retailer, for EK it isn't a choice, a manufacturer like that require increasing volume to be more competitive or even to survive. For this reason Alaris are harming them, IMO.

With all due respect, but MBA's generally do a pretty poor job at explaining industrial evolution and in particular the dynamics of niche industries that are at the end of their lifecycle. The problem is in the boundary conditions, which are really very different for mature/plateau industries than they are for dwindling ones. In that sense Drew's remark is actually closer to reality, even though it's a simplification of matters.

There are good and bad MBAs. Some are only able to make profit from social destruction, some are genious. An MBA does not make a good empreneteur, but it provides powerful analytic and mental tools to those that have to play hard in the business, let me recommend again that particular book, it is as a good advice as P. Davis's BTZS, it says how things do work, for example it tells why CPB (counter productive behaviour) produces an instant firing in best corporations, it explains quite interesting things... You will learn how succesful corporations and business are. $25, IIRC

 

[Adrian Bacon]

It depends, if you are your company size is the one you want then charge what the market bears.

...if you want to grow then you have to expand your market, you make an agressive policy to grow in sells, and if you have luck you'll make more profits from increase in sells, from scale in the purchases, from the higher stock rotation and from more efficient fixed costs.

that only works if the market is very large and you’re not already selling to everybody in it. sheet film is not a large market, nor is it growing at a substantial pace. If anything, it is shrinking and dying.

 

[138S]

that only works if the market is very large and you’re not already selling to everybody in it. sheet film is not a large market, nor is it growing at a substantial pace. If anything, it is shrinking and dying.

YMMV:



If you review LF pricing policies you will find 3 different strategies there played by 4 different competitors, every player has a different point view for different reasons.

Disclaimer, next is only my opinion

My interpretation is that both Fuji and Kodak have wrong strategies, those prices bring sales to ground zero, it's an optimal strategy to close a product line, just squeezing last drop from present captive customers and say good bye, they don't have faith in the product, rookie marketing officiers in command not knowing what is a LF camera or a LF artist.

Ilford instead has been playing fairly well in recent times, developing an strong customer fidelization to ensure future sells and product survability.

Foma plays hard, they have seen ilford's success and they want to sell Foma photopaper that BTW it's pretty good. That sheet price is an strong bet for a product that can be excellent for 8x10", as it has a nice latitude while other concerns are less important in that format, so my view is that serving LF at pure ex-factory + regular_margin based price may allow them an strong position. 8x10 is the king size, having artists using their product will allow them to build prestige and fidelity, and paper sells.

-----

See what we do have with kodak, a monster corporation with a crashed distributor holding exclusivity. Probably today good lessons are not learned from Kodak or Fuji, small companies do understand better the present market.

 

[koraks]

There are good and bad

Absolutely, and most of them are in between. But none of them are really in depth; an MBA just isn't intended for it. It's an introduction to management science for practioners, after all.

I had a look at the table of contents of the book and it looks nice. It's basically a 101 of some of the things we got back in the first two years of university. Then of course we dived in a little deeper and I went in deeper still in some aspects during my PhD (innovation mgt.) and I'm still learning every day when teaching bachelor, master, PhD and MBA students!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

YMMV:

View attachment 241494

If you review LF pricing policies you will find 3 different strategies there played by 4 different competitors, every player has a different point view for different reasons.

Disclaimer, next is only my opinion

My interpretation is that both Fuji and Kodak have wrong strategies, those prices bring sales to ground zero, it's an optimal strategy to close a product line, just squeezing last drop from present captive customers and say good bye, they don't have faith in the product, rookie marketing officiers in command not knowing what is a LF camera or a LF artist.

Ilford instead has been playing fairly well in recent times, developing an strong customer fidelization to ensure future sells and product survability.

Foma plays hard, they have seen ilford's success and they want to sell Foma photopaper that BTW it's pretty good. That sheet price is an strong bet for a product that can be excellent for 8x10", as it has a nice latitude while other concerns are less important in that format, so my view is that serving LF at pure ex-factory + regular_margin based price may allow them an strong position. 8x10 is the king size, having artists using their product will allow them to build prestige and fidelity, and paper sells.

-----

See what we do have with kodak, a monster corporation with a crashed distributor holding exclusivity. Probably today good lessons are not learned from Kodak or Fuji, small companies do understand better the present market.

I’m tired of this discussion and leaving. You don’t seem to understand that unless the manufacturer sells directly to the public, what price they charge has very little to do with what price you see at retail. Your pricing spreadsheet isn’t even accurate unless you have the actual prices the various distributors get directly from the manufacturer. Every time the manufacturer changes the price, the distributors and retail segment will generally use that as an opportunity to reset the price to what the market will bear. This is a fact of life. Not everyone does that, but failure to do so generally results in making even less money than you were previously making, which by the way, for film products, is already next to nothing.

also, not to throw Ilford under the bus, but they’ve been raising prices, they just haven’t been announcing it. At least once a year they raise the price at least a few percentage points of almost everything. So, what do you prefer little frog? The pot gradually getting warmer over time or a huge temperature jump? Either way you get cooked.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Adrian. I think you're overgeneralizing a bit. Sheet film itself has several distinct niches which seem to be going different directions somewhat. There is something of a revival of interest in black and white printing, which is relatively simple, and not even terribly expensive where sheet film itself is concerned, especially in 4x5, which is ample for most practitioners. Then you've got a certain number of hardcore ULF shooters willing to spend quite a bit of money per shot, but with overall small volume demand except for special size film cuts. Color film is an entirely different category, especially larger than 4x5. Less people still print color in the darkroom due to the convenience of inkjet, though I still do, and it's obviously a much more complicated product to manufacture. An interesting litmus test will be whether or not Kodak manages to successfully enter the Chrome sheet film business again, but they are otherwise the critical player if color neg sheet film is to continue to exist. I see no reason why it would become outright extinct anytime soon except for the fact we're now dependent on a single source with a less than ideal track record of market consistency. Digital options simply don't fill the same niche - apples vs oranges. But there might indeed be a point at which color 8x10 simply gets so expensive that it becomes limited to custom pre-ordered cuts. As long as 4x5 is still around, other sizes can still be cut on sufficient demand. Sorry to see you drop out of the discussion, but you've made your point, and it's obviously valid. But I'm in the trenches trying to figure out how to keep purchasing 8x10 color myself. But I might just coast on what I already have in my freezer until I'm too old to consider 8x10 a realistic field option.

 

[Luckless]

Look, Jeff Bezos and ex-wife are not that rich because of "charging as much as possible".

But they are... Their business goal has consistently been to minimize overhead, maximize turn around, and shift costs off onto others as much as possible, all with the aim to reduce competition by means of having the size and volume to run a tighter per-sale ship than smaller vendors can.

And they do that while charging as much as they can while still meeting their other goals. They're clearly not minimizing prices out of the goodness of their hearts to maximize the overall social good in the world...

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian. I think you're overgeneralizing a bit. Sheet film itself has several distinct niches which seem to be going different directions somewhat. There is something of a revival of interest in black and white printing, which is relatively simple, and not even terribly expensive where sheet film itself is concerned, especially in 4x5, which is ample for most practitioners. Then you've got a certain number of hardcore ULF shooters willing to spend quite a bit of money per shot, but with overall small volume demand except for special size film cuts. Color film is an entirely different category, especially larger than 4x5. Less people still print color in the darkroom due to the convenience of inkjet, though I still do, and it's obviously a much more complicated product to manufacture. An interesting litmus test will be whether or not Kodak manages to successfully enter the Chrome sheet film business again, but they are otherwise the critical player if color neg sheet film is to continue to exist. I see no reason why it would become outright extinct anytime soon except for the fact we're now dependent on a single source with a less than ideal track record of market consistency. Digital options simply don't fill the same niche - apples vs oranges. But there might indeed be a point at which color 8x10 simply gets so expensive that it becomes limited to custom pre-ordered cuts. As long as 4x5 is still around, other sizes can still be cut on sufficient demand. Sorry to see you drop out of the discussion, but you've made your point, and it's obviously valid. But I'm in the trenches trying to figure out how to keep purchasing 8x10 color myself. But I might just coast on what I already have in my freezer until I'm too old to consider 8x10 a realistic field option.

I haven’t left just yet... yes, I am oversimplying it a bit, I was trying to make a point and not get tangled up in smaller details.

with regards to 8x10 color film (or any film in general) since you’re relatively local to me, I can probably save you shipping costs if you ever want to piggy back on one of my orders. We can discuss details via pm if that’s something you’re interested in.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Check prices in all main distributors if you want, B&H, Adorama, Amazon, Fotoimpex, Maco... You will find everywere exactly the same ratios for rolls vs sheets for the same manufacturer:

Kodak/Fuji: 200% to 300%

Ilford: Around 120%

Foma: Under 70%

Also, see attached PDF and bellow with extensive US price information I collected some time ago (2017), exactly same pattern. One thing changed if 2017 ilford was selling shets a bit cheaper that rolls, today they have a 120% price in the EU, compared to rolls:

View attachment 241506 View attachment 241507

That 2020 table is in the EU (in €), about films that can be compared at Fotoimpex only, a bit incomplete because they don't have all sheet products:

View attachment 241510

In all markets, before and after the +30% price increase, always LF overprice is related to the particular manufacturer's policy, no doubt, it's the manufacturer's policy, nothing else






tired or not tired... this is not a 10% up and down, this is twice the overprice or not, you have no argument for that, leave now and you won't need to admit those facts.




Amazon does many things well, but Alibaba and AliExpress are even better concepts, in the future we'll see why, I guess.

Sigh.... those are retailers, not distributors. Again, you are comparing retail prices. There’s a whole other level of sellers that those guys generally buy from, and those sellers are the ones that have distribution agreements with the manufacturers and receive manufacturing price lists. From there, they set the wholesale prices that retailers pay, and then retailers set their prices from there. Every time the manufacturer changes their price, the distributors and retailers will generally reset the settled market price in an attempt to get more money. Unless you have an actual manufacturing price list supplied to one of those distributors (not retailers), you don’t actually know what the manufacturer is charging.

 

[138S]

Unless you have an actual manufacturing price list supplied to one of those distributors (not retailers), you don’t actually know what the manufacturer is charging.

Adrian, of course...

What we see is that some manufacturers always have sheets much more expensive than rolls (per surface), and other manufacturers not, and in the same retailer. I guess this is a fact.

Still something has changed, in 2017 ilford sheets were cheaper than rolls, today sheets sheets have the 120% of the rolls price.

I the other hand and in the USA Kodak, compared to the 2017 situation, has moderated sheet film overprice for the US market, specially for TMY, but not in the UE

 

[MattKing]

By using the Ignore function, I've managed to turn my viewing this thread into a truly Monty Pythonesque experience.
I thank you all!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

By using the Ignore function, I've managed to turn my viewing this thread into a truly Monty Pythonesque experience.
I thank you all!

Lol... I’m trying to leave

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian, of course...

What we see is that some manufacturers always have sheets much more expensive than rolls (per surface), and other manufacturers not, and in the same retailer. I guess this is a fact.

Still something has changed, in 2017 ilford sheets were cheaper than rolls, today sheets sheets have the 120% of the rolls price.

I the other hand and in the USA Kodak, compared to the 2017 situation, has moderated sheet film overprice for the US market, specially for TMY, but not in the UE

again, the pricing you see at retail has more to do with stock levels and how fast a given product is moving and a whole lot less to do with what the manufacturer pricing policy is. I get it, you don’t agree with what you think Kodak’s pricing policy is. My point is you don’t actually know what their pricing policy is because you don’t have the prices that they charging, only retail prices, and don’t have any control over it.

ok, now I’m done.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Notice taken, Adrian. And thank you.

 

[Lachlan Young]

What I don't get is why certain individuals feel entitled to 8x10 colour film - they either take measures to be able to afford it or they don't. From the tenor of a lot of his posts it sounds like a certain individual is approximately the colour of a #61 filter because of things he deludes himself into believing he must have (or if they are really out of his claimed range, those grapes have to be sour) to be a 'Great Artist' pumping out inane landscapery.

Quite apart from the fact that Kodak offers both Portra 160 and 400 as stock items in 8x10 - Ektar and the BW films are all custom cuts if you have a spare 15K USD or more to splash out (or sell enough as some retailers do) - which suggests that they know rather more than this thread's self appointed 'expert' (who really deals only in wild unsubstantiated guesses) about what products actually sell.

Fuji never made anywhere near that variety of neg films in big formats, and neither did Agfa (at least latterly - they seemed to offer more in 13x18cm - not entirely surprisingly).

 

[pentaxuser]

So in this chain from production to selling to the end user are there any villains who try and charge what they think the market will bear and if so who are they? Each time rightly or wrongly the point about not knowing the price charged by the manufacturer is raised and yes there is no arguing with the fact that we do not what its price is to the next party in the chain. Usually it pays to look at who else has the monopoly in the supply chain and it would appear to be the distributor. So is this the party we should examine?

It may be the distributor as that is one party who has a monopolistic relationship with the retailers. The retailers clearly have some leeway in their prices otherwise all film and paper etc would be one price but there seems to be a surprisingly low range of prices at the retailer.

It may be of course that no-one is to blame and each party in the chain is only making normal/reasonable profit and yet having seen what has happened to utility (gas and electricity) prices in the U.K. with consumer switching now being much easier and much publicised, I have difficulty believing that allowing a few suppliers or one supplier free rein as was once the case did not result in overcharging. Utility prices have been reduced when monopolistic positions were eroded and yet none of the companies have gone out of business so there had to be "slack" there that was costing us the consumers and profiting the suppliers.

Is the photography business different in that we have people there who unlike their counterparts in say utilities or other companies do not seek to maximise profit at the expense of its consumers. Is it "we are in this together" in the case of film companies rather than "we and them"

If Walmart gets the virtual monopoly on food and drink sales tomorrow do prices remain unaffected? I think not

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is one conspicuous vendor who tends to jack sheet film prices way way up when that particular product is scarce, then drops the price right back down when a fresh delivery makes it temporarily abundant. That doesn't mean they're evil. In fact, it is entirely possible that's how they protect a small reserve awhile longer for those who really need it. Otherwise, timing is everything. There might be an appearance of a degree of monopoly, but that's temporary too. What really seems to be going on is that we just tend to gravitate first toward those predictable sources most likely to stock what we need at a reasonable price. I now rely on Ektar as my primary color film, and fortunately it's a standard offering in 8x10; but it's been climbing up in price too. I doubt I'll even thaw an 8X10 box of it this Spring, but will shoot it in 4x5 instead, simply due to the replacement cost issue. I'll still have a season of 8x10 outdoor fun, but strictly in black and white.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So in this chain from production to selling to the end user are there any villains who try and charge what they think the market will bear and if so who are they? Each time rightly or wrongly the point about not knowing the price charged by the manufacturer is raised and yes there is no arguing with the fact that we do not what its price is to the next party in the chain. Usually it pays to look at who else has the monopoly in the supply chain and it would appear to be the distributor. So is this the party we should examine?

It may be the distributor as that is one party who has a monopolistic relationship with the retailers. The retailers clearly have some leeway in their prices otherwise all film and paper etc would be one price but there seems to be a surprisingly low range of prices at the retailer.

It may be of course that no-one is to blame and each party in the chain is only making normal/reasonable profit and yet having seen what has happened to utility (gas and electricity) prices in the U.K. with consumer switching now being much easier and much publicised, I have difficulty believing that allowing a few suppliers or one supplier free rein as was once the case did not result in overcharging. Utility prices have been reduced when monopolistic positions were eroded and yet none of the companies have gone out of business so there had to be "slack" there that was costing us the consumers and profiting the suppliers.

Is the photography business different in that we have people there who unlike their counterparts in say utilities or other companies do not seek to maximise profit at the expense of its consumers. Is it "we are in this together" in the case of film companies rather than "we and them"

If Walmart gets the virtual monopoly on food and drink sales tomorrow do prices remain unaffected? I think not

pentaxuser

There aren't any true monopolies. No one is forcing you to buy a particular 8x10 film. In the end you could switch to digital which most people have.

Why are sellers unreasonable and buyers aren't? Regarding what's a reasonable price, there is no such thing. Sellers want to sell it for huge profits and buyers want to pay nothing. Then they come to some agreement some place in the middle where both are happy and agree on the price. THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE PRICE ANY OTHER WAY. How does a seller know whether they should charge a 25% markup, 50% markup or 10000% markup. It comes from feedback from the buyer who refuses to buy his product until it reaches a point the buyer is comfortable with. Of course, there's all kind of variables that affects decision making such as competition, loss leaders, etc. But with all those things, the seller will maximize the price within that set of variables and the buyer will minimize the price he's willing to pay. At some point they come to a middle ground where the deal is made. That is the reasonable price regardless off the profit margin. All other prices above and below that price are the unreasonable prices.

 

[MattKing]

If you either have limited capital, or have access to lots of capital, but it is very expensive, then deciding to invest that capital in something as esoteric as 8x10 colour sheet film is truly a leap of faith.
Distributors and retailers go out of business if they take too many leaps of faith.
I truly believe that, with the exception of Adrian and a couple of others here, on-one understands how damaging it is to run a business when there is a bunch of paid for and unsold inventory sitting on one's shelves.
Just as it is damaging to have a bunch of unpaid accounts receivable sitting on one's books.
These are niche products whose costs of production are high, costs of distribution are high, associated costs of lost opportunity are high and target markets are limited, cyclical, unpredictable and unreliable.
So if anyone is trying to apply the lessons learned from markets that are robust, widespread, elastic, and flexible to the pricing models for large format sheet film, I can only say "you are living on the wrong planet!"
Thanks to Adrian (and others like him) for supporting this valuable but tiny market.

 

[138S]

I truly believe that, with the exception of Adrian and a couple of others here, on-one understands how damaging it is to run a business when there is a bunch of paid for and unsold inventory sitting on one's shelves.

A big retailer has sells enough to rotate sheet stock, is an small retailer does not want to invest some $3000 to not be ruined then he can backorder, but pricing 250% would only lower sells and slower rotation.

 

[koraks]

but pricing 250% would only lower sells and slower rotation.

Assuming high price elasticity, which is one of the assumptions we cannot just make like that.

 

[138S]

Assuming high price elasticity, which is one of the assumptions we cannot just make like that.

Sheet film demand is not much elastic in the short term, but it is in the medium term, it would take months or years to see the all the effect because a growth share is related to people engaging or desengaging and this takes time, say you make Velvia sheets cheap... you'll get newcomers but they have to take decisions, gather equipment to develop and learning many things...

Anyway those "stock rotation" costs are minor compared to the 250% overprice, look: a 50 sheet box of Fomapan 100 has a similar price than a Kodak 10 sheet BW box, with exactly the same retailer (Fotoimpex) in the Foma case sheets are (per surface) well cheaper than 35mm while in the Kodak case LF price is 200% of same 35mm film.

Same format, same price, same article volume, same retailer... and two totally opposite (per surface) pricing policies that will be the same for each manufacturer in all markets and all retailers. It is the manufacturer's policy, nothing else.

All those justifications for the overprice are plain pretexts, nothing real. Obviously a photographer knows to how to add, how to substract and even (with smartphone calculator app) how to multiply, so to endorse a 250% price for the similar stuff cut different they have to be quite creative in the history telling.

Understand me, I concede that manufacturers are free to do what they want, but customers can also rebel (or not...).

In the 1980s kodak wanted to discontinue TX to impose tabular, but photographers machinegunned Kodak. This was not bad for Kodak as 35 years later they still sell that product.