101: you are not a charity, charge as much as possible.
We have very few choices left in color sheet film to play off against each other.
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.A good reference for anybody interested:
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.
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.
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.
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.There are good and bad
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.
Look, Jeff Bezos and ex-wife are not that rich because of "charging as much as possible".
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.
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.
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.
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, 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
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.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
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.
Assuming high price elasticity, which is one of the assumptions we cannot just make like that.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.
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?