thoughts on the announced Kodak film price increase?

[Don_ih]

Additionally you;re assuming price increase are temporary?

The raw materials they purchase are commodities with market-value prices. That means high today, maybe much lower tomorrow. And the safest course of action for fluctuations in material cost is to already have enough flexibility in the final product price to cover it - thereby lowering profit instead of losing customers and laying off employees. They could also cut costs in other ways, for example, by reducing and simplifying packaging (they could seal all film in plastic with a sticker instead of putting 35mm in plastic containers in cardboard boxes).

 

[removedacct1]

I detect a pattern: one of the film manufacturers increases prices, people get upset and claim impending disaster for the manufacturer: "people are going to stop buying film!!", folks moan and complain for a few weeks and then carry on doing what they've been doing all along. I seriously doubt anyone reading this has actually stopped buying film because of price increases. Go make some photographs. You'll feel better.

 

[flavio81]

Inflation (printing of money combined with deficit spending by the government and lower interest rates) reduces the value of money

Inflation is not printing of money. You're tying up together different concepts.

 

[George Mann]

I will continue to buy Ektachrome until it becomes too expensive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The raw materials they purchase are commodities with market-value prices. That means high today, maybe much lower tomorrow. And the safest course of action for fluctuations in material cost is to already have enough flexibility in the final product price to cover it - thereby lowering profit instead of losing customers and laying off employees. They could also cut costs in other ways, for example, by reducing and simplifying packaging (they could seal all film in plastic with a sticker instead of putting 35mm in plastic containers in cardboard boxes).

As the value of the dollar decreases due to printing (inflation), you need more dollars to buy the same amount of commodities and everything else for that matter. So film prices will probably never decrease again. When was the last time that happened?

Inflation, the printing of money, is why prices and costs for things continue to rise and stay up. Sure, there will be temporary adjustments up and down. But these fluctuations are caused by strikes, wars, temporary disruptions to supplies, government shutdowns like Covid, etc. However, temporary rises in one industry or product don't mean the overall cost of living goes up. As more money is spent in one area, there's less money to be spent in others. That reduces demand in other areas and subsequently prices there will go down. So the overall CPI stay the same. It's money printing that devalues the currency and raises prices across the board, not temporary and passing disruptions.

 

[pentaxuser]

I detect a pattern: one of the film manufacturers increases prices, people get upset and claim impending disaster for the manufacturer: "people are going to stop buying film!!", folks moan and complain for a few weeks and then carry on doing what they've been doing all along. I seriously doubt anyone reading this has actually stopped buying film because of price increases. Go make some photographs. You'll feel better.

At a 20% increase I am sure you are right that people aren't going to stop buying film and other than exaggerating knowingly and deliberately to make their point I don't think that very many if any actually stop buying it. However the concern I have and its one that others express in varying degrees is the extent to which they may curtail their purchases and certainly in the U.K. may decide they have reached their point of switching completely to another manufacturer because of the ever growing gap between llford and Kodak film prices. From what I have seen on prices this Kodak price gap also applies to comparisons with Foma, Adox and Rollei film as well

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

They could also cut costs in other ways, for example, by reducing and simplifying packaging (they could seal all film in plastic with a sticker instead of putting 35mm in plastic containers in cardboard boxes).

Ilford offer 50 roll packs of 135 FP4+ and HP5+ packed like 120 in mylar packets with no containers and all in one box. The cost saving is non-existent (in fact it's about a penny a roll more expensive).

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Ilford offer 50 roll packs of 135 FP4+ and HP5+ packed like 120 in mylar packets with no containers and all in one box. The cost saving is non-existent (in fact it's about a penny a roll more expensive).

Well that's because Ilford has to pay someone to take the film out of all the small boxes, count it out, and then put it all in one large box.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Well that's because Ilford has to pay someone to take the film out of all the small boxes, count it out, and then put it all in one large box.

It'll just go through the machine that normally foil wraps 120 rolls, rather than the machine that puts 135 rolls into the plastic canisters.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It'll just go through the machine that normally foil wraps 120 rolls, rather than the machine that puts 135 rolls into the plastic canisters.

ILFORD has previously sold 120 film in pro-packs of 5 as well. I'm not sure of the date when they switched exclusively to individually packaged rolls.

 

[cmacd123]

Ilford offer 50 roll packs of 135 FP4+ and HP5+ packed like 120 in mylar packets with no containers and all in one box. The cost saving is non-existent (in fact it's about a penny a roll more expensive).

I recall Simon saying that there was more labour required to pack the film in envelopes, as the machinery automatically inserted it in the plastic cans. Someone had to take each roll and Tuck the leader in place to get it in the foil wrapping machine.

 

[cmacd123]

ILFORD has previously sold 120 film in pro-packs of 5 as well. I'm not sure of the date when they switched exclusively to individually packaged rolls.

The explanation was that the propacks were an extra Inventory item, and that incresed the costs of getting dealers to stock the line. Some dealers would stock the propacks and just take out individual rolls, while others would only stock and sell the propacks as sealed packs of 5. it wored out as more effective to just stock individual rolls.
Note that Kodak did the same analysis and came to the conclusion to only sell many items in Propacks.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Note that Kodak did the same analysis and came to the conclusion to only sell many items in Propacks.

A good point, as an example I remember buying Tri-X as individual rolls.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's what I said. But manufacturers need to be able to absorb some loss of profit if they want to maintain customers. Temporarily increased expenses should not translate into higher cost for end consumer - people react to higher prices by buying something else. 20% is a suicidal price jump for a product that no one actually needs to buy.

Absorb the losses into exactly what? Those kind of margins just do not exist. You need to cut back on your $tarBuck$ Soy Lattes and your driving around aimlessly.

I detect a pattern: one of the film manufacturers increases prices, people get upset and claim impending disaster for the manufacturer: "people are going to stop buying film!!", folks moan and complain for a few weeks and then carry on doing what they've been doing all along. I seriously doubt anyone reading this has actually stopped buying film because of price increases. Go make some photographs. You'll feel better.

You broke the code! You understand the reality.

At a 20% increase I am sure you are right that people aren't going to stop buying film and other than exaggerating knowingly and deliberately to make their point I don't think that very many if any actually stop buying it. However the concern I have and its one that others express in varying degrees is the extent to which they may curtail their purchases and certainly in the U.K. may decide they have reached their point of switching completely to another manufacturer because of the ever growing gap between llford and Kodak film prices. From what I have seen on prices this Kodak price gap also applies to comparisons with Foma, Adox and Rollei film as well

pentaxuser

Again you are being realistic. The Kodak haters are just blowing off steam.

 

[mshchem]

I remember when it was a little lower cost per roll in Pro Packs. I love getting Ilford in a box with a end flap for my memo clip, and processing instructions printed on the inside of the box.

 

[Don_ih]

Absorb the losses into exactly what?

They make a profit. If their expenses go up, but they don't raise prices, they make less profit - which is not necessarily loss. It's not hard to understand. Manufacturers have to put up with temporary increases in material cost all the time. They cannot expect to always pass that off to the consumer. Once a product price is raised, no one ever believes it will be lowered.

Ilford offer 50 roll packs of 135 FP4+ and HP5+ packed like 120 in mylar packets with no containers and all in one box. The cost saving is non-existent (in fact it's about a penny a roll more expensive).

You're talking about savings for the consumer. Skipping the cardboard box stage of packing their product would save them lots - they don't need to pass that savings on to the consumer. It could help prevent the need to raise prices.

I detect a pattern: one of the film manufacturers increases prices, people get upset and claim impending disaster for the manufacturer: "people are going to stop buying film!!", folks moan and complain for a few weeks and then carry on doing what they've been doing all along. I seriously doubt anyone reading this has actually stopped buying film because of price increases. Go make some photographs. You'll feel better.

There is a valid genuine concern regarding these price increases. In the past, film was the only option for taking photos. At present, the easiest option by far for the vast majority of people is to never buy any film at all. Every year, digital photography improves. Every year, the ability to manipulate digital images becomes easier and cleaner. Many people have already stopped buying the more expensive film stocks in favour of cheaper film stocks. In spite of what is considered an upswing in popularity, film use is now, more than ever, a curiosity for most people. It's an indulgence for most of the rest. It will take a very small number of people changing their practice to make manufacturing these films no longer viable.

 

[Don_ih]

You need to cut back on your $tarBuck$ Soy Lattes and your driving around aimlessly.

Incidentally, I don't do those things. I drive about 25000km a year for work and never even buy a Tim Horton's coffee.
What you need to do is stop injecting your comments with pejorative remarks. Maybe then fewer people would need to mute you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

They make a profit. If their expenses go up, but they don't raise prices, they make less profit - which is not necessarily loss. It's not hard to understand. Manufacturers have to put up with temporary increases in material cost all the time. They cannot expect to always pass that off to the consumer. Once a product price is raised, no one ever believes it will be lowered.



You're talking about savings for the consumer. Skipping the cardboard box stage of packing their product would save them lots - they don't need to pass that savings on to the consumer. It could help prevent the need to raise prices.



There is a valid genuine concern regarding these price increases. In the past, film was the only option for taking photos. At present, the easiest option by far for the vast majority of people is to never buy any film at all. Every year, digital photography improves. Every year, the ability to manipulate digital images becomes easier and cleaner. Many people have already stopped buying the more expensive film stocks in favour of cheaper film stocks. In spite of what is considered an upswing in popularity, film use is now, more than ever, a curiosity for most people. It's an indulgence for most of the rest. It will take a very small number of people changing their practice to make manufacturing these films no longer viable.

[sarcasm]You should send your resume to Kodak right away. They will make you the CEO immediately.[/sarcasm]

 

[Don_ih]

[sarcasm]You should send your resume to Kodak right away. They will make you the CEO immediately.[/sarcasm]

Your wit shines like a beacon in the desert at noon.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Incidentally, I don't do those things. I drive about 25000km a year for work and never even buy a Tim Horton's coffee.
What you need to do is stop injecting your comments with pejorative remarks. Maybe then fewer people would need to mute you.

Please feel free to put me on your ignore list. I do not need to read posts from a dedicated dyed in the wool Kodak hater.

 

[NB23]

Kodak, such a sadly pathetical finish.

 

[NB23]

How exactly do you go from being the YELLOW GIANT to being sold to chino promise?
Bye Yellow Giant, hello Yellow wimp.

 

[NB23]

@NB23 you are confusing Kodak the company with the Kodak brand. The original Eastman Kodak exists as two independent public American companies: EMN and KODK.

Alaris - the pension fund managed abomination that happened to be exclusive user of the Kodak brand - must (and will) die, and hopefully Eastman Kodak will get its own brand back.

I confuse nothing. Turn it any way you like, you are looking at the most pathetical fiasco.

There was a time when Kodak was stronger than the NASA.

 

[MattKing]

The original Eastman Kodak doesn't exist any more, as a result of the bankruptcy.
By the time of the bankruptcy, only a portion of Eastman Kodak was involved with photography.
There are multiple entities that still have pieces of the old entity. Kodak Alaris was the recipient of most of what was left of the still photographic business in terms of employees and markets and international presence and the cultural philosophy - almost all of the still film people went with them. Eastman Kodak retained a production capacity in one manufacturing location, while all the remaining manufacturing sites (of paper) at least started out with Kodak Alaris - they have since been closed or sold.

 

[MattKing]

You don't understand how much of Kodak was international. None of those international subsidiaries went bankrupt. All of their business (other than a small amount of motion picture business) was transferred to Kodak Alaris and its international subsidiaries.