Wonderpan 400 - whatever next?

[Ballinderry-Michael]

I have to disagree here, for several reasons: As Simon Galley himself reported here in the past, one of the reasons former Ilford got into struggle and insolvency in 2004 was that they undermined their business by selling film to others for rebranding. By that Ilford film was offered at lower prices than as Ilford branded film. They also hadn't control over the behaviour of resellers / rebranders.
Lection learned by Ilford: No selling of Ilford film anymore to anyone for rebranding. And I am sure that policy have not changed at all recently.
And we have had a lot of disappointment (to say it diplomatically) in the market in the last years caused by shop owners who cheated their customers, and told lies about their rebranded film products, like Bellamy Hunt and Catlabs did, just two examples.
Films users are just totally tired of these marketing lies about "new, unique" films, which are just long established films available on the market for years, but then sold with rip-off prices (like JCH Street Pan).

I cannot imagine that Ilford is so stupid to actively participate in just another dishonest attempt to fool film users. An active participation can only damage their reputation. Would they do risk that for just a tiny number of 1000 films? I don't think so.

I'd agree in principle with everything you say there. The reason for my different attitude is that I see this as a one-off rather than a marketing ploy. In addition, AW used film stock that I'm pretty sure is outdated and it presented the episode in a light-hearted way. Your last paragraph makes a good point; but my own take is that Ilford make most of the film that I use and "Wonderpan" isn't going to affect that (the film is actually in good condition, even if it's been out of Ilford's hands for a while.

I should be referring to "Harman" really, shouldn't I? Sorry about that.

 

[Squeakygrump]

If you don't have an artist statement or a website, you could put the information on a tee-shirt. That would be fun too. There, I have just suggested a business opportunity for you. Another tip: instead of printing the date the tee-shirt wearer started using his mother's Brownie Hawkeye, you could leave a blank space and then apply a sticker with the appropriate date on it. That way you could service a variety of customers with minimal inventory.

Oh, thank you for the fabulous idea! I’ll be sure to give you a tiny percentage of the zero profit I make.

 

[faberryman]

I'd agree in principle with everything you say there. The reason for my different attitude is that I see this as a one-off rather than a marketing ploy.

Right. Just wait until you see what they have planned for their sixth anniversary. Probably expired HP5 with a WonderPan 1600 sticker on it. Not sure what animated Nintendo character they'll use. They could have a pre-anniversary contest to determine that. More fun.

In addition, AW used film stock that I'm pretty sure is outdated and it presented the episode in a light-hearted way. Your last paragraph makes a good point; but my own take is that Ilford make most of the film that I use and "Wonderpan" isn't going to affect that (the film is actually in good condition, even if it's been out of Ilford's hands for a while.

Undoubtedly it was stored in a freezer somewhere.

 

[Don_ih]

Ilford would not do anything for you if you only order 1000 rolls. That is nothing for them. Even small distributors order much much more from them in a short(er) time span.

You'll notice I put "partnership" in quotation marks. Obviously, you can buy a thousand rolls of Ilford film and Ilford will only be happy for the sale. Can't say why they would care much if some company puts a sticker on the cassettes and resells them under a different name.

And there's nothing they could do about it if they did care. Refuse to sell the thousand rolls? That would be stupid.

 

[koraks]

one of the reasons former Ilford got into struggle and insolvency in 2004 was that they undermined their business by selling film to others for rebranding. By that Ilford film was offered at lower prices than as Ilford branded film. They also hadn't control over the behaviour of resellers / rebranders.
Lection learned by Ilford: No selling of Ilford film anymore to anyone for rebranding. And I am sure that policy have not changed at all recently.

But this recent rebadging doesn't really undermine Ilford's own channels by undercutting their prices, does it?
I think in the end Ilford doesn't care who sells their film, as long as it's being sold and they get to make a decent margin on it themselves. I doubt they could be bothered to even try do something about it as long as it doesn't hurt their business. Why would they pursue to make enemies out of an outfit who chooses to sell their products, even under a different name?

 

[pentaxuser]

I doubt there's much they could practically do about it. Anyone can buy a brick of Ilford, paste some labels into it and sell it off as "Catch of the Day 3200ISO". I don't think there's any legislation that forbids it. The only thing they could do is refuse to sell to this party directly, but my bet is that they're already buying it from the regular distribution or even retail outlets anyway.

In you example I take it that the Catch of the Day 3200 is genuine and in date Ilford D 3200? Otherwise in the U.K. the Sales of Goods Act would seem to legislate against the practice of doing what appears to have happened here of selling a 125 FP4 as a different speed of film. This is selling a good that is not what is being stated, isn't it? . I don't think that doing it with a smile as it was suggested AW did, is any defence in law

Nothing similar in the EU in terms of legislation? If so it surprises me

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I emailed Ilford and will report back if and when I hear from them.

OK I'll leave it to you

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

legislate against the practice of doing what appears to have happened here of selling a 125 FP4 as a different speed of film.

As long as they don't call it "ISO 3200" they could put whatever film they like in the box. "3200 turbo speed" film would be perfectly legal to sell even if it's really FP4+, or "EI3200" or just plain "3200".

 

[koraks]

I highly doubt it...

Opinions will always vary.

Remember in the 1980s and 1990s when the markets were flooded with products that included the number "2000" in the name. I don't think there were any legal issues with the "Sucker 2000" vacuum cleaner not having a 2000Watt nominal power, 2000ml dust bin volume, 2000mm cord length etc.

It's just a number. There's nothing illegal about printing a random number on a product. It becomes a different story once the number is explicitly stated to mean something.

Besides, even if it's a legal grey area, I don't see much risk of e.g. the European Commission going after Wonderland for selling a couple of 100/1000 rolls of films marked with a dubious number on the box. As they say "pick your battles". Outside Photrio at least, people seem to mostly act on that premise.

 

[Film-Niko]

Your last paragraph makes a good point; but my own take is that Ilford make most of the film that I use and "Wonderpan" isn't going to affect that (the film is actually in good condition, even if it's been out of Ilford's hands for a while.

Michael, I can completely understand your personal relaxed attitude here in this case.

Probably it is necessary for me to explain a bit more and the background why I am much more disappointed and critical in general:
I am following Analogue Wonderland since their start. At first I was very happy, and thankful for a new player in the market. But then they started very problematic and often dishonest marketing methods:
- as you all know, we unfortunately have the fraud / sham films in the market: repackaged films with fancy names and lots of marketing lies about their origin, characteristics, with wrong datasheets, often rip-off prices etc. (films like e.g. JCH Street Pan, Catlabs X Film 320 Pro, RPX 25, Rollei's Aviphot Pan 200 trio, Agent Shadow and so on)
- they advertized all these dishonest offerings very, very strongly
- they repeated all the wrong statements about these fraud films again and again
- but they were informed by customers about the numerous problems with these films and the film marketing
- and AW reacted to these honest informations by customers in a very unprofessional and unfriendly way: they often deleted comments on their social media in which the correct information was given by customers (again seen here in this case), or they attacked those who presented the correct information.
- their shop has a strong focus on repackaged films.

So their behaviour over the last years leads to the conclusion that they are strong supporters of suppliers of film, who are marketing their films with wrong data and marketing lies.
In my opinion that is bad for the film community. We need honesty and truth.
Call me oldschool, but I am convinced that being trustworthy, offering an honest behaviour by the companies is a necessity for a sustainable, long term film resurgence.

 

[Film-Niko]

You'll notice I put "partnership" in quotation marks. Obviously, you can buy a thousand rolls of Ilford film and Ilford will only be happy for the sale. Can't say why they would care much if some company puts a sticker on the cassettes and resells them under a different name.

And there's nothing they could do about it if they did care. Refuse to sell the thousand rolls? That would be stupid.

Again you are overlooking what I have written, and what the real point is:
Ilford Photo (Harman technology) is selling several million films each year. So 1000 rolls are absolutely nothing for them.
But a reputation loss is something they have to care about. A reputation loss can easily and very massively outgo the tiny profit made by 1000 additional sold films.
Therefore Ilford should be extremely careful, and do all they can to not get involved in the very problematic behaviour of certain film distributors.

 

[Film-Niko]

But this recent rebadging doesn't really undermine Ilford's own channels by undercutting their prices, does it?

In this special case I see the main problem for Ilford in the danger for their reputation and the possible impression a customer may get: He removes the label and sees the original Ilford film cassette. And after reading all the senseless marketing blabla he feels fooled. And he asks himself whether Ilford may be involved in fooling him.....
And such thoughts and doubts on the customer side are very counterproductive for Ilford.

 

[Don_ih]

Again you are overlooking what I have written, and what the real point is:
Ilford Photo (Harman technology) is selling several million films each year. So 1000 rolls are absolutely nothing for them.
But a reputation loss is something they have to care about. A reputation loss can easily and very massively outgo the tiny profit made by 1000 additional sold films.
Therefore Ilford should be extremely careful, and do all they can to not get involved in the very problematic behaviour of certain film distributors.

I didn't overlook what you wrote. You overlook something very significant: Ilford can't do anything about Analogue Wonderland rebranding their film. AW is not misrepresenting Ilford in any way.
Furthermore, AW may have bought this film from a third party that was clearing out expired film.
I mean - really - if Ilford is making millions of rolls of film a year, there will be hundreds of thousands of those rolls that expire before they leave the store shelves. B&W film isn't exactly sliced bread. The majority of people on the planet still think that no one makes film, anymore.
AW and other such evil rebranders are catering to dabblers, neophytes, and people with a sense of humour. Anyone with enough experience and savvy to know that AW and CatLabs and Cosmo couldn't possibly be making film shouldn't really be that worried about what's in the package. Just accept it's an already-available film.

 

[faberryman]

AW and other such evil rebranders are catering to dabblers, neophytes, and people with a sense of humour. Anyone with enough experience and savvy to know that AW and CatLabs and Cosmo couldn't possibly be making film shouldn't really be that worried about what's in the package. Just accept it's an already-available film.

Can you explain to me why you say people with a sense of humor buy rebranded film? In addition, can you explain why you say people, with or without a sense of humor, shouldn't be concerned about what they are buying?

 

[Don_ih]

Can you explain to me why you say people with a sense of humor buy rebranded film? In addition, can you explain why you say people, with or without a sense of humor, shouldn't be concerned about what they are buying?

Hmmmmm..... Well, dear, obviously everyone should be concerned about what they themselves buy. But why should you, FA, be concerned about something you, FA, will never buy?

As for the bit about the sense of humour, you proved the point. Well, you prove it on a daily basis. Hourly, actually. Probably again within a few minutes. Maybe in a few seconds. I'll start counting.

 

[faberryman]

As for the bit about the sense of humour, you proved the point. Well, you prove it on a daily basis. Hourly, actually. Probably again within a few minutes. Maybe in a few seconds. I'll start counting.

Gosh, just when I thought we were beginning to see eye to eye on a couple of issues. Now I am completely deflated.

 

[koraks]

the danger for their reputation and the possible impression a customer may get

I get your argument. However, from a risk management perspective, I'd qualify both the chance and impact of this particular risk to Ilford as low. As a result, I expect that their stance will be "not too enthusiastic about it, but couldn't be bothered to do much about it either."

 

[faberryman]

I get your argument. However, from a risk management perspective, I'd qualify both the chance and impact of this particular risk to Ilford as low. As a result, I expect that their stance will be "not too enthusiastic about it, but couldn't be bothered to do much about it either."

As I mentioned above, I have emailed Ilford about AW rebranding its film, and will report back if and when they respond.

 

[koraks]

Yes, thanks for that. Keep us posted. Suspense!

 

[pentaxuser]

AW and other such evil rebranders are catering to dabblers, neophytes, and people with a sense of humour.

Mmmm..So is the above OK on the basis of the categories of people mentioned but not acceptable to those who are new to "the film game" and innocent accept every word as gospel. Maybe such newcomers never buy from such companies but I doubt that

I'd certainly prefer that my doctor/ surgeon and any number of professional people that we need in life do not practice theír trades that way. You might of course extend "caveat emptor" to all kinds of selling in the broadest sense of the word and dispense with any form of codes of practice, consumer law, and other safeguards but I'd prefer that there were safeguards in place that prevented members of the consumer society, be they the strong, the weak or the mentally challenged from being exploited be they choosing a film, an investment or to have a dangerous operation

It all comes down to deciding what's acceptable behaviour on the part of any kind of "seller" of goods and services and deciding if there needs to be protectíon against exploitation and sanctions if they do not.


pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

I'd prefer that there were safeguards in place that prevented members of the consumer society, be they the strong, the weak or the mentally challenged from being exploited

I'm sure all kinds of safeguards could be put in place, if you are willing to accept that some group gets to decide what those safeguards are and who gets to enforce them.

Oh - but there are safeguards in place: the education system and free access to information. You get taught to read and the ability to look things up.

 

[faberryman]

Oh - but there are safeguards in place: the education system and free access to information. You get taught to read and the ability to look things up.

It doesn't seem to me that there is free access to information as to what you are really getting with rebranded film. Many (but not all) rebranders don't disclose what they are actually selling. For example, they don't tell you it is expired film and they rate it at an ISO other that what the original manufacturer established by testing to throw you off the scent. In addition, there is the marketing hype which varies from disingenuous to dishonest. It took the super sleuth members of Photrio two months to figure out what WonderPan 400 is. By now, most of it has probably been sold, so few people will benefit from the effort. But if you think it is fun to buy a pig in a poke, have at it. It is your time and money. Maybe all film should be sold in plain white boxes (or boxes with a cartoon pig in a poke) with no information for maximum hilarity.

 

[Don_ih]

It doesn't seem to me that there is free access to information as to what you are really getting with rebranded film.

But there is -- there is the basic fact that making film is practically impossible for anyone but a few companies. There is zero chance that CatLabs had a film made, zero chance that JCH had a film made, zero chance that AW "cooked up a new film" or whatever they said. And all of that is easy to find out.

It took the super sleuth members of Photrio two months to figure out what WonderPan 400 is.

It took zero seconds for those same super-sleuths to know that it was definitely not made by Analogue Wonderland but was some existing film.

I was interested to know what it was, out of curiosity. That's why I followed the thread. But it really, really doesn't matter.

But if you think it is fun to buy a pig in a poke, have at it. It is your time and money.

I don't push film, in general. So I wasn't tempted to buy it. But once I saw that CatLabs film was Aviphot 200, I bought some because it was cheaper than Superpan 200 for me. And I like Aviphot 200 - I know how to expose it and develop it. It's not an unknown.

As for the money thing: it's been said these companies are "exploiting" gullible or eager enthusiasts. They're not doing that as much as cashing in on the desire those people have to spend their money. No one is buying film unless they can afford to do so. And a lot of people like the "unknown" aspect. They're not after the astonishingly digital-looking photos that are featured on the Kodak Instagram account, for instance. They want something decidedly not-digital. Perhaps they are misguided in thinking that the best way to get that is by improperly exposing and developing a particular film. But I genuinely don't think they care.

The primary market for these films doesn't use film for anything important.

 

[faberryman]

But there is -- there is the basic fact that making film is practically impossible for anyone but a few companies. There is zero chance that CatLabs had a film made, zero chance that JCH had a film made, zero chance that AW "cooked up a new film" or whatever they said. And all of that is easy to find out.

It took zero seconds for those same super-sleuths to know that it was definitely not made by Analogue Wonderland but was some existing film.

I was interested to know what it was, out of curiosity. That's why I followed the thread. But it really, really doesn't matter.

Knowing that AW or CatLabs doesn't actually manufacture film doesn't tell you anything about the film they are selling, so I don't see how that knowledge is particularly helpful.

I don't push film, in general. So I wasn't tempted to buy it. But once I saw that CatLabs film was Aviphot 200, I bought some because it was cheaper than Superpan 200 for me. And I like Aviphot 200 - I know how to expose it and develop it. It's not an unknown.

It took time and effort for the super sleuth Photrio members to find out exactly what CatLabs was selling (including the full Zone System film speed monty). You certainly would not have known that the film was Aviphot 200, and hence how to expose and develop it, by reading the disingenuous and dishonest marketing hype CatLabs put out.

As for the money thing: it's been said these companies are "exploiting" gullible or eager enthusiasts. They're not doing that as much as cashing in on the desire those people have to spend their money. No one is buying film unless they can afford to do so.

Some rebranders are "exploiting" gullible or eager enthusiasts by selling film that is disingenuously or dishonestly marketed to them, sometimes at a premium. Think about how a rebrander who tells you what the film he is selling actually is differs from a rebrander who plays hide the ball by placing a sticker with a cartoon chef on the label, and doing a video in which he tells you how cool it is, and how much fun you are going to have underexposing and overdeveloping expired film.

And a lot of people like the "unknown" aspect. They're not after the astonishingly digital-looking photos that are featured on the Kodak Instagram account, for instance. They want something decidedly not-digital. Perhaps they are misguided in thinking that the best way to get that is by improperly exposing and developing a particular film. But I genuinely don't think they care

The primary market for these films doesn't use film for anything important.

You don't have to use expired surveillance or other film which has been under- or overexposed and/or under- or overdeveloped to distinguish film from digital. I can't address why people don't care what their images look like, or why they take photos of things that are unimportant to them.

 

[pentaxuser]

Oh - but there are safeguards in place: the education system and free access to information. You get taught to read and the ability to look things up.

Yes there are those safeguards but this assumes that the ones you mention above are all you will ever need and that everyone has had access to a very good education and free access to information with the ability to understand in considerable depth the complete myriad of subjects needed to make a decision on all manner of things without some help from statutes and legal protection. Quite a lot of people do not have such skills and even the very few who are genuine polymaths may struggle to be fully self sufficient on all matters and at all times. Everyone needs outside help of a kind. At least this has been my experience.

It might well be that your philosophy is that in all matters in life you can rely on your own judgement, strength and ability to ensure you are able to get justice where required without any help of any kind from structures and laws that are designed for your protection.

That's fine but I don't believe that I will ever be that self sufficient and want and need some kind of help in life which only structures formed by society for my benefit can provide such as the ability for redress if a victim of deliberate deception.

pentaxuser