Upcoming Film Price Wars - Kodak vs. Fuji...

Chris Brown wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:
rafe bustin wrote:

On 24 Sep 2004 18:11:41 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

snip

So if Kodak keeps to its announced plans, then we can expect to see even
lower prices for film stocks and disposable cameras etc., right? So
instead of film prices going up as sales decline, Kodak's forecast
suggests that film prices (in USA at least) may decline noticeably? ;-)


And in what way is any of this relevant to
the markets for 120 film?

Because it's the same process?

I think the point is that you probably wouldn't want to put Kodak Super
Duper Ultra Zoom Grotmatic 800, as used in the grainiest 6*4s from a
disposable, in your MF camera.

And why not? I shoot 800ASA film in medium format quite often. Just because
it looks bad from 35mm doesn't mean it's going to look bad from a larger
negative.

--

Stacey

Chris Brown wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:
rafe bustin wrote:

On 24 Sep 2004 18:11:41 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

snip

So if Kodak keeps to its announced plans, then we can expect to see even
lower prices for film stocks and disposable cameras etc., right? So
instead of film prices going up as sales decline, Kodak's forecast
suggests that film prices (in USA at least) may decline noticeably? ;-)


And in what way is any of this relevant to
the markets for 120 film?

Because it's the same process?

I think the point is that you probably wouldn't want to put Kodak Super
Duper Ultra Zoom Grotmatic 800, as used in the grainiest 6*4s from a
disposable, in your MF camera.

And why not? I shoot 800ASA film in medium format quite often. Just because
it looks bad from 35mm doesn't mean it's going to look bad from a larger
negative.

--

Stacey

Nick Zentena wrote:

OTOH it shows just how much profit there is in the film
market.



Exactly. Given the profits to be made from -any- film sales, why would film
disappear from the market as long as people are still using it? Someone is
still bothering to respool 620 film for resale and others sell 127 film.
When was the last time anyone made a camera that uses either of those
types??

--

Stacey

Nick Zentena wrote:

OTOH it shows just how much profit there is in the film
market.



Exactly. Given the profits to be made from -any- film sales, why would film
disappear from the market as long as people are still using it? Someone is
still bothering to respool 620 film for resale and others sell 127 film.
When was the last time anyone made a camera that uses either of those
types??

--

Stacey

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:21:29 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote:

Ron Todd wrote:


Ok, that is one rational way of looking at it, but just how many
folks put off buying film because it is too expensive now?

I doubt the idea is to grow the market. It's to capture a bigger share of
the market.



I would think a dramatic cut in prices would only lead to making film
unprofitable and more of a reason for publicly owned companies to end
production.

You have to figure Kodak makes a lot of film every single day. They need
volume more then they need high prices.

Cost - Volume - Gross Profit functions are not that simple.
Sometimes, you can make a higher gross profit by lowering the price.
But there are limits, and they are not linear because you have a
demand function to contend with. You cannot lower your unit price
below your variable cost of production. When you get close you loose
your contribution margin. Without your contribution margin you have
no money to pay administration and other non direct production costs.

This isn't even covering the profit that the widows and orphans
demand. You don't make enough profits for the pension funds, they
dump the stock. The stock price collapses and the corporate raiders
(liquidators) come in. You get to the point where the money to be
recovered from liquidating the company (and firing all the employees)
becomes a very reasonable possibility.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:21:29 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote:

Ron Todd wrote:


Ok, that is one rational way of looking at it, but just how many
folks put off buying film because it is too expensive now?

I doubt the idea is to grow the market. It's to capture a bigger share of
the market.



I would think a dramatic cut in prices would only lead to making film
unprofitable and more of a reason for publicly owned companies to end
production.

You have to figure Kodak makes a lot of film every single day. They need
volume more then they need high prices.

Cost - Volume - Gross Profit functions are not that simple.
Sometimes, you can make a higher gross profit by lowering the price.
But there are limits, and they are not linear because you have a
demand function to contend with. You cannot lower your unit price
below your variable cost of production. When you get close you loose
your contribution margin. Without your contribution margin you have
no money to pay administration and other non direct production costs.

This isn't even covering the profit that the widows and orphans
demand. You don't make enough profits for the pension funds, they
dump the stock. The stock price collapses and the corporate raiders
(liquidators) come in. You get to the point where the money to be
recovered from liquidating the company (and firing all the employees)
becomes a very reasonable possibility.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Exactly. Given the profits to be made from -any- film sales, why would
film
disappear from the market as long as people are still using it?

Because it doesn't make _enough_ of a profit.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Exactly. Given the profits to be made from -any- film sales, why would
film
disappear from the market as long as people are still using it?

Because it doesn't make _enough_ of a profit.

In article , Stacey wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

I think the point is that you probably wouldn't want to put Kodak Super
Duper Ultra Zoom Grotmatic 800, as used in the grainiest 6*4s from a
disposable, in your MF camera.

And why not? I shoot 800ASA film in medium format quite often. Just because
it looks bad from 35mm doesn't mean it's going to look bad from a larger
negative.

Depends on why you're doing it. If you're shooting medium format because you
want similar sized prints from 35mm without the grain, then this may be a
useful choice of film (but then you might as well go to a digital SLR, since
"35mm without the grain" is a pretty accurate description of its image
quality these days, especially at 400 ISO and above). On the other hand, if
you're shooting MF because you want to make big prints, then the sort of
film used in cheap disposable cameras is unlikely to satisfy.

Ron Todd wrote:


Cost - Volume - Gross Profit functions are not that simple.
Sometimes, you can make a higher gross profit by lowering the price.

The problem is the fixed costs don't change any if they make 1 roll or
they make 1,000,000. Worse the equipment isn't likely able to handle small
production runs. They need volume not just for profit but to keep the
machines running.



(liquidators) come in. You get to the point where the money to be
recovered from liquidating the company (and firing all the employees)
becomes a very reasonable possibility.


If nobody is buying film then the equipment is worthless. The cleanup
costs likely are higher then the other assets. The only way somebody can
make money by breaking up the company is if the assets have some value.

Nick