If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
Has anyone tried this yet? There has been conjecture that it is
Tri-X, re-spooled by Freestyle. I'm about due for some freezer filling on a group bulk order and was hoping to confirm the information. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
"John" wrote
Why would Kodak sell its mainstream B&W film to be rebranded? See Samueslon _Economics_, AKA ECON 101. Kodak is doing what Ilford stupidly stopped doing - OEM'ing film. When Ilford stopped selling via Freestyle the flood gates of off-brand East European films opened and Ilford lost big time. The maximum profit is made when the last roll manufactured is sold at break-even (Freestyle) and the first roll manufactured is sold at the highest price possible (Keeble & Suchat). The manufacturing unit cost falls with manufacturing volume, so gaining market share not only increases total sales it also increases the profit margin on Yuppie sales. The problem is getting people to buy the high-priced spread. So you advertise the branded and kick the marginal roll out the back door clothed in rags, letting the customer wonder "Is it, or isn't it?". Is it off-spec or something? It won't be defective. I doubt if it is cream-of-the-run. Is Kodak dumping Tri-X? Only if they are selling _below_ manufacturing cost. In any case, dumping to gain market share isn't illegal in your home market - who, after all, pays congress to pass anti-dumping laws in the first place? If it is Kodak emulsion, then it is the smartest move I have seen Kodak make in a quite a while. And Freestyle _isn't_ dumb, either. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
wrote in message ... Has anyone tried this yet? There has been conjecture that it is Tri-X, re-spooled by Freestyle. I'm about due for some freezer filling on a group bulk order and was hoping to confirm the information. I can't figure out which film this is, can you post a more definite description. Freestyle does have a feature sale on Arista II 35mm film but its certainly not Kodak beause its made in Germany. The only Arista Premium film I found on their on-line catalogue is ISO-100. What size is this, I searched only 35mm film. Kodak policy forever has been not to sell products for rebranding although they have made custom emulsions for some manufacturers including Polaroid and the late, lamented Defender but have not sold in bulk as have AGFA, Ilford and some others. If the data sheet is available it will give you a pretty definite answer. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message m... "John" wrote Why would Kodak sell its mainstream B&W film to be rebranded? See Samueslon _Economics_, AKA ECON 101. Kodak is doing what Ilford stupidly stopped doing - OEM'ing film. When Ilford stopped selling via Freestyle the flood gates of off-brand East European films opened and Ilford lost big time. The maximum profit is made when the last roll manufactured is sold at break-even (Freestyle) and the first roll manufactured is sold at the highest price possible (Keeble & Suchat). The manufacturing unit cost falls with manufacturing volume, so gaining market share not only increases total sales it also increases the profit margin on Yuppie sales. The problem is getting people to buy the high-priced spread. So you advertise the branded and kick the marginal roll out the back door clothed in rags, letting the customer wonder "Is it, or isn't it?". Is it off-spec or something? It won't be defective. I doubt if it is cream-of-the-run. Is Kodak dumping Tri-X? Only if they are selling _below_ manufacturing cost. In any case, dumping to gain market share isn't illegal in your home market - who, after all, pays congress to pass anti-dumping laws in the first place? If it is Kodak emulsion, then it is the smartest move I have seen Kodak make in a quite a while. And Freestyle _isn't_ dumb, either. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com If Kodak is doing this is would be breaking a company policy that has been in effect since the founding of the company. While manufacturing cost goes down with volume for many products there is usually a plateau where the cost remains steady with increasing volume. I think the main reason Ilford and AGFA sold bulk materials for custom branding was that it gave them a garanteed market for a perishable product. Once the film or paper was delivered to the rebranding customer it became their property and their worry. There may also be some advantages in reduction of marketing and advertising costs but I think these are minimal. I suspect the sale of seconds are more myth than real: no one is going to profit by selling a defective product. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
"Richard Knoppow" wrote
If Kodak is doing this is would be breaking a company policy that has been in effect since the founding of the company. Well, Kodak has been doing a lot of that: both too much of it and not enough. While manufacturing cost goes down with volume for many products there is usually a plateau where the cost remains steady with increasing volume. Not really, it's an exponential curve, in most processes if you double the volume then costs drop 10% to 20%, after a while, as you say, it is functionally flat because you just can find market for twice the product. Making a web process product like film, though, has a terrific volume/cost fall-off. Batch preparation cost is everything, material cost is minimal. I am involved in in-vivo clinical test strip equipment and the economics are such the machine is run as infrequently as possible and the production run is as big as possible. The amount produced doesn't have a lot of impact on the cost of the run: 1 test strip, 10,000,000 test strips or 100,000,000 test strips: the runs all cost about the same. The other way to look at it is that there isn't enough market to use up the machine capacity. And that is certainly Kodak's current dilemma. Since Kodak is over capacity in manufacturing then selling product at the marginal dollar, and pride be damned, is the right way to go. There may also be some advantages in reduction of marketing and advertising costs but I think these are minimal. Whoo boy, Richard, try selling something and see where your costs go... I suspect the sale of seconds are more myth than real: no one is going to profit by selling a defective product. Freestyle film isn't defective. Except for that batch of 90's Ilford with the pin-holes. And it's hard to tell if Efke is defective or that's just the way it is supposed to be. But, at least on the East Coast, selling seconds is a big and profitable business. Tour busses going out to huge "Outlet Malls" located in the middle of nowhere. Just about all the merchandise on offer is clothing & accessories that were idiotically over priced to begin with. The customers are 'traditionally built' ladies wearing purple stretch pants, big hats and too much make-up. The Snap-On tool company's outlet store used to be a huge pit in the back 40: anything that didn't pass muster was promptly 'destroyed'. I wonder if the EPA has started test bores to measure the soil's heavy metal content. Who knows what the stuff is. Just wait, and in a month it will be pretty obvious. So far all indications are that it is Tri-X or something so much like it that no one can find much difference between the two. Scenario: Too keep the price at $4/roll, the machine needs to make 10,000,000 rolls per run. You can only sell 5,000,000 by the expiry date. Two solutions: trash 5,000,000 rolls or sell the extra 5,000,000 at the marginal price and drive Efke, Foma and anyone else in the market into bankruptcy. Doesn't take a Harvard MBA. A bit beyond the comprehension of LSE, though. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
A nregurgitation of how economics works is not an explanation of what
might actually be happening now. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
Scenario: Too keep the price at $4/roll, the machine needs to make 10,000,000 rolls per run. You can only sell 5,000,000 by the expiry date. Two solutions: trash 5,000,000 rolls or sell the extra 5,000,000 at the marginal price and drive Efke, Foma and anyone else in the market into bankruptcy. Doesn't take a Harvard MBA. A bit beyond the comprehension of LSE, though. One thing that most people don't understand is that the expiration date is not a hard and fast thing. That's why food is often marked "best if used by", not "destroy without opening". Color film shifts with age, high speed film is fogged by cosmic rays, but lower speed black and white film ages gracefully. If Kodak for example had a large roll of uncut Tri-X in it's cave that reached it's expiration date, there would be nothing wrong with cutting it into 35mm rolls and selling it to someone else. Or selling it uncut. As long as they did not dilute their brand name, it's "cheap money". In that case it would have to be sold as "similar to the yellow box 400 speed film" and have a different imprint. As long as they did not say it was Tri-X, there would be nothing wrong with it. For example, if I were a billionare (which there is little chance of that ever happening), I would buy a production run of Panatomic-X. Kodak would gladly make it for me, and I'm sure I could sell hundreds of rolls of it. Too bad I'd have to sell a lot more to break even. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
"John"
A regurgitation of how economics works is not an explanation of what might actually be happening now. If it isn't economics, what is it? Well, OK - it can be pride, envy, greed, sloth and anger, with a spice topping of gluttony and lust. Oops, can't forget vanity and stupidity: really big motivators of human behavior. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
New Freestyle Premium film ID?
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"John" A regurgitation of how economics works is not an explanation of what might actually be happening now. If it isn't economics, what is it? Well, OK - it can be pride, envy, greed, sloth and anger, with a spice topping of gluttony and lust. Oops, can't forget vanity and stupidity: really big motivators of human behavior. I'll take two from column A, please. One thing that nudged me to question a pure economic motive comes from having my butt kicked for having suggested that Kodak's move to T-Grain film was to save money. People jumped out of the woodwork screaming that Kodak wasn't trying to save money, but just making the film better. I HATE TGrain film. That one comes from column B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Freestyle Premium film ID? | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 34 | August 23rd 08 12:57 AM |
Uh-Oh!! Just got my FreeStyle catalog--!! Bye-Bye relabeled Ilford!! | Jos. Burke | Large Format Photography Equipment | 21 | May 3rd 05 08:32 PM |
Uh-Oh!! Just got my FreeStyle catalog--!! Bye-Bye relabeled Ilford!! | Jos. Burke | Large Format Photography Equipment | 0 | April 10th 05 03:22 AM |
Uh-Oh!! Just got my FreeStyle catalog--!! Bye-Bye relabeled Ilford!! | Jos. Burke | Large Format Photography Equipment | 0 | April 10th 05 03:22 AM |
Paper question-- FreeStyle Product-Is Arista VC RC same as Ilford MG RC? | Jos. Burke | In The Darkroom | 5 | June 15th 04 05:07 AM |