Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,897   Posts: 1,584,334   Online: 844
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Film Margins

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,909
    Dear PE,

    The 'Old' ILFORD did the same of a sort....

    We had our photo business and we went for inkjet growth, we had no issue going into a 'colour' market as we had no real colour business apart from ILFOCHROME which was outstanding but very niche. We did really well, made some really nice products especially in the early Polymer coating days then you did'nt need photo quality / technical coating to make inkjet...then from 10 real competiitors you had 200 !

    All part of life's rich tapestry....

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

  2. #32
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,340
    Images
    12
    guys: gross margin is not net margin is not profit is not viability; it's a technical accounting term that doesn't mean what half of you seem think it does. Given Kodak's overheads & liabilities, 70% seems a very slim margin.

  3. #33
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    Speaking of liabilities, some small company sued Kodak every time they made a move. Think of Berkey, Pavell and GAF each suing Kodak because they were ready with a C22 or Ektaprint C work alike and Kodak came out with C41 and Ektaprint 3. They claimed that Kodak did it maliciously to injure their entry into the processing kit business and they won all 3 cases. In industry, it a law suit, the big guy almost always loses and gets hit with lawyer fees, fines and a general caution in plans to move ahead.

    This hindered many nascent plans in R&D. Projects were cancelled out of hand. This happened over and over during my time there.

    PE

  4. #34
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,078
    I would not call it an industry problem. Rather a US legislation and jurisdiction problem.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    630
    Quote Originally Posted by ME Super View Post
    Ah yes, storage in "the cloud." Here are the problems with "cloud" storage.
    1. I currently pay a monthly bill just to have access to the internet. If all my photos are stored on "the cloud" and nowhere else, if I fail to pay the Internet bill, I lose access to my photos.
    2. There's a periodic (monthly? yearly?) bill I have to pay to have the cloud storage. If I fail to pay the bill, I lose access to my photos. After some time of not paying the bill, chances are my photos will be erased. This one can be mitigated somewhat by local storage, but again that has to be updated periodically (hard drives typically last around 5 years or so?) When I die, who is going to want to pay the monthly bill just to maintain access to the photos stored in the cloud?

    This is all mitigated by having physical copies of the photos. Slides can be viewed with a light source and a lens, either to magnify them or project them. Prints, while IMHO not as vibrant as slides, can be viewed with nothing more than the human eye. Storage is cheap - store them in slide trays, slide boxes, photo albums, or even shoe boxes.

    Simon and PE, you said it very well.
    I don't know anyone who uses "the cloud" as the sole repository of their photos. That would make no more sense than only keeping a copy on your PC's hard drive. "The cloud" is good for backup and for accessibility via the web no matter where you are.

    What would you do if the slides in that shoebox got damaged/lost/discarded/destroyed? Would it have been worth an annual fee to guarantee that you could duplicate them down to the last molecule?

  6. #36
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,943
    Images
    60

    Context and the Dollar stores

    To give some context to the discussion in this thread, I thought I would share some information I received last week from the owner of a local "Dollar" store.

    She operates a small, independent Dollar type store in a local strip mall. The mall owners have a new tenant coming in at the other end of the mall - a branch of the largest Canadian Dollar store chain. The new store will be much bigger than the independent.

    The owner was saying that the big chains have quite an advantage over her. For a typical item which sells to the customer at a price of $1.00, the chains will pay just 8 cents while she, as an independent, will generally have to pay between 12 and 20 cents.

    Buy for 8 cents, and sell for $1.00. That is "margin".
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,548
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    To give some context to the discussion in this thread, I thought I would share some information I received last week from the owner of a local "Dollar" store.

    She operates a small, independent Dollar type store in a local strip mall. The mall owners have a new tenant coming in at the other end of the mall - a branch of the largest Canadian Dollar store chain. The new store will be much bigger than the independent.

    The owner was saying that the big chains have quite an advantage over her. For a typical item which sells to the customer at a price of $1.00, the chains will pay just 8 cents while she, as an independent, will generally have to pay between 12 and 20 cents.

    Buy for 8 cents, and sell for $1.00. That is "margin".
    The big chain will have oodles of middle management who spend all day trying to work out what todays Dilbert cartoon means.

    Tomorrow they turn over calander, new problem.

    Kodak tried to destroy a minnow (Land) when they needed to address the Ja giant killer (Fuji).

  8. #38
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    Kodak never forgot Fuji. That company was always at the forefront of the EK strategy.

    And now, Fuji is no longer in Motion Picture film production. Again, a question of margin. EK beat out Fuji in this case.

    PE

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,548
    Fuji are squeezing Canons Nikons etc., dcam sales?
    I have a Kodak all-in-one inkjet/scanner and use Double-X in still cams but a decade since I bought Kodak colour.
    Cine film is in ICU. Ilford got out decade ago.
    Local shops here must be selling Fuji rebrands10x Kodak and Ilfords volume combined? ignoring green box sales...
    Profit after tax is a meaningful metric raw margin is merely an account item on a spreadsheet.
    I live in an exKodak town in 1983 a Kodak insider told me Kodak were dead I inquired about his pension he said he had 'been paid a fortune to switch out the lights.' I was shooting his son's wedding on Kchrome 25. He asked why - 'bride likes sat colours'.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin