Kodak motion picture film price increase

[Phil_F_NM]

Please go work for Kodak to help save them. Goodness gracious.

I wrote I'm disappointed because they raised the price on one product line which happens to be the bread and butter of film programs all over the country and the world. And no, myself nor any other person on this forum has the capital to bring Kodak out of their financial problems.

Phil Forrest

 

[Ted Striker]

I wrote I'm disappointed because they raised the price on one product line which happens to be the bread and butter of film programs all over the country and the world.

And I clearly showed why a price increase is necessary. That this price increase occurred to an important film does not mitigate the fact that Kodak needs the cash flow. It makes perfect sense that higher volume products would see this price increase. What good would it do to raise the price of a lower volume product? How does that help Kodak?

And no, myself nor any other person on this forum has the capital to bring Kodak out of their financial problems.

Phil Forrest

Who suggested that anyone on this forum could change the fate of Kodak? Not I. You seemdetermined to invent things to go off topic on. Only you know why.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

And I clearly showed why a price increase is necessary. That this price increase occurred to an important film does not mitigate the fact that Kodak needs the cash flow. It makes perfect sense that higher volume products would see this price increase. What good would it do to raise the price of a lower volume product? How does that help Kodak?

Another unnecessary comment. Who suggested that anyone on this forum could change the fate of Kodak? Not I. You seemdetermined to invent things to go off topic on. Only you know why.

You're right!
I said it. Are you happy?
I did not start this thread to have you troll it with pedantry that you have previously stated on other threads. THAT is why I asked what is your point.
You have proven your superior intellect, research and business acumen.
Now can the rest of us who have heard the same things from you time and again, get on with a discussion?
I'm not of the ilk to delete this thread, if that ability still exists, but I really am tempted.

Phil Forrest

 

[brbo]

And I clearly showed why a price increase is necessary.

Well, you haven't. Product pricing with the goal of profit maximisation has never been a function of financial results of a company. In other words, companies don't raise prices when they are doing poorly or lower them when they are doing great as you're suggesting.

Kodak can (as long as there is no alternative) and will (as long as increased prices will offset lower sales) raise prices of cine film.

 

[dave lackey]

If there was ever a thread that should be closed and deleted, this is one of them.

Those on RFF who know Phil, his history and his sacrifice for all of us, would agree that he does not deserve such negativity in his life. We, fellow members of this forum, should be kind to each other. You have enough on your plate and I only hope to be of some assistance. Call me anytime.🙂

Moderators, whoever, it is time.

 

[Ted Striker]

If there was ever a thread that should be closed and deleted, this is one of them.

Those on RFF who know Phil, his history and his sacrifice for all of us, would agree that he does not deserve such negativity in his life. We, fellow members of this forum, should be kind to each other. You have enough on your plate and I only hope to be of some assistance. Call me anytime.🙂

Moderators, whoever, it is time.

And what did I do to deserve this negativity? What? None of my text was emotional in ANY way. Certainly not negative.

I didn't bring this to the forum.

 

[Ted Striker]

Well, you haven't. Product pricing with the goal of profit maximisation has never been a function of financial results of a company. In other words, companies don't raise prices when they are doing poorly or lower them when they are doing great as you're suggesting.

Kodak can (as long as there is no alternative) and will (as long as increased prices will offset lower sales) raise prices of cine film.

Companies that are seeing substantial declines in revenue DO raise prices when that is the only option left to them. Again, this demonstrates my point as to the severity of the situation with Kodak. They cannot sustain the decline in revenue for much longer. 2019 is a huge year for the company. They are contractually bound to convert their preferred stock at $17.50/share. Today they do not have that amount of cash to make this conversion.

 

[Ted Striker]

We, fellow members of this forum, should be kind to each other.

Moderators, whoever, it is time.

I absolutely agree with this and anyone who is reasonable will read this thread and see that at no point was I unkind to anyone.

 

[Ted Striker]

In other words, companies don't raise prices when they are doing poorly or lower them when they are doing great as you're suggesting.

By the way, Fujifilm has been raising prices quite a lot on their still film too. Same reason, declining volume.

 

[retinax]

Guys, what's the big deal here? Clearly someone misunderstood or disagree what the gist of this thread should be by the OPs intent. So what? It's a sort of public place. If you feel annoyed with someone's comments, you can ignore them. If people keep telling you that they consider your comment not helpful, consider refraining from repeating the same argument. But it's not too hard to just live with these things and carry one, no? What does deleting or closing the thread help? Of course we don't want this forum to become the new 4Chan, but that's not even on the horizon. So just carry on?

 

[brbo]

Companies that are seeing substantial declines in revenue DO raise prices when that is the only option left to them.

No, they do NOT. Please, name examples of companies that purposefully further degraded their revenues when they were in financial troubles. They would only raise their prices if that would actually mean higher profit/lower loss. But companies do that even when they are doing well as that is just plain economics. As I said, I'm yet to hear of a price structuring model that takes previous financial success as a parameter. Can you provide a reference to such a model? Thanks!

By the way, Fujifilm has been raising prices quite a lot on their still film too. Same reason, declining volume.

You have no data on Kodak's or Fuji's volume and as you like to operate with facts...

Besides, Fuji's reporting division that includes photographic film as a whole is doing just fine financially and we don't see them lowering prices on Velvia. Why is that?

 

[Ted Striker]

You have no data on Kodak's or Fuji's volume and as you like to operate with facts...

Wrong.

Fujifilm discontinued ALL of their motion picture film. While we dont have any metrics on this, a move like this clearly indicates a massive reduction in film production for them.

At that time, a roll of Neopan Acros (120 size) was $2.99/roll. Today it is MUCH higher. Fujifilm discontinued many emulsions since that time too, Reala 100 being one of my favorites. Finally, Fujifilm withdrew from many markets emulsions that are still around, like 160NS.

Volumes are down, prices are up. Many times Fujifilm specifically stated that their price increases were due to the decrease in volume.

"The demand for film products is continuously decreasing and the cost of production, such as raw materials stays at a high level and cost increase associated with lower volumes becomes much serious. Under such circumstances, despite our effort to maintain the production cost, Fujifilm is unable to absorb these costs during the production process and is forced to pass on price increases. To sustain its photo imaging business, Fujifilm has decided to increase the price of photographic films."

 

[sepiareverb]

I've got some 5222 on the way.

 

[brbo]

You said that Kodak needs to raise their prices and cited Kodak's financial results as proof for that.

I disagree with THAT reasoning (not that Kodak is wrong in raising the prices, maybe you didn't read my posts carefully enough?). The financial bottom line of the company doesn't determine prices. Demand and production costs do.

The price increase that OP observed can have many reasons, but no decision maker with even the most basic understanding of business logic would argue for higher prices for that particular product because a company segment posted a bad quarter/year.

Besides, this is the disclosure for Consumer and Film segment results in 2017:

The $32 million decrease in the Consumer and Film Operational EBITDA reflected volume declines in Consumer Inkjet Systems ($12 million) driven by lower sales of ink to the existing installed base of printers, unfavorable cost absorption in Industrial Film and Chemicals ($7 million), unfavorable manufacturing costs in Motion Picture ($9 million) primarily due to the impact of costs associated with a vendor transition and higher SG&A ($8 million) driven by an increased investment in sales and marketing initiatives. This was offset by the higher brand licensing revenue ($8 million), lower R&D spending ($3 million) as the prior year included higher investment in the Super 8 movie camera, favorable pricing in Motion Picture ($2 million) and lower costs in Consumer Inkjet ($1 million). Additionally, the prior year included the impact of a significant industrial film order ($6 million) and the fulfillment of motion picture film volume commitments ($3 million).

Wouldn't it be really odd if the biggest negative impact in the division would come from a subdivision that is (according to your guesstimate) very small compared to actual still and movie film production? I mean, wouldn't it be really to good to be true if Film was $150 millions and Inkjet was $50 and Inkjet brought in almost the entire loss of the division?

 

[jsrockit]

Closed per the request of OP.