Kodachrome 64 Price Gouging at B&H ??

<p>"If Kodachrome was seen as wonderful as everyone here states, the demand would never have dwindled."<br>

<br />That's probably the dumbest statement in this whole thread. It seems to me that the advent of digital might have had just a little impact... ya think?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Keith Aldrich, Jun 23, 2009; 05:53 p.m.<br /></em></strong><em>[ ] <br /></em><em>....</em><em>I assure you, that no children will starve to death because the price of K64 has gone up do to it being discontinued.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gosh Keith, you make it all so simple! But why so many poor examples?<br /><br />The high retail price of limited luxury goods generally reflect high prices at which those goods are being supplied <em>to</em> the retailer. The producer/manufacturer/wholesaler's price rises, therefore the retailer's costs rise, so the retailer's prices rise.<br /><br />If gasoline was being discontinued tomorrow, the people that sell gasoline to the public would be facing a collapse, or major shrinkage, of their businesses. They would therefore predictably, perhaps with some justification, try to earn as much as they could with the last of their supplies. Again, a price rise is related to a cost to the retailer.<br /><br />A retailer selling Kodachrome, as one of 10,000 product lines, is not going to suffer materially when that product is discontinued. To significantly raise their price overnight in response to an announcement of discontinuance is profiteering. It is not suddenly costing them more from Kodak. It may be a relatively small sum of money involved, but the principle is the same. (Petty shoplifting is not as bad as massive fraud, but they should both be discouraged.)<br /><br />Imagine an isolated community ravaged by a hurricane. The only local supplier of building materials can triple his normal (already profitable) prices because people want those materials badly. That is supply and demand at work. But it is not admirable conduct.<br /><br />Pretty much everyone understands how supply and demand work, Keith. But not enough people appreciate that this particular piece of economic dogma is not really a satisfactory justification for every decision that a business takes. It may <em>explain</em> some decisions, but it does not necessarily make them right. Do you understand the distinction between explanation and justification?</p>

<p>> supply and demand</p>

<p>Hmmm ... if there were demand, why would Kodak drop it? Think about this. This artificial "demand" you are seeing is just sentimental. If there is truly a demand that can generate profit, why would Kodak be so stupid? Which company you know of does not want a profit?</p>

<p>I think you guys should just let the corpse rot and pass ... it's over. RIP.</p>

<p>Meh, how many people are pricing out K64 for the first time because of this announcement? My bet is that Dewayne's is going to have one hell of a time processing the huge sudden demand for the last batch... and that can only mean one thing... more possibilities for lower quality. It makes perfect sense for a company that is closing factories and loosing jobs to discontinue it's single most expensive and difficult product to produce and support, which also happens to have rather low popularity. </p>

<p>This would be like demanding the Volkswagon continue to manufacture the original Beetle (which only stopped production about 6 years ago) despite all of the specialized equipment and general lack of interest from consumers as well as a rather small distribution network. The fact that most of the rest of the world has moved on to either a Golf or a Jetta or a Jetta repackaged as a New Beetle and the people interested in Classic Beetles are largely interested in CLASSIC pre-1970's models means that the demand for such a vehicle is rediculously low.</p>

<p>You can't buy Kodachrome everywhere. You can't get a good price on it, you pay a premium higher than other slide films. You can't shoot it in every 35mm camera (some PNS camera's don't go down that low in ISO and you would be better off shooting it on a professional camera). And you can't process it anywhere, in fact you can only process it in ONE PLACE, at a very high price with a very long waiting list. For much much less hassle and price and with a higher speed range you can shoot Ektachrome. Just be glad you can still do that.</p>

<p>Time to beat a dead horse. It's Capitalism. Why does an Impala sell at a steep discount while a Corvette sells at a premium over MRSP? It's Capitalism. Don't like the price? You know what to do.</p>

<p>"If Kodachrome was seen as wonderful as everyone here states, the demand would never have dwindled."<br /> <br /> That's probably the dumbest statement in this whole thread. It seems to me that the advent of digital might have had just a little impact... ya think?</p>

<p>You probably have to get a lot of things explained to you don't you?</p>

<p>Mark, not just the advent of digital, but continuous improvements on Ektachrome over the last 60 years and Ektachrome's generally lower price and easier processing and even the improvement of high resolution films like Ektar 100 and Portra 160 have cut into those profits as well... and that's just where Kodak has been competing with ITSELF, not including the likes of Fuji slide films like Velvia and Provia and it's high resolution print films. You are looking at a product that was dwindling in popularity LONG before digital cameras were good for anything more than keychain photos.</p>

<p>Enrique, you must be Hispanic. No offence, right?<br>

BTW, I'm Dutch. Don't feel offended by that either.</p>

<p>We're all something Enrique, its just that some of us are dumb as well. No offence, right?</p>

<p>Back on topic: I agree with Patrick, Kodachrome sales were declining before the arrival of digital. It's too bad the process is expensive and requires large quantities to make it profitable. I own slides my uncle shot in the 1970s and they're as bright as day after 30 years.</p>

<p>Supply & Demand? Basic Economic Practise? Basic business tactics? The latter two yes, but it doesn't make it right, price gouging and fixing is actually illegal, the majority of cases get turned a blind eye towards though.</p>

<p>David Hoya wtrote:<br>

"Gosh Keith, you make it all so simple! But why so many poor examples?<br /> <br /> The high retail price of limited luxury goods generally reflect high prices at which those goods are being supplied <em>to</em> the retailer. The producer/manufacturer/wholesaler's price rises, therefore the retailer's costs rise, so the retailer's prices rise.<br /> <br /> If gasoline was being discontinued tomorrow, the people that sell gasoline to the public would be facing a collapse, or major shrinkage, of their businesses. They would therefore predictably, perhaps with some justification, try to earn as much as they could with the last of their supplies. Again, a price rise is related to a cost to the retailer.<br /> <br /> A retailer selling Kodachrome, as one of 10,000 product lines, is not going to suffer materially when that product is discontinued. To significantly raise their price overnight in response to an announcement of discontinuance is profiteering. It is not suddenly costing them more from Kodak. It may be a relatively small sum of money involved, but the principle is the same. (Petty shoplifting is not as bad as massive fraud, but they should both be discouraged.)<br /> <br /> Imagine an isolated community ravaged by a hurricane. The only local supplier of building materials can triple his normal (already profitable) prices because people want those materials badly. That is supply and demand at work. But it is not admirable conduct."</p>

<p>Odd that you attack Keith when he clearly has a firmer grasp on this than you do. Supply and demand determine price.</p>

<p>You seem to think that all product pricing should be cost plus. That isn't the way markets work. Or do you work for a govenment contractor? That could very well distort your view of reality.</p>

<p>Wow, a thread this long over a product life cycle end, that seems to have also steered many into macroeconomic theory. I wonder if there is still interest in debating vinyl records v. digital media?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Business is no charity people, get over it. If you find the film not valuable enough at the current price, don't buy it. If most people think like you, the demand will drop and so will the price. If OTOH demands doesn't drop, that means it is *the* price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>macroeconomic theory</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, its Micro-Economic theory. :D</p>

<p>Well, I am disappointed as well (macroeconomics professors allowing :-) ) at B&H for such practice, didn't expect that from such a reputed business. I don't know if the bad publicity is worth the couple of extra dollars they are getting per roll.</p>

<p>Have a couple rolls left, I like the film very much, but love Velvia too. It is sad because it is like the end of an era, but we have to accept that film may dissapear or become scarce, and for so, less choices and more expensive. Hopefully MF digital backs will be more affordable by then.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are looking at a product that was dwindling in popularity LONG before digital cameras were good for anything more than keychain photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. I recall Kodachrome beginning to disappear from numerous retail outlets by the mid 1990's. When I first entered the hobby in the late 1970's, you could find Kodachrome 64 and Ektachrome 64 in every department store and drug store across the country, often in 110 and 126 as well as 35mm. </p>

<p>Since film is less popular, it would be more reasonable for it to be cheaper to entice those who want to try it. </p>

<p>Most discontinued items go for a reduced price, even if having a following. I used to shoot with this film many years back, but my film choices have been different in recent years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well - I suppose an increase from $8.50/roll yesterday to over $11.00/roll really is not as bad as can be, but I note that B&H seemingly changed their price right after the news was announced.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How do we know that B&H, Adorama and others aren't simply passing along a price increase from Kodak?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Since film is less popular, it would be more reasonable for it to be cheaper to entice those who want to try it.<br>

Most discontinued items go for a reduced price, even if having a following. I used to shoot with this film many years back, but my film choices have been different in recent years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would think that concept only applies when a product's dwindling popularity results in a surplus that will never be sold at the intended price. The amount of Kodachrome produced in recent years has already been drastically downsized in response to fading consumer demand.</p>

 

<p>Price gouging/profiteering are labels we attach to the selling of necessary or essential items at a high mark-up. Since film is really neither necessary or essential I wouldn't accuse any of this merchants of behaving dishonestly or immorally as they are simply taking advantage of temporary market conditions in a manner that harms no one. Besides, the remaining supplies will be rationed out somehow, either by people's willingness to pay or people's willingness to invest effort in tracking down remaining supplies. Which is more moral... I have no idea. </p>

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5181143">John Liberty</a> , Jun 23, 2009; 05:43 p.m. said:<br /> Typical for both Adorama and B&H. There are other more reputable companies...</em> <br /> <em></em> I'm not sure what put this bug in your head. There may be other AS REPUTABLE retailers, but there are none more so.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /> <strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I find it interesting that Mr. Posner saw fit to address two of the most negative posts (including one that should have been removed immediately) but makes no statement about the some 40 per cent increase in the price shortly after Kodak's announcement.</p>

 

<P><I>Moderator's Note: A racial/ethnic comment on a post previously made has now been removed, along with references to it. That slipped by this moderator while traveling and having limited access to the web.</I></P>

<blockquote>

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1023800">John Lynch</a> , Jun 24, 2009; 02:30 p.m.<br /> I find it interesting that Mr. Posner saw fit to address two of the most negative posts (including one that should have been removed immediately) but makes no statement about the some 40 per cent increase in the price shortly after Kodak's announcement.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought I had, but I'll be happy to repost this:<br /> Our price has been lowered from what it was yesterday but Econ 101 says that supply and demand do influence prices. This is not an investment property to buy and hold with the idea you'll be able to sell it in a couple of decades to finance the kid's college education. <br /> <br /> But, this is a scarce item which will become more so soon. If a small price hike puts off a dilettante so stock is more available for those who'll really use and appreciate it, it's to the good. And, if our small price hike helps us hold other prices in check or add one more item to our "free shipping" roster or helps pay for one more guy in the warehouse so orders get out of here more speedily, that too serves a useful purpose. <br /> <br /> My PERSONAL opinion is folks who presume this is some sort of unsavory opportunistic price gouging have not thought through all the parameters of the situation.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /> <strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>Mr. Posner,</p>

<p>To quote a valuable marketing school teaching, "perception is reality." I suggest that you take the comments from the customers that have supported you seriously.</p>

<p><em>I suggest that you take the comments from the customers that have supported you seriously.</em></p>

<p>Of COURSE we do. That's a primary reason I'm here.<br /> Henry Posner<br /> <strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.<br /> Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)<strong><br /> </strong></p>

<p><strong><br /> </strong></p>