Film Camera Sales Xmas 04

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> <b>http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/

NewsStory.aspx?section=INFOTECH&oid=65005 </b><p>

 

IDC, a technology market research firm based in Framingham, Massachusetts, expects

2006 will be the year half of the 56 billion consumer prints made will be digital, up

from 36 percent this year and 46 percent in 2005, Chute said. <p>

 

<b>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6739236/</b> <p>

 

Perhaps nothing illustrates the impact better than Eastman Kodak, the company that

popularized film photography and is now fighting for its life -- in January it announced

it would lay off about 20 percent of its 64,000 workers and refocus on digital products

-- as digital cameras slam sales of film, paper and photo-finishing services. Film sales

in the United States have declined every year since their peak in 2000 and are projected

to drop 18 percent this year, according to the Photo Marketing Association. <p>

 

<b>FROM KODAK'S MARCH '04 ANNUAL REPORT: </b> <P>

 

Net worldwide sales of consumer film products, including 35mm film, Advantix film and

one-time-use cameras, decreased 9% in 2003 as compared with 2002, reflecting

declines due to lower volumes of 12% and price/mix declines of 3%, partially offset by

favorable exchange of 6%. Sales of the Company's consumer film products within the

U.S. decreased 18% in the current year as compared with the prior year, reflecting

declines due to lower volumes of 17% and price/mix declines of 1%. Sales of the

Company's consumer film products outside the U.S. decreased 2% in 2003 compared

with 2002, reflecting declines in volume of 9% and price/mix declines of 2%, partially

offset by favorable exchange of 9%. The lower film product sales are attributable to a

declining industry demand driven primarily by the impact of digital substitution and

retailer inventory reductions. <p>

 

The U.S. film industry sell-through volumes decreased approximately 8% in 2003 as

compared with 2002 primarily due to the impact of digital substitution. The Company's

current estimate of worldwide consumer film industry volumes for 2003 is a decrease of

approximately 8%. The Company maintained approximately flat year-over-year

blended U.S. consumer film share as it has done for the past several consecutive years.

<p>

 

Net worldwide sales for photofinishing services (excluding equipment), including

Qualex in the U.S. and Consumer Imaging Services (CIS) outside the U.S., decreased 15%

in 2003 as compared with 2002, reflecting lower volumes and declines in price/mix,

partially offset by favorable exchange. In the U.S., Qualex's sales for photofinishing

services decreased 19% in 2003 as compared with 2002, and outside of the U.S., CIS

sales decreased 8%. These decreases reflect the effects of a continued weak film

industry. <p>

 

Net sales from the Company's consumer digital products and services, which include

picture maker kiosks/media and retail consumer digital services revenue primarily from

Picture CD and Retail.com, increased 6% in 2003 as compared with 2002, driven

primarily by an increase in sales of kiosks and consumer digital services.

</blockquote> </i><p>

[claudia__]

gracias jeff and Z. so....thanks for the info. doesn't mean a thing.

[._._z]

It means that you indeed have no evidence that "there is a renaissance in MF" inspite of

evidence to the contrary, yet you insist on it nevertheless.

[claudia__]

so, are you a barrister in addition to a google wonk? but you are entertaining...yes, despite your "evidence" i have an opinion and time will tell. hil?

[._._z]

Yes, you have an opinion that as is uninformed as it is closed to facts. Sad.

[eric friedemann]

"The internet, and mail order in general together with credit cards and 800 numbers, and a one hour lab in every drug store killed of the neighborhood camera shops."

 

 

Change is the only constant and the photography business has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. I've talked to old-timers about how they used to be able to make a sizeable profit on the sale of every camera and lens and charge an excellent mark-up on quality processing done by Kodak. Yes, things changed, but not overnight.

 

 

Kodak's processing has been turning to crap and Kodak has been closing labs for more than 20 years. Profit margins on pricey hard goods have been lousy for longer than that.

 

 

We have a lab in our store that allows us to turn out superb processing. And we had a Walgreens drug store with a one hour lab 100 feet from us in our mall for decades. Our processing business kept increasing because of the quality of our product and the lack of quality in our competitors' product.

 

 

To survive as a local camera store, you need a quality lab that will generate profit. You need to sell other profitable items, like frames and camera bags.

 

 

Most of all, you need a knowledgeable sales staff. Customers will pay a little more than mail order if they can get educated and know that they are buying the right equipment.

 

 

The last few years have been tough, with digital taking over a photography market that had been dominated by film since the first Kodak box camera. But a store has to adapt (e.g. a reeducated digital-literate sales staff, replacing optical processing machines with digital machines and setting up a website where customers can email their photos to be printed).

[jluebke]

All I can say is thank god for Fujifilm.

 

Contrary to popular belief, Kodak's business troubles are not due to the demise of film, but due to their own shoddy business practices and bad investments. Fuji has not been discontinuing lines of film, and is not in the same dire state of affairs in which Kodak currently finds itself. Kodak has turned out flop after flop in both the consumer and digital camera market, and has been continually hemmoraging cash in its Ofoto venture. It is struggling with an inefficient manufacturing operation that simply can't compete any more. It is going through the same growing pains that General Motors and the other 20th Century Industrial Dinosaurs went through in the 70s and 80s. They have just been slow to realize that they needed to change their business model.

 

That being said, I sympathize with those who have had labs close in their area. That's rough, especially if you shoot b/w and don't develop it yourself. My suggestion is that if you want to shoot film, move to the Detroit area. Thankfully, we still have 3 top notch, high volume pro labs still in business, as well as a few lesser known but excellent independent labs. We also have several excellent retailers that still stock loads of new and used film cameras in all formats.

 

Of course, we still have lots of Ritz Cameras, Costco/Sam's Clubs, and one hour spots for the snapshooters. If there's one sure thing in the American marketplace, it's that the lowest common denominator will never go away -- there will always be a market for McDonald's, Bud Light, and Cheetos. If you're one of the choosy ones who want paté, Dom Perignon and TechPan, you must expect to pay a premium and possibly be inconvenienced in order to get it.

[michaelchristensen]

Like computer sales, digital point n shoot cameras will follow a similar trend .. 3-5 years of constant new models, market saturation, etc. No digital camera can remain current in a sea of everchanging software/hardware solutions .. but the fact remains, more people will be taking pictures than ever before .. for fun, for convenience, etc.

 

Film will continue to be a favored medium for serious work in not only studio, but locations where dependency of laptops and satellite link ups are too costly or deemed unreliable.

 

Digital will continue to demand "top dollar" retail prices; as will supportive computers, faster & bigger hard drives and memory cards; suffice to say digital will not be discovered to be as "inexpensive" as the film camera system it is purported to have replaced.

 

Digital point n shoot will be the "BIC pen" of the decade .. use it for awhile and dispose of it; replace it or not .. trying to resell will be mostly a waste of time/energy; the concept of programmed obsolecense. It is not a bad thing, just a reality.

 

I do believe the camera manufactures know what digital and film sales will be for the next ten years; they just are not divulging that information .. but you can bet that "profit motive" is at the heart of their strategic planning.

 

Perhaps someone has an insight .. but really I would not worry the least about film camera sales, nor digital sales .. both shall coexist for many decades ... only your film camera will survive the transition though.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Film will continue to be a favored medium for serious work in not

only studio

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Most studio photographers I know of seem to be investigating, going or gone digital.

Most of the ones on this site already have. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> the camera manufactures know what digital and film sales will be

for the next ten years; they just are not divulging that information... I would not worry

the least about film camera sales, nor digital sales .. both shall coexist for many

decades </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Camera manufacturers like Nikon and Konica-Minolta have shut down their sales of

point-and-shoot film cameras, and by all reports sales of film cameras (including one-

use cameras) are down. As for coexistence, consider that since 2000, film sales

worldwise have decreased yearly by double-digit percentages; I don't see coexistence in

"many decades," certainly not of the variety of films that photographers have depended

on. Film sales are decreasing dramatically, and b&w and non-35mm formats are tiny

niches within that group.

[claudia__]

surely then, Z, based on your extensive research you can deduce the exact date when film and digital cease to co-exist. i could make serious money in vegas if you could come up with that info.

[._._z]

Surely Claudia could stop her obnoxious trolling, and perhaps get a clue in the process.

[claudia__]

came up empty then did you? oh well. i am not in a hurry. you can get back to me with the date when you intuit it.

[._._z]

Claudia trolling again. Complete crap rolling off her keyboard. Again.

 

She ignores facts saying they're unimportant, positing happy-hope feelings without

proof, she whines now that someone doesn't follow down the same road she's shat

upon. Tough.

[claudia__]

whining? don't think so. i guess i just bring out your inner grouchy control freak. you have no facts. you have nothing but google informed opinions which actually are getting more pedestrian and tedious by the moment. why, we don't even know whether you take pix or not. and maybe if you do take pix they are crappier than my (sometimes amusing) comments on this forum. perhaps you take yourself waaaaay too seriously?

[._._z]

Claudia confises fact and opinion. Her opinion is contradicted by facts, which she

determinedly ignores. (Or do Kodak's sales figures count as opinion on her planet?) She

doesn't think she's whining, perhaps because she's not thinking clearly.

[claudia__]

is there some kind of jury you are addressing? my comments are to you yet you seem to have conjured up some sort of panel you are appealing to for approval by referring to me in the third person. check the syntax of your comments...like, who are you talking to? nite, it's past my bedtime.

[._._z]

It's definitely past Claudia's time.

[james_ogara1]

Jeffrey Spirer wrote: If you get your head out of the sand, you'd know about this more.

 

Yeah, Claudia, what's with you! Get that head out of the sand! You're only addressing a topic that has divided PN for the pst year, with no conclusive answer.

 

:-)

[claudia__]

i think Michael Christensen's post is the one i can agree with. i expect to be buying black and white 120 roll film for a long time. probably 35mm also. the only real fact of any importance is that no one knows and only time will tell. but it is truly rare that one medium totally replaces another. the true believers like Jeff (www.spirer.com) and .[. Z may have to wait awhile longer for the film funeral they so eagerly anticipate.

[._._z]

It's sad when tendentious fanatics Like Claudia incorrectly and desperately ascribe

motives to those with facts.

[claudia__]

.[. Z, i am sorry i have made you sad. say a rosary for me. perhaps that will keep me from burning in digital hell for eternity. better yet, do a novena.

[._._z]

Claudia proves my point. Silly fanatic: get absolution from your God for yourself, please,

and leave me out of it.

[claudia__]

(*_-)

[._._z]

How articulate.

[Spearhead]

I don't know what you're talking about, Claudia, I still shoot film. Not as much, but I do shoot it. However, I don't have high hopes - the guy who does my color printing is down to two days a week at the lab and there's nobody anywhere near as good as him in the area, nor does there seem to be any demand given his current schedule. He's doing all-digital for his own stuff, despite being the best color (darkroom) printer I've worked with.