Why does nobody actually buy Forte

MirkoBoeddecker · 2007-02-23T14:53:24+00:00

Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass es sich lohnen könnte, denn PWT ist doch ein sehr beliebtes Papier gewesen. Samuli, das geht jetzt nicht gegen Dich aber die...

MirkoBoeddecker

I suppose it might be worth it, as PWT was, after all, a very popular stock.

Samuli, this isn’t directed at you, but this question crops up in every other forum, so I wanted to give a general answer to something that always seems to be overlooked in all these discussions: Forte didn’t manage to get into the black, even though they didn’t have to pay a purchase price for machinery, buildings, recipes or the start of production. They’re in liquidation because they’ve been making losses for years, even though they were hard-working and did their best. My view of the market is this: everyone wants the paper back, but for heaven’s sake it mustn’t cost any more. This situation can only be restored by finding a benefactor who is prepared to throw millions more down the drain and, year after year, open their treasure chest and take out more gold coins. The truly feasible alternative is this: put around 2 million on the table. Purchased Forte’s core factory assets. A further 200 to 500 thousand euros on the table to restart production and pay the staff until the first positive cash flow arrives, and then offer it at ILFORD PRICES and produce at least 500,000 square metres a year to be economically viable and at least recoup the investment. So let’s get down to brass tacks: who among you would buy these volumes at these prices? That is the crucial question here, alongside the financing. We’ve been in the same situation before, back in 2004 when Forte went bust. Back then, everyone was moaning and clamouring for the paper to return, promising the moon about how much they’d buy if it came back. Consequently, someone really splashed the cash down there, banking on the market announcements. No sooner had the PW returned to the market – and at around 20% more expensive than before – than customers flocked to the remaining, cheaper alternatives. Forte’s sales have plummeted and, for example, shrunk by 65% for us, even though sales of baryta papers have actually increased. The only overarching explanation for this from everyone was: Because the other paper is cheaper. A good twist to this post would be - If I’m wrong and you disagree with this now. - If the photography community’s unconditional price sensitivity now gives way to at least a thoughtful scratch of the head, following the 10 bankruptcies in roughly two years (Ilford, Fotokemika, Forte, Ferrania, Fohar, Azo, Kodak’s paper division, Svema, Oriental, KonicaPhoto, AgfaPhoto). - If we all eventually stop squabbling over the few remaining apples we’re sitting on and don’t immediately punish future price rises by withholding our support. Are we ready for this? The debate is open; I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Mirko

SamuliSchielke

Well, since I’ve been asked how much I’m willing to pay, let’s be honest: My immediate alternative would be Kentona, and that’s what it costs from my supplier (including Dutch VAT): Pack of 10, 30x40 € 18.25 Pack of 50, 30x40 € 74.95 That’s as much as I can pay; 20 euros for 10 sheets of 30x40 might still be okay, but I’d really rather not go above that. Who’s still in at those prices? (I must add, however, that PWT isn’t my main paper; I use it, so to speak, as a fallback where Fomatone and Fomabrom aren’t suitable. I won’t use more than 10–20 sheets of 30x40 per year. That’s why I’m not as price-sensitive as people who work mainly with this material.) Regards, Samuli P.S. Oh, after having a look in the FOTOIMPEX catalogue, I’ve realised that the 50-sheet pack of Kentona costs only 5 euros more than two 25-sheet packs of PWT. The difference isn’t that great anymore (except in terms of quality – PWT is significantly better). Would those extra 5 euros be enough?

heinrich

Hello, Forte was already dirt cheap, which wouldn’t stop me from buying it if the price were comparable to Ilford’s. It’s just the quantities that are the problem; I won’t be using more than 50 sheets of 30x40 and 100 sheets of 24x30 a year. My job doesn’t leave me enough time for my hobby, and my wife wants to see me now and then as well. How on earth does Foma manage to survive? I’ve never tried any of their products, but they aren’t exactly expensive either. Regards, Heinrich

SamuliSchielke

How on earth does Foma manage to survive?

Mainly through X-ray film, it seems, if you look at their website. But the photography stuff must bring in a bit of profit too, otherwise they wouldn’t still have it in their range. Hats off to them. S.

cfb_de

No sooner had the PW returned to the market – and at a price around 20% higher than before – than customers flocked to the remaining, cheaper alternatives. Fortes’ sales have plummeted, falling by 65% in our case, for example, even though sales of baryta papers have actually increased. The only common explanation given by everyone was: because the other paper is cheaper.

Since then, I’ve bought 900 sheets of PW14 from you in your own discount brand packaging (“ADOX”), and that was more expensive than the original elsewhere! Partly in-store, partly by post, partly as a gift. That was one of the reasons why I visited your shop more often last year. I still have 300 sheets of that left. They’ll last longer too, because my Christmas postcards are already sorted until 2009 and the Vario Classic roll needs to be used up at some point so you can generate some turnover again. But it’s up to you – I can get this paper elsewhere at the same prices. At the same time, you’re selling off an established competitor’s product at discount prices (obviously, it needs to go and is currently cheap to buy in) and think your customers are so stupid that they can’t even translate ‘Wolf’ into other languages. So don’t complain about a lack of support from me. I won’t say any more publicly. Best regards, Franz

MirkoBoeddecker

So don’t complain about a lack of support from me

I’m not. The question was how much Forte paper is likely to be bought at Ilford prices, not who bought how much, when and from whom. Those figures are already known and sobering enough. The other two replies are encouraging, at any rate. Best regards, Mirko

Andreas_23

Hello! It’s a shame that the range of photographic paper is getting smaller and smaller. But is it really because people switch from one manufacturer to another depending on the price, and the ‘abandoned’ manufacturer then goes bankrupt? When I see how many darkroom equipment items are being sold on eBay because people are “giving up their hobby” or “switching to digital”, and the rock-bottom prices they fetch, it seems to me that the market for photographic paper is simply shrinking dramatically – just like the market for analogue photography as a whole. Could it not be that overall demand is simply too low to keep 6, 7 or more brands afloat? I hope that at least the remaining production lines will be preserved; otherwise, things are starting to look really bleak. Best regards, Andreas

RoughGrey

I believe that the market needs to undergo a fundamental shift, and that it will do so; in some respects, this has already happened. And by that I mean the overall market for conventional (i.e. silver-based) photography. The development must continue towards high-end and luxury products in order to ensure profitable production. The conditions for this are actually largely in place. Who still prints their 10 holiday rolls of film on 30x40 black-and-white paper these days? It’s probably more a case of a handful of prints produced during an excessive weekend in the darkroom. Personally, I’m happy if I find the time for such an activity once every few months and end up with perhaps five prints that I can call successful. It’s not just about the result, but very much the process itself – that is, the darkroom session, which involves intensive, even contemplative, craftsmanship and artistic work. The costs of paper and chemicals are entirely secondary here. To illustrate this further, here is a comparison with other markets: on the one hand, luxury goods such as tobacco and chocolate. There, it is cigarettes and supermarket chocolate that satisfy the mass market, which – unlike silver photography – still exists. In addition, however, there is also the high-end market for cigars, pipe tobacco and chocolate. Products that cost many times more than mass-market products, but which sell successfully (and certainly ‘at a profit’) thanks to appropriate positioning. At the moment, for example, ‘chocolate manufactories’ are springing up in many city centres, successfully selling a 100g bar for perhaps 5 EUR to men and, in particular, women. And then, of course, there are ‘classic’ luxury markets, such as for watches, where the actual function of timekeeping is entirely secondary. Here, however, the comparison is rather flawed, as these are not consumer goods. A closer comparison is provided by classic artists’ supplies. Let us narrow this down further to watercolour painting, and more specifically to paper. On the one hand, there are inexpensive machine-made pads, and on the other, individual sheets of handmade paper. Our current photographic papers are largely comparable to machine-made papers (presumably the substrate technology used is also very similar). The question is to what extent we will be able to retain our choice across the entire spectrum from ‘mass-produced to high-quality products’ in the future. In the worst-case scenario, we might have to produce our own photographic paper in future, just as has long been necessary for even older alternative processes – such as cyanotype, gum printing, plate printing and the like (incidentally, this works very poorly with liquid emulsion). Here too, there was once a mass market that has long since died out. Perhaps in 10 years’ time we will also celebrate our treasured possessions much more consciously, just like a bottle of fine wine: “Today, to mark the occasion and the special subject, I shall expose and develop a sheet of my 2007 PW14.” Perhaps preserving such treasures might even be a new business model. Instead of offloading the last few items on eBay, store them properly so they can be appreciated anew later on. Oh, if only my freezer were bigger... ;-) Marco

MirkoBoeddecker

Marco, At some point, things will move in that direction, but at the moment the market is actually still large enough for industrial production, or rather scaled-down large-scale industrial production. The manufacturers’ current difficulties actually stem more from rising costs of raw materials, wages and energy. To some extent, these are indeed due to the follow-on costs of scaling down (higher energy costs because there is less output per unit of time given the fixed heating costs per building). Forte could have operated profitably if they had been able to sell at around 20 to 30% higher prices. Ilford’s current list price level is a good benchmark when working with equipment that has already been written off. If one were to buy a factory first (e.g. Forte), this would have to be factored into the prices as well. Any additional cost increases (e.g. for silver or the paper base) would also have to be passed on immediately. At this level, it would then be possible to enter the market with the initial small-scale production processes. At least for films. Probably not yet for paper. All this is just to briefly outline the current situation for you. There are so many questions in various forums that would be put into perspective upon analysing the situation. Best regards, Mirko

Rodinal

Hello! Guys, let’s not kid ourselves: in an ever-shrinking market, there isn’t room for every company anymore. Who’s actually going to buy all this stuff? Let’s be glad that Ilford has managed to survive; I’d rather see 10 Forte films go down the drain than just one Ilford. East German nostalgia or not. When was the last time Agfa made paper? It’s been a while, hasn’t it? And they’re still selling off huge residues in bulk, more than a year after the last batch was produced. It’s just us hobbyists and a few artists left as potential customers – and how much are we actually buying? If I use 200 sheets of 24×30 a year, that’s a lot... R.

RoughGrey

Mirko, Thank you for your detailed reply. Please don’t get me wrong – I certainly don’t regard the ‘manufacturing vision’ I described as a desirable goal. Rather, what we are currently witnessing are simply the first desperate attempts by a few former ‘sovereigns’ to secure a small remaining niche for themselves – through films in wooden boxes, Solmser photographic equipment with endless special editions in jewellery boxes, and the like. The ideal, of course, would be to have the full spectrum, from large-scale industry to small-scale production, freely available to choose from. Eating nothing but caviar all the time is just as silly; sometimes a little boxed cheese is perfectly fine. But if cost increases of 20–30% can really ‘kill’ a supplier, then I find myself wondering in disbelief about the reasons behind it. Is this about the absolute price that the customer is no longer willing to pay? I really can’t imagine that. Even doubling the price seems feasible to me for many products. Or is it the relative price as a reference to competitors in the market, to whom customers switch immediately as soon as they’re a few cents cheaper? That may well be the case, but why are so many people now looking for a PW14 alternative (myself included, by the way)? Would really no one have bought PW14 anymore if it had become 30% more expensive? A question I’d like to put out there... Marco

StefanHeymann

Let’s take a pack of 24x30/50 PE paper as a benchmark. Current prices: - ADOX EasyPrint Polywarmton RC: €29.00 (€0.58 per sheet) - Ilford Multigrade IV RC: €35.96 (€0.72) - Fomatone PE: €22.04 (€0.44) - (Ilford Multigrade Warmtone RC: €56.50 (€1.13) – not listed in the catalogue; the price is an average from two other retailers) I only compared the Multigrade Warmtone with Polywarmton last week and it’s a good paper (much better than Multigrade IV), but in my humble opinion it can’t hold a candle to PWT. Prices? I’d be willing to pay the €35 for the Multigrade IV. For me, a lower price cannot make up for the superior quality of PWT, and Multigrade IV is an inferior paper. I find the €56 for the MG/WT a bit steep at the moment; I’d probably look for an alternative. Perhaps in a few years’ time I’ll be happy to get a box of 24x30 for €50, but at the moment that would be too much for me. Best regards Stefan

Wolf_XL

...I took the trouble to scan the films, chemicals and paper from the Bremaphot catalogue 56/57: Films, Photochemical Supplies, photographic paper . When you look at the range on offer in reference to average incomes and prices, the variety is actually quite astonishing. That makes the Herzog weekend film with 4 exposures make perfect sense... :) Why was this stuff bought anyway? Were people in the past more willing to invest proper money in their hobby? Or did they limit themselves to just that one hobby? Was the choice available because manufacturers still made enough profit even with small margins? Questions upon questions... But you can also see from the prices just how high things used to go... Will we ever see that price-to-income ratio again? I don’t think so, and I hope not – digital competition is already on the scene... ;)

RoughGrey

These catalogue pages are absolutely heart-warming! Thank you very much! :) I particularly liked the note about Agfacolor papers: "Delivery is restricted to technically trained users. This requires attendance at a 6-day Agfacolor training course at an authorised Agfacolor school and the signing of a written agreement with AGFA Aktiengesellschaft Photofabrikation, Leverkusen.” But when it comes to the phrase “digital competition” in the context of “cheap(er)”, I can’t resist sharing a few more figures... To make a fair comparison with our aforementioned premium baryta papers, we naturally aren’t looking at the special offer from the no-name brand in the “I’m not that stupid, am I?” market, but rather something more befitting: Hahnemühle Photo Rag inkjet paper, 188 g/m², A4 size, 50 sheets: EUR 55.50 Or, even more fitting, the equivalent at 308 g/m²: EUR 76.00 Source: http://www.monochrom.com/cc/monoc/int/katsei/206/69.pdf On top of that, there’s the rather pricey ink. The wastage is certainly no less than with wet-process printing. All in all, the cost per print is significantly higher than that of silver-based paper. Nevertheless, Hahnemühle certainly has no trouble selling Photo Rag – quite the opposite, in fact. And here’s another figure: if I want to print in 40x50 format (which is still quite manageable with silver-based paper), I need an A2 printer, such as the new Epson 3800, which is the most affordable entry-level option for the A2 format. A set of ink for it costs around EUR 370. Source: http://www.lfpdrucker.de/themes/kategorie/...CFQcXEAodA3dPBw Marco