Response to Rodinal 1+100 & Bergger BRF200

The issue is simply about who benefits and who does not from discussing these issues on a public newsgroup. Anyone who reads my various posts will see that I do use mostly material for my work by smaller companies and that – if I like them – will say so. I am in no way against Bergger or any other manufacturer nor do I profit in any way by saying that I like a specific product. I clearly have a right to voice my opinion. Back to the initial question: Who will not benefit if it is not known who really makes specific material and which material it is identical to (as in the case of house or store brands): Clearly the customer, because he will not have the opportunity to use market mechanisms to compare the availability and get the product for the lowest price. Would the availability of products be affected if the customer would know who really produces it and that it is also available under different brand names: No, because the number of B&W users is the determining factor of this market . The number of users will not increase or decrease because a "new" product makes it to the marketplace. Only the distribution of products on this market will be spread differently among the few real producers through differing retail and marketing channels (which most of the newcomers on the market are strictly speaking). Users of traditional emulsion will continue to use them, due to the specific characteristics they prefer, "low grain fetishists" still will not like them. The same is true for users of high quality fiber papers. New companies on a specific market will analyse the market potential, also in the case of a niche market like B&W. The analysis will produce the fact that there is interest in high quality products that the mass manufactuters often do not provide, but also that there is more supply and production capability out there then. The analysis will also produce the fact that building new production would never pay, because the amount of paper and film produced would never justify the investment in hardware (despite no bank or group of investors would finance it). Even big colour film producers are in trouble and according to information in the business section of the large papers even Bayer thinks about selling AGFA. The basic idea of many companies obviously is to use the huge potential of traditional photo companies in Eastern Central Europe with excellent products, which – due to the opposition and valorizations created by mostly widespread urban myth – would not lead into products that could be sold profitably in new markets under the manufacturers name, and create demand by building a positives reputation (to prove this you must only compare what is posted about specific films on this newsgroup). This is nothing bad at all. It is good business practice. BUT there is also nothing bad in making these things known to the customers, since – what counts for the consumer – is the product, its quality, its availability and its price. This is FREE MARKET and FREE SPEECH. What producers want is selling products. This is fine and in the interest of the consumer. The spectrum of interests and intentions of manufacturers, sales companies, distributors, importers and consumers are clearly different though. Does -- for example Consumer -- Reports influence markets by stating which products are identical or similar? I would say yes. Is it against the interest of the consumer? I do hope that my last post may be thought provoking and that I see some responses. This is a discussion forum. Cetero censeo censuram delendam esse!

[ Previous | Next ]