Business screen magazine (1946)

ladcqualcly skilled. Then, they arc I moved upward in rank. 'I Perhaps the most fundamental in■'dustr>' priiblem currently, is the ■price vvar. Increase in tlie numher Hof laboratories, the difficult economic slump, market changes, have all contributed to competitive pricing pressures. I Attempts to offer more than llic icompetitor offers have been varied. As discussed, a number of labs have installed equipment to cmphasi/e speed. One lab has offered a com|ilete package to industrial clicntv that includes shipping of films and storage facilities, thereby removing responsibility from the individual film user. Nevertheless, many film people expressed the opinion that another approach might be most effective for the industry as a whole. Because of the similarity in the pricing problem and the existing competition between all labs, a closer, more cooperative relationship between them might establish a minimum standards. Such an action would result in a c|ualily war. rather than a price war. In addition, it could lead to the resolving of some in-housc inefficiency. MONEY PINCH The slow payment pattern reportedly is indigenous to the film lab industry and a condition the industry has permitted. It takes 60. 90 and 120 days to turn an accoimt around. Yet, for some, the prompt payment of bills in 1970 meant the ability to survive while business was down. Approximately ."iOO small production companies have sprung up, according to Milton Kaye of Musicues Corp. in New York. These companies are composed of people dropped from production departments in large advertising agencies. "You never know when you're selling them." said Kaye, '"whether they have an account or they're submitting a pilot." Larry Lippman of New York City's Design Effects conceded, "On paper we're in good shape, but people arc either not paying their bills, or they're slow payers. If a man owes me $10,000, I'd be happy if he would send me $1,000 so that I can split it with my suppliers." To handle this problem, many labs have become very selective and overly cautious of the people with whom they will work, and many have hired full time credit men. CHANGE AND CHALLENGE Nineteen seventy brought both challenges and changes to the film industry. Tight money and fierce price competition were among the financial difficulties that confronted film laboratories. Although a few reported an increase in sales volume I during 1970. most firms were at least moderately affected by the economy's slowdown. Nevertheless, equipment invest iment continued. Many of these investments were made to enable lab ! oratories to offer customers faster on-target service. However, equip I ment for processing 8 mm and super-8 mm film was also stressed. The entire industry was eying the I development and growth of videotape and cassettes. Differences of opinion existed regarding the extent to which they will be used in education and industry. Some labs were contemplating expanding into this area of enterprise; others were resisting the new influence. However, all agreed that the two media would bear close watching for future effects on the film industry. Lack of equipment standardization was stated as a problem that confronted film people. Particularly observable in the numerous types of projectors that arc available, the situation at times resulted in confusion between film user and processor. Often, the customers' failure to indicate the type equipment being iisetl resulted in less efficiency Attitude in the lab was of impor tance to film processors in 1970. They indicated that this was a prime influence on speed and quality, factors that distinguished labs with essentially the same equipment. Speed and quality were also mentioned as the ideal criteria for competition between labs — not price. Some spokesmen suggested that a more cooperative relationship between labs be sought, as the entire industry was affected by common problems. If a minimum standard could be established, labs would be in a better position to emphasize quality. In general, the outlook for 1971 was optimistic. Many laboratories expected an upswing in the economy. Many — although not all — were anticipating the growth that the new technological advances in tapes, cassettes, and super-8 would make possible. All things considered, film |irocessors were meeting problems and changes as challenges, not as ibstacles. I APRIL, 1971 25