Interesting take on the Ritz failure

[johnastovall]

TOP had an interesting essay on the failure of Ritz and the rise and fall of the Noritsu minilab.

"Ritz wasn't buying stores to sell cameras; they were buying locations to operate minilabs."

Full story....

[jeffkohn]

I'm sure photo prints were a big part of their business model. They weren't selling camera equipment for 5-10% above cost though. Ritz charged full list price, which probably didn't help them get sales.

[photostein]

Another observation I have is that the more prolific a particular activity becomes (i.e. digital cameras have a small future cost to the consumer so little reason not to snap up everything in sight) the worse the standards become for what constitutes "photography." I don't count snap shots as photography because no skill is involved.

I spend at least a couple hours every time we have a family photo shoot planning and meditating on what I will need to make it work well.

Most families tell their kids to "go sit on the couch and smile," and pray for the best. If that is their standard, so be it.

That won't be ours. I am very thankful I have learned the know how of lighting and equipment (all self-taught) to take studio quality photos of my family. The interesting thing is now with the pervasiveness of photos and the internet, it is hard to get someone's attention with a photograph any more.

I have yet to have any one tell me, from looking at my electronic pics on my phone of some photography I have created that I should try and sell my work at an art show; BUT, at home where I have 16x20 canvas wrapped prints of the same photos, those same folks are in awe and ask me whether I would be interested in selling anything. what I have done is controlled their perception by the medium of communication. A print simple is the best way of showing work because it is real and tangible to the viewer; therefore, their emotions have to get involved and that is what sells photographs.

It really comes down to the medium utilized to show your work and perception must be controlled. For some reason, a photography just takes on a new persona to the viewer when printed well, and hung on the wall.

[kenw]

this was fairly obvious to anyone who had ever walked into one the stores. It's (minilab) where the cashflow and volume came thru the door. They couldn't compete with online so they didn't try. Selling "stuff" gave the employees something to do between lab jobs, and many stores kept a person in the lab fulltime.

Nothing wrong with trying something that MIGHT work instead of something that has been proven definitely won't work.

It's why Walmart's photo "labs" are located farther back in the store, like meat and dairy at the grocery store. Unfortunately, many of Ritz's labs were right by the door and their targets never walked past all the other cookies, candy, ie; higher margin stuff.

[venchka]

Dan,

It ain't a photograph until it's printed. Many folks don't get it.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by venchka

Dan,

It ain't a photograph until it's printed. Many folks don't get it.

...on paper, or projected on a screen or displayed on a monitor.....

.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by kenw

...on paper, or projected on a screen or displayed on a monitor.....

.

Technically, a photograph is a printed image. In its digital form, it's still just an image in "0"s and "1"s.

[Spec A!]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

I'm sure photo prints were a big part of their business model. They weren't selling camera equipment for 5-10% above cost though. Ritz charged full list price, which probably didn't help them get sales.

This is funny, I just commented on the exact same thing in one of the other Ritz threads. Photofinishing was where the money was, and the store I worked in was EXACTLY like the one in TOP article. We had both Noritsus and and Fuji lab machines, all leased.

And yes, Ritz absolutely sold for about 5-10% (more like 10) above cost. At least back in MD where I worked at the photo store, the local Ritz's weren't more than 10% above cost on equipment.
List prices were ALOT more and no one ever sold for list.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Technically, a photograph is a printed image. In its digital form, it's still just an image in "0"s and "1"s.

nope.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photograph

and

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photography

[toverman]

I just wonder how much it costs to run an ad in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary. :-)

[Roy]

Originally Posted by venchka

Dan,

It ain't a photograph until it's printed. Many folks don't get it.

That's almost exactly what my wife says.

The only difference is she say's "It not a photograph until it's printed."

[ggeen]

Nothing like looking up the origins of the word...

photograph (n.)
1839, "picture obtained by photography," coined by Sir John Herschel from photo- + -graph "instrument for recording." It won out over other suggestions, such as photogene and heliograph. Neo-Anglo-Saxonists prefer sunprint. The verb and photography also are first attested 1839, all from a paper read before the Royal Society on March 14, 1839.

[chamstra]

Well, back to the issue of why they are probably going out of business - I received an email from them today selling TurboTax. Not sure how that fits in their business model.

[HaloZ]

like best buy and circuit city, i only went in to riz/wolf to test/feel items before buying them from adorama or B&H. Unless i needed a filter in a pinch.

but i guess they would be a good place to go to tp get my 370* pana of Tokyo printed up before they close. it's not like i can get anything bigger than 12 inch from CVS or Walgreens.

[ggeen]

I mostly used Ritz/Wolf for prints. They are less than a mile from the house and do a better job than CVS. I did buy my D300 through their web site. Their price was the same as others at the time and that *actually* had one in stock.