Can't Kodak Help Save Film by.....

RattyMouse · Feb 17, 2012

Can't Kodak help save film by dying? I hate to say that but it seems that if Kodak went belly up, and ceased all film manufacturing, then the remaining players Fujifilm and Ilford would have more customers and a more profitable business. I know that most would prefer Kodak to be the surviver and have Fujifilm disappear. However, clearly Kodak is the most mismanaged company out of the two. Fujifilm has successfully moved out of the film business and diversified enough to withstand the loss of their film business.

Anyway, what about the idea that having Kodak go under might actually help insure that film survives? Valid? Not so much?

fotch · Feb 17, 2012

Others have suggested that with the reduced buying of raw materieals, the remaining manufacturers will have problems with being able to produce items. Considering how much Kodak consumes, I would think this is a valid argument.

Best help you can do is buy some Kodak film now. That is what I plan to do.

CatLABS · Feb 17, 2012

I just bought 100 shares of kodak, just for sake of putting in my 2 cents (literally)

stavrosk · Feb 17, 2012

So a company will die and so many people will be left unemployed and so many investors will lose their money so that film remains alive?

Which is not even sure.

Aristophanes · Feb 17, 2012

Well, you answered the question yourself with Fuji. They have managed to move beyond film to other profitable ventures, but they still record large declines in film sales. They may pick up residual customers for C-41 from Kodak, but that does not change the problem with falling aggregate demand, and I doubt Fuji will go on a mission to carve out a niche for film. It's Kodak that has the history and legacy to do so and in theory, they could spin out that legacy to better managed, more focussed partners.

eddie · Feb 17, 2012

2 questions:
What incentive would a company have to invest in research and development if they had no competition?
What incentive would a company have to control costs if they had no competition?

keithwms · Feb 17, 2012

Oh good grief. Somebody please pile this thread on top of all the other almost identical ones. Sorry, but certain people have proven quite clearly that they enjoy saying the same thing over and over, for 30+ pages....

Steve Smith · Feb 17, 2012

In what way have Fujifilm moved out of the film business?

Steve.

Poisson Du Jour · Feb 17, 2012

Do we really need another bloody thread about Kodak, supposed declining film and other bull being propagated as fact?
Shoot! Get out and photograph!

semi-ambivalent · Feb 17, 2012

krifartida said:
I just bought 100 shares of kodak, just for sake of putting in my 2 cents (literally)

What I've been thinking of doing for a while now is buying 100 shares of Kodak and getting them in certificate form (if 100 sh is enough, and if certs are even available these days). It will save nothing and I will lose all my money, but I'll have a nice memento to hang in the darkroom.

s-a

Sirius Glass · Feb 17, 2012

Kodak would be better off dumping digital completely.

Oh, they just did that!

removed account4 · Feb 17, 2012

Sirius Glass said:
Kodak would be better off dumping digital completely.

Oh, they just did that!

actually they didn't, and it is the only thing that is going to keep them alive in a
shrinking analog market.

Aristophanes · Feb 17, 2012

jnanian said:
actually they didn't, and it is the only thing that is going to keep them alive in a
shrinking analog market.

Kodak has eliminated digital capture through their sensor division (could not compete) and digicams (no smartphones).

They divide their business into input and output. Or capture and print. They have 80% of their revenues now from the print side, and a shrinking 20% from their capture side.

Perry Way · Feb 17, 2012

keithwms said:
Oh good grief. Somebody please pile this thread on top of all the other almost identical ones. Sorry, but certain people have proven quite clearly that they enjoy saying the same thing over and over, for 30+ pages....

LOL!

Wayne · Feb 17, 2012

Aye...moderators, please euthanize either this thread, the other one(s), or me....

fotch · Feb 17, 2012

How about a new forum, call it WUK (whats up Kodak) or WWK (whats with Kodak)

Roger Cole · Feb 18, 2012

fotch said:
How about a new forum, call it WUK (whats up Kodak) or WWK (whats with Kodak)

How about calling it "troll food?"

The answer to the original question is "no."

The answer to troll food is "ignore thread."

Bubye.

alanrockwood · Feb 18, 2012

All you people who don't want to read this (and similar threads) why do you come and read the thread and then complain about it? Just stay away and leave the discussion to those who are interested.

You remind me of a story a friend of mind once told me. It was supposedly a true story. He once had a college roommate who used to parade around the apartment in his underwear. The problem was, the window was always open. One day the police came to talk to him about it. A woman had called the police to complain about my friend's roommate. The lady said that seeing my friend's roommate parade in front of the window in his underwear was "... the most disgusting half hour of my life."

This story reminds me of those who read this thread and then complain about it.

alanrockwood · Feb 18, 2012

krifartida said:
I just bought 100 shares of kodak, just for sake of putting in my 2 cents (literally)

The problem is that when you bought those shares you didn't help Kodak. Not a single penny of the money you paid for the shares will go to the company.

Furthermore, if you continue to hold the shares you are guaranteed to lose every penny you paid for them because if the company manages to emerge from bankruptcy as an operating company the old shares (including the ones you own) will be cancelled. New shares will be issued to the creditors, and the old shareholders will lose every penny on the shares they hold. The only way you can recover anything on your shares is if you sell them before the bankruptcy proceeding is completed.

Now, I'm not talking about losing 50% of your investment. I'm not talking about losing 90% of your investment. I'm not talking about losing 99% of your investment. I'm not talking about losing 99.999999% of your investment. I'm talking about losing 100%.

Now, if you really want to hold on to your shares for sentimental reasons then I suggest that you request a share certificate for the shares you own. You can hang it on your wall as a souvenir as a reminder of something that once was. The shares will have no other value than that. You should probably do that before the company emerges from bankruptcy because I doubt if it will be possible afterward.

NB23 · Feb 18, 2012

You want Kodak to commit suicide just so you can enjoy a very few rolls of film on the cheap?

RattyMouse · Feb 18, 2012

fotch said:
Others have suggested that with the reduced buying of raw materieals, the remaining manufacturers will have problems with being able to produce items. Considering how much Kodak consumes, I would think this is a valid argument.

Best help you can do is buy some Kodak film now. That is what I plan to do.

I don't believe that Kodak's purchasing or lack thereof will affect Fujifilm. Fuji can continue to make film regardless of what happens to Kodak.

RattyMouse · Feb 18, 2012

Steve Smith said:
In what way have Fujifilm moved out of the film business?

Steve.

What way? How about every conceivable way! Fujifilm makes virtually none of their profit from film compared to 20 years ago. Fujifilm makes products such as: Pharmaceuticals, Endoscopes, LCD screens, Cosmetics, Inks, etc... The list of non film businesses that Fujifilm is engaged in is almost endless.

Fujifilm is the exact opposite of Kodak. They successfully moved out of film.

Steve Smith · Feb 18, 2012

RattyMouse said:
Fujifilm is the exact opposite of Kodak. They successfully moved out of film.

Except that they still make it.

RattyMouse said:
Fuji can continue to make film regardless of what happens to Kodak.

But I thought you said they have moved out of film?!!!

Steve.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 18, 2012

RattyMouse said:
I don't believe that Kodak's purchasing or lack thereof will affect Fujifilm. Fuji can continue to make film regardless of what happens to Kodak.

Supply chain.

Have you considered that some of the materials Kodak is ordering, in very large quantity, and vital to film production, could simply stop being available if Kodak stopped their orders?
Once understanding this, you must consider how this affects other film producers.

Wayne · Feb 18, 2012

alanrockwood said:
All you people who don't want to read this (and similar threads) why do you come and read the thread and then complain about it? Just stay away and leave the discussion to those who are interested.

You remind me of a story a friend of mind once told me. It was supposedly a true story. He once had a college roommate who used to parade around the apartment in his underwear. The problem was, the window was always open. One day the police came to talk to him about it. A woman had called the police to complain about my friend's roommate. The lady said that seeing my friend's roommate parade in front of the window in his underwear was "... the most disgusting half hour of my life."

This story reminds me of those who read this thread and then complain about it.

This thread has nowhere to go-and has already been there and back-but Doom and Gloom, and as such it should be posted in the appropriate forum. Doom and Gloom already permeates numerous threads.

Maybe we should just all buy Kodak film to save Ilford, while ignoring the obvious effects this will have on Ilford. These are stupid, pointless non-photographic discussions, perfectly appropriate Lounge material. Bah...I'm out of this one...

Can't Kodak Help Save Film by.....

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency