Corporations and Big Boobs – A commentary.

[lilmsmaggie]

Unfortunately we do. We speak with our pocketbooks and wallets and apparently we're not speaking loud enough to keep the machines running.

Thanks for pointing this out. I realize we as consumers have a tendency to think this is enough and that this should be the extent of our effort but then you have to ask yourselves: "why are there lobbyists, and are they doing more than speaking with just their wallets and pocketbooks?"

Let's not get stuck there. Let's push the edge of the envelope and think outside the box. Try a little HP think and ask: "What If ..."

 

[DLawson]

Thanks for pointing this out. I realize we as consumers have a tendency to think this is enough and that this should be the extent of our effort but then you have to ask yourselves: "why are there lobbyists, and are they doing more than speaking with just their wallets and pocketbooks?"

Let's not get stuck there. Let's push the edge of the envelope and think outside the box. Try a little HP think and ask: "What If ..."

Perhaps you could be less vague. Other than doing business with Kodak (for those who like Kodak's products), what do you think this APUG Power should be doing?

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Perhaps you could be less vague. Other than doing business with Kodak (for those who like Kodak's products), what do you think this APUG Power should be doing?

I'm not being vague intentionally. I'm not saying I have the answer either but there must be something. I would think there needs to be discussion to reach consensus as to what type of action could be taken.

Some of the site's sponsors may have some ideas. I have done business with Cox's B&W lab here in the Sacramento area. I'd hate to see them go out of business as Calypso recently has. I'm sure if everyone discussed this with merchants that we patronize as well as the APUG site moderators, it could be fruitfull. Freestyle photo caters mostly to academia -- heck students are usually quite active politically and socially. I'm sure there are tons of photography students out there that enjoy, or perhaps prefer film.

We just need to organize into a coalition along the lines of a Consumer Watchdog http://www.consumerwatchdog.org or Center for Digital Democracy http://www.democraticmedia.org

I'm sure some of you Professional's must have some ideas -- and don't leave out those photography students! They are the future of photography whether they be film or digital - or BOTH!!!

 

[Oren Grad]

I've always shot the 400 in rolls -- I won't miss the 320 rolls in my own work, but I sympathize with those who will.

+1

 

[fotch]

I'm not being vague intentionally. I'm not saying I have the answer either but there must be something. .....

How about saying a prayer.

 

[ajuk]

It's only the 320 version, I scarcely see the point of a film only 1/3 a stop slower than another anyway.

 

[2F/2F]

It's only the 320 version, I scarcely see the point of a film only 1/3 a stop slower than another anyway.

I guess I will be the one to say for the millionth time on the Internet that they are totally different emulsions with different imaging characteristics, not just different-ISO versions of an otherwise identical film.

If the latter was the case, the two separate films would never have existed in the first place. It would have just been one Tri-X Pan.

 

[mikebarger]

I think you're actually 1,000,005 to say it, but only the 105 that actually uses it.

Mike

 

[Darkroom317]

Given its fiduciary responsibility to Kodak shareholders, the answer is "the dollar" by law.

We all ought to invest and become the shareholders then.

But likely Kodak will go down. I don't think that digital can save them.

 

[A_M_Johnson]

The thing that ticks me off the most about this is the Kodak sabotage. I shoot this in 220 and get the same story every time I try to buy it. (this goes back a long time) "We keep ordering it and it never comes"

So, I think the lack of demand was artificially manufactured by refusing to ship it, not that no one uses it any more. So now, instead of it being hard to find, it's gone forever. Shame on Kodak for abandoning a segment of it's customer base and doing so in an immoral way.

 

[mikebarger]

The Cubans must be involved some way.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you were the product manager for Tri-X 320, and you go to management to review the progress you're making in the market place, and you have a product that represents 5% of the total Tri-X sales - how do you make a case to convince your bosses that this film needs to stick around and represent X number of SKUs and remain in inventory?

I want to hear some good sound advice from those that feel they can do better than Kodak.

 

[A_M_Johnson]

If you were the product manager for Tri-X 320, and you go to management to review the progress you're making in the market place, and you have a product that represents 5% of the total Tri-X sales - how do you make a case to convince your bosses that this film needs to stick around and represent X number of SKUs and remain in inventory?

I want to hear some good sound advice from those that feel they can do better than Kodak.

It is sometimes more about providing a complete product line than making a million a day on every product. If you make brackets, do you not make a left bracket but only make right and straight brackets because the left bracket only is 5% of business?

No. You make a complete product line.

 

[mikebarger]

That's a real apples to apples argument.

Your example you have to have set of brackets to hang your shelf.

You don't need every film under the sun to practice photography.


Mike

 

[2F/2F]

It is sometimes more about providing a complete product line than making a million a day on every product. If you make brackets, do you not make a left bracket but only make right and straight brackets because the left bracket only is 5% of business?

No. You make a complete product line.

Mozaktly!

(I would remove the word "sometimes", though.)

...and Ilford seems like they have tried to do this. Their appeal to me is not that I view their films as superior to Kodak's. It is that they have a far more complete "total solution" for film photographers. There are a few gaps, but nowhere near as gaping as Kodak's...and in the past few years, they have filled in gaps more than enlarging them, as Kodak has done. I am sure that there are Ilford films that sell better than others...by FAR. However, the appeal of their more complete product line is the appeal of the company to me, and they seem to see this, and cover their losses from one product with their gains from another. It seems to me that there is far too much SKU ghettoization and minute analysis going on at Kodak...

Oh, how I wish Ilford made color films...

 

[mikebarger]

What about the color film guys? Hard to say they have a complete line.

 

[2F/2F]

What about the color film guys? Hard to say they have a complete line.

Exactly. The complete lines full of interesting, unique films have been axed bit by bit (seemingly on a six-month schedule), while we have more unneeded 100-speed color neg film thrown our way.

If the company was actually a film company, 100%, tooth and nail, maybe their executives would look at something other than the monetary values of each of their peripheral products when deciding how to proceed. Why can't they see the draw of completeness of product line, instead of nitpicking anything that loses money at the expense of it?

 

[mikebarger]

I don't think they are claiming to be 100% film? They've been saying that long enough that their shareholders must agree.

I know some do, and that's what makes the world go round, but I've never understood the desire to have 20 different emulsions in my camera bag.

 

[nickrapak]

Does Ilford have a long-toe portrait film?
Has Ilford ever had a long-toe portrait film?
Will Ilford ever make a long-toe portrait film?

The answer to the first two is no, and I am venturing to guess the answer to the third will be no. If the market was so small that Ilford did not ever make an equivalent, the market was obviously small to begin with, and it just got too small.

 

[clayne]

Unfortunately we do. We speak with our pocketbooks and wallets and apparently we're not speaking loud enough to keep the machines running. All the organizing and letter writing in the world isn't going to do any good unless people are buying the product. A very sad fact for people that do what we do.

PS... You're qualified enough to discuss as anyone here is!

Did Kodak ever say they were losing money on TXP? I'm not saying they haven't, but all I've ever heard is "5% of sales." That doesn't mean negative dollars or zero profit on it.

If there is a reasonable profit of some sort, well IMO, it's just back to the whole shareholders/more more more/greed side of things.

 

[Martin Reed]

....
If the company was actually a film company, 100%, tooth and nail, maybe their executives would look at something other than the monetary values of each of their peripheral products when deciding how to proceed. Why can't they see the draw of completeness of product line, instead of nitpicking anything that loses money at the expense of it?

Talking not specifically about Kodak, but generally, if one were to look at the diversity of photographic lines that were ever in production, compared to what is on the market today it would be what? Maybe 99:1, I doubt if anyone has ever researched this. Products have always been superceded by newer, better ones, it's commerce not a social service. No company subsidises loss-makers, unless there's some major factor there, even Harman culled their cold tone print dev. recently, and that was 50% of a complete line.

The difference now is that the newer & better ones are getting thin on the ground. Kodak gave us the enhanced TMax 400, which from their perspective probably makes raking out the weedier fast B&W films more acceptable. And is, to most consumers.

 

[dr5chrome]

..i normally do subscribe.. ..just haven't 'renewed' as yet this last time. Many personal problems in '09, but ill get to it this week, promise!.

I too think that David's (dr5's) beginning post to this thread is fine.

He might get less flack here, however, if he would advertise (it's really inexpensive) or at least subscribe .

Just saying ....

Matt

 

[MikeSeb]

If there is a reasonable profit of some sort, well IMO, it's just back to the whole shareholders/more more more/greed side of things.

What does "greed" mean, exactly? Does it mean wanting the largest possible return on one's invested capital? What is "reasonable" and who defines it?

This sort of post has me tearing at my hair, in its casual mating of sanctimony to ignorance.

 

[pentaxuser]

Mozaktly!

(I would remove the word "sometimes", though.)

...and Ilford seems like they have tried to do this. Their appeal to me is not that I view their films as superior to Kodak's. It is that they have a far more complete "total solution" for film photographers. There are a few gaps, but nowhere near as gaping as Kodak's...and in the past few years, they have filled in gaps more than enlarging them, as Kodak has done.

Interesting comment. On the last tour in Oct 2008 I think it was Simon Galley who said that Ilford Satin paper sold in very small volumes compared to Pearl and Glossy and yet there has been no indication that Satin is about to be discontinued. Maybe because it is part of the "paper family" which Ilford sees as being valued as a family by consumers who are then more loyal so a near break even or slight loss product actually cements the customer to the company and makes economic sense when not regarded as a single unit.

pentaxuser

 

[MikeSeb]

The thing that ticks me off the most about this is the Kodak sabotage....So, I think the lack of demand was artificially manufactured by refusing to ship it, not that no one uses it any more....

If I follow correctly, this theory holds that Kodak had a product that was flying off the shelves, and decided that this profitable situation was intolerable. They decided to obstruct and delay delivery of said product to the customer in order to kill the product. Makes sense. I'm sure the shareholders would approve.

320TXP, beloved film of Birthers, Kennedy-assassination and 9/11-conspiracy theorists, Roswell denizens, and alien abductors.

"O Judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason."