Mozaktly!
...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
I think this gets to what a lot of people believe. If a company is willing to carry a marginal product, one which does not make them much money but serves the needs of a segment of their customers, there is a perception that the company will look after the customers. When the perception is that a cold, hard calculus is used regarding under-performing products by people looking at numbers and not at customers, alienation and resentment result.
I think many believe that the products being discontinued by Kodak are not necessarily money-losers, but represent small enough numbers that they are judged to be not worth bothering with. I don't know if that's true, but I do think there is something to the concept of a full line retaining customer loyalty, even if some products lose some money.
I don't know if Tri-X 320 actually lost money or not. If so, it's hard to assert as the department head, that it should have been retained. It may have been that a downward trend showed it going past break-even with the next coating. It's awfully hard for a department head to plead for preservation of products over and over, especially if they feel that they must choose which to defend. Unless they can show management that there is an overriding concern, like market presence, not just market share, they may find themselves without enough political capital when they most need it.
There's a fine line to tread. If someone sees Ilford committed to film and Kodak seeming to waver, they might consider it more prudent to give their business to Ilford, to help ensure that they will still be around when Kodak gets out of the market.
I do think it was stupid of Kodak management to announce plans years ago to move away from the film market, and it did not sit well with all investors, either. By announcing it, every film termination has the appearance of fulfilling the management's wishes. They seemed to be viewing digital and film as mutually exclusive, or film as dead. As they appeared so willing to toss their historical business, they appeared also willing to toss their loyal user base.
They clearly cannot afford to jettison all film at this time, as its profits cover digital's losses. So it's not that they won't support a money-losing product, it's that they see digital as their future, and film as their past. With their vision and goals so directed, it's not hard to see why people would no longer believe Kodak supports their interests to the degree it could.
If Kodak were not in digital they would either be in film and resigned to being a small company, or would be in something else that they believed held promise of growth. Success in digital is not assured, as they are up against companies who are long experienced in electronics. What if their sensor sales tank, due to not having competitive enough products, or the market for sensors drying up as camera makers create their own, or something else? If the margins and volume become too small, how is that different from a poorly selling, barely break-even film?
I'd bet there are people who are competent to run Kodak who wouldn't be willing to, given what it's facing in the future.