Corporations and Big Boobs – A commentary.

[dr5chrome]

In light of the recent announcement that Kodak was giving the AX to TXP roll film, I just could no longer keep my mouth shut.

TXP is one of the best B&W films on the market. I don't think that there is much of an argument to this fact in this arena. This has to be the stupidest move I have ever seen a company make! To Delete the best product out of their line is truly short sided & dim-witted.

Surly These grown men and women know how to do their jobs. In this circumstance, this is not just a numbers game. Today there are allot less knowledgeable people about film because of the digital market, let alone the many who simply don't know that there are 2 TriX films. As a lab I cant tell you how many times I have to explain this fact.
The facts are that Kodak themselves caused the failure and low sales of TXP by not effectively marketing the 2 separate films.

It is my opinion that Kodak should do a better job in marketing TXP before even considering eliminating this staple film, but given a choice between 'TX' & 'TXP', Kodak should pick the better of these 2 films and make TXP the "TriX" film across the board.

I think it is time for Kodak to sell their film division as ILFORD did. We will be less likely to see Corporation-boobs discontinue anymore films. There is no reason Kodak can not make limited runs of this emulsion instead of totally wiping off the map.

dr5

 

[Alexander Ghaffari]

I just wish that Kodak respected its customers enough to announce the discontinuation of its films BEFORE they stop coating AND wait for remaining stock to dwindle, like all other film companies have done/do. They have a bad habit of doing that with other products/services, as well. That is what bothers me the most, not their lack of appropriate marketing or actual cessation of production.

 

[apconan]

I don't think you're in a position to call them dim-witted with such glaring typos in your post.

Also, I think you need a better understanding of the business world.
"There is no reason Kodak can not make limited runs"
Yes, there is. It's called economies of scale.
You are not smarter than Kodak's entire board and high-level management.

 

[Steve Smith]

I don't think you're in a position to call them dim-witted with such glaring typos in your post.

Whilst I am sometimes one of the first to point out spelling and grammar mistakes, it is always done light heartedly.

In this case DR5 is making a serious point which is his opinion on the matter of stopping TXP production. The incorrect use of short sided, surly and and allot does not subtract from the point he is making.


Steve.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The facts are that Kodak themselves caused the failure and low sales of TXP by not effectively marketing the 2 separate films.

As I've stated before, and as is their right to do so, Kodak upper management have already told us - the film-buying portion of their customer base - precisely which direction they wish to take their company in the long term. And their follow-on actions with regard to the film-based members of their product portfolio continue to directly support their own public statements.

When the highest levels of management at Kodak stated that the film side of their business could disappear tomorrow and they wouldn't care, then your statement above becomes not a cause, but rather an effect.

And those here and elsewhere (not referring to you directly here) who bemoan the fact that "Kodak won't share with us their product plans until the very last moment" just haven't been listening. Kodak's management has been crystal clear on their plans both for their company and its future products.

In fact, the argument has been made with some merit that it was a tactical blunder on their part to share those plans as early as they did.

Ken

 

[Chazzy]

I agree with dr5: Kodak did a lousy job of marketing TXP. A lot of people didn't know what it was or what it could do. Probably a different and more well-known 220 film would have stood a better chance of surviving. If Kodak doesn't stop making excuses and find a way to adapt to a shrinking market, they are doomed.

 

[Michael W]

I think dr5 makes a good point that the name of the product was confusing. Kodak should have named it something other than Tri-X Pro so it was clear that it was a different emulsion.

 

[Cainquixote]

hooray for boobies. nuts to kodak

tri-x 320 i'll miss you.

 

[Chazzy]

I think dr5 makes a good point that the name of the product was confusing. Kodak should have named it something other than Tri-X Pro so it was clear that it was a different emulsion.

And then they should have marketed it in a way appropriate to the Internet age. Where are the people from Kodak on the photography websites? Why isn't Kodak an APUG partner or sponsor? When was the last time you saw an ad for Kodak film on Facebook?

 

[Anon Ymous]

And then they should have marketed it in a way appropriate to the Internet age. Where are the people from Kodak on the photography websites? Why isn't Kodak an APUG partner or sponsor? When was the last time you saw an ad for Kodak film on Facebook?

Do you remember the expired film donation from Kodak? They also gave some Ektar 100 (obviously fresh) for free along with the expired ones. Does that count as promo?

 

[Chazzy]

Do you remember the expired film donation from Kodak? They also gave some Ektar 100 (obviously fresh) for free along with the expired ones. Does that count as promo?

Yes, I have to admit that that was an excellent idea and created a lot of good will for the Kodak brand. They need to do a lot more thinking about marketing on the Internet.

 

[Dan Henderson]

Call me Pollyanna, but I think that while it is too bad that once-venerable Kodak materials are gone or going, their withdrawal from the market leaves more customers for Ilford and other manufacturers, strengthening their ability to serve analog photographers.

 

[mitch brown]

i had just started using it and now the stop makeing it ! oh well i will go back to ilford.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Surely these grown men and women know how to do their jobs.

In fact, they do. Far better than *you* know how to do their jobs. Grow up Dr5chrome. Quit throwing tantrums in public. It's unseemly. If you can't or won't grow up at least STFU. Acting out like this reflects badly on all us film users.

 

[Chazzy]

In fact, they do. Far better than *you* know how to do their jobs. Grow up Dr5chrome. Quit throwing tantrums in public. It's unseemly. If you can't or won't grow up at least STFU. Acting out like this reflects badly on all us film users.

I disagree. And I find your personal attack to be unseemly.

 

[David Brown]

TXP is one of the best B&W films on the market. I don't think that there is much of an argument to this fact in this arena.

Well, maybe a little bit of an argument. I never liked TXP or used 220 film. I guess I am the only one.

But since the entire rest of the world was using TXP, they still (apparently) weren't buying enough of it.

 

[mgb74]

While the TXP decision may or may not be a tactical error, the fact is that film is a niche business now and becoming more and more a niche business with declining volumes. Large companies typically do not serve niche markets well. The future of Kodak's film business is quite clear: fewer offerings, simpler product mix, eventual sale of the business either as an ongoing entity or for it's intellectual property.

In fact, overall Kodak could be faulted for too much emphasis on film and not capitalizing on digital. Basically, either they got blindsided or failed in their response. You can't ignore the fact that up until the mid 90s Kodak basically tracked the S&P 500 but since then has significantly underperformed against that index.

We need to get used to fewer suppliers and new (smaller) suppliers. Perhaps with less product innovation. Personally I'm less concerned with declining or even flat innovation than I am with new suppliers who don't have the product and process quality skills that a Kodak (or Ilford or Fuji) has. It takes a while to develop - look at the rise in product quality for Japanese auto manufacturing in the 80s and Korean auto manufacturing in the last 10 yrs.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Posted wirelessly..

Back in 2003, IIRC, the Great Yellow Father announced that they would remove themselves from the FILM business in seven years. Looks like they're right about on schedule to me.

 

[viridari]

I don't think you're in a position to call them dim-witted with such glaring typos in your post.

When you cannot find good footing to attack your opponent on the weakness of their argument, go then for the easy target of their spelling and grammatical errors.

I don't think I saw that in Sun-Tzu.

 

[gurkenprinz]

In fact, they do. Far better than *you* know how to do their jobs. Grow up Dr5chrome. Quit throwing tantrums in public. It's unseemly. If you can't or won't grow up at least STFU. Acting out like this reflects badly on all us film users.

i would think that acting out like THIS reflects badly on any person...

While I agree that Kodak could do much more in terms of marketing, their reluctance to do so is only one more hint of where their film business is headed. However, there is still hope that they will continue to produce that other lovely Tri-X forever...

 

[SuzanneR]

Call me Pollyanna, but I think that while it is too bad that once-venerable Kodak materials are gone or going, their withdrawal from the market leaves more customers for Ilford and other manufacturers, strengthening their ability to serve analog photographers.

Competition is good... if Kodak were to discontinue ALL film products, I think, would be bad for Ilford. I can't help but feel that many people (not necessarily photographers) would simply be under the impression that film is no longer manufactured, period. And, I think, if there's only one company left standing, then any bump in the road they might hit, would be bad news for the few photographers who stuck it out.

If you are a pro, and want to use film, it would be risky to make big investments in gear if only one company were making film. If Kodak needs to discontinue a poor selling film (despite my efforts, as I've routinely used 220 format TXP over the past few years.) to save the rest of it, then that's something I'll adjust to. I like the regular Tri-x, and I'm going to try TMY and Fp4 next. I want to know, and understand more than one film, from more than one manufacturer.

 

[viridari]

Well don't forget, Suzanne, that there are many more film manufacturers out there than just Kodak/Ilford/Fuji. Fomapan, for example, has been very kind to me.

 

[SuzanneR]

Yes, of course... I'm just saying we really shouldn't wish for any one's demise, as my scenario is really "a worst case". At any rate, Kodak is such a well known brand, to have them give up film all together would be *gulp* ... don't even want to contemplate it....

 

[DLawson]

In fact, they do. Far better than *you* know how to do their jobs. Grow up Dr5chrome. Quit throwing tantrums in public. It's unseemly. If you can't or won't grow up at least STFU. Acting out like this reflects badly on all us film users.

Ooo, nice showing on that maturity front.
I may have a new standard example for unintentional irony.

 

[viridari]

Yes, it would be awful for Kodak to go away. But they seem to be swirling around the bowl, so to speak.

The boutique manufacturers may be the ones who keep the fire going for us if/when the unthinkable happens. They are in a better position to scale up than Kodak is to scale down.