Gerbershagen The new Head of Kodak Alaris says he wants input.

[pentaxuser]

Isn't there the small matter of current U.K. Kodak pensioners to consider when we discuss the benefits of ending KA?

pentaxuser

 

[StoneNYC]

Isn't there the small matter of current U.K. Kodak pensioners to consider when we discuss the benefits of ending KA?

pentaxuser

I still don't understand the pension thing... When a company goes under, isn't the pension fund separate? So it ends up being managed by someone but still pays out?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I still don't understand the pension thing... When a company goes under, isn't the pension fund separate? So it ends up being managed by someone but still pays out?

In the past big companies were/are self funded when there were defined benefit plans. Now most just have 401K type retirement programs that are separate from the companies.

 

[MattKing]

I still don't understand the pension thing... When a company goes under, isn't the pension fund separate? So it ends up being managed by someone but still pays out?

The UK pensions, like all Kodak pensions (AFAIK) were held in trust and managed by the various individual Kodaks.

Like all pension funds, the contributions were calculated based on actuarial estimates of how many people were likely to survive, and for how long, as well as estimates of how much investment income was likely to be earned by the fund.

The assumptions that formed the basis of those estimates were just that - assumptions. People are living longer, and investment returns from the sorts of investments permitted to pension funds are less than expected.

So there are projected shortfalls in the pension funds.

In the UK, there is a government fund available to help make good on some of the shortfalls, but in addition there is legislation that:
a) makes non-UK parent companies (Eastman Kodak) liable for the UK pension obligations; and
b) gives the government fund priority over other creditors in a bankruptcy.

So in the case of the UK pensioners, there was a government with a big stick that forced the other creditors of Eastman Kodak to settle for less money.

To a great extent, the actual pension payments for most Kodak employees are reasonably well protected.

Where there is a massive shortfall is in those countries where things like medical services benefits are both absolutely necessary and unconscionably expensive - essentially the USA.

 

[omaha]

If Kodak were IBM, they would have dropped film back in 2002... We are lucky Kodak is as bad at profiting as it is...

Truth.

For all the complaining about the failures of Kodak management, the fact is the only reason they are still selling film at all is precisely because they lacked a nimble and efficient management structure.

Financially, an aggressive management team would have seen 15 years ago that film was going away and taken action to get into something else.

I mean, suppose Kodak had had a really brilliant product development group and managed to invent the smart phone a year ahead of Apple. Kind of a natural, really. Kodak had a great brand, and a natural association in the mind of consumers with photography. A KodakPhone would have been perfect.

Ok, so suppose these hypothetical, brilliant Kodak managers had put all that together and hit the market in 2006, a year ahead of Apple. With proper execution, they would be rolling in cash today, the very idea of a bankruptcy would seem ridiculous. Kodak stock would be up 1000%.

And Kodak film would be long gone.

 

[StoneNYC]

The UK pensions, like all Kodak pensions (AFAIK) were held in trust and managed by the various individual Kodaks.

Like all pension funds, the contributions were calculated based on actuarial estimates of how many people were likely to survive, and for how long, as well as estimates of how much investment income was likely to be earned by the fund.

The assumptions that formed the basis of those estimates were just that - assumptions. People are living longer, and investment returns from the sorts of investments permitted to pension funds are less than expected.

So there are projected shortfalls in the pension funds.

In the UK, there is a government fund available to help make good on some of the shortfalls, but in addition there is legislation that:
a) makes non-UK parent companies (Eastman Kodak) liable for the UK pension obligations; and
b) gives the government fund priority over other creditors in a bankruptcy.

So in the case of the UK pensioners, there was a government with a big stick that forced the other creditors of Eastman Kodak to settle for less money.

To a great extent, the actual pension payments for most Kodak employees are reasonably well protected.

Where there is a massive shortfall is in those countries where things like medical services benefits are both absolutely necessary and unconscionably expensive - essentially the USA.

Ouch, gotcha, thanks for explaining.

 

[removed account4]

i read this thread thinking it would be worthwhile but it is yet another
status quo kodak bashing thread .. its really kind of lame ...
at least the info on how the pension-stuff is interesting ...

i find it funny people actually wonder why kodak / alaris doesn't have a presence here ?

another thread soon to be on ignore ...

 

[AgX]

Very well done messaging. I would buy anything from him.
I'm curious, who is buying a billion dollars of Alaris products? That's not roll film, boys and girls.

Photographic films and papers is just a fraction of the Alaris revenue.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

another thread soon to be on ignore ...

Reasoned and relevant discussion is occurring here.

Ignoring such threads is also always an option.

Ken

 

[AgX]

I just remain of the opinion that there is a massive disconnect here when it comes to scale of operations and expectations. This guy talks about being a "billion dollar" company? Please. I think realistically the future of film manufacturing will involve companies who would consider $5 million in wholesale revenue to be a very good year. I think that is the scale film people need to be planning on.

Keep in mind that the revenues of halide materials are still huge in absolute figures. You are totally off with your figure for the moment.

 

[omaha]

Keep in mind that the revenues of halide materials are still huge in absolute figures. You are totally off with your figure for the moment.

Really? I'm pleased to hear that.

How much am I off? One order of magnitude (meaning a company could expect $50 million in revenue)? Two orders of magnitude? (I have a hard time thinking there is a $500 million market for photographic film in 2014, but I could be wrong).

Does anyone here have access to reasonably reliable, reasonably current data on the size of the photographic film market in 2014? I'd be interested in seeing the numbers.

And to be more specific, I mean film sales excluding industrial/medical/whatever uses, and excluding motion picture film. I mean sales to photographers.

 

[wblynch]

"Last I heard", the North American market gobbled up ~30 million rolls of film in 2013, up from 22 million in 2012; not including motion picture footage.

I wish I had a viable link.

Is there a viable source revealing the reality?

 

[Paul Cunningham]

Those who worry are proactive, and very little sneaks up and bites them in the butt. Those who don't worry are reactive, and generally have butts covered with painful teeth marks. And since danger in life is ever present, I'll take the former approach over the latter any day. It makes sitting in chairs much easier.

Ken, I'll just point out that both of these strategies have survived the last five million years.

 

[Paul Cunningham]

release all of their remaining film manufacturing IP to the public domain.

For free? Unpossible. For a royalty or license fee? Absolutely. That would be KA-as-a-tech-company's dream come true - license your existing intellectual property, collect the money and never get your hands dirty making things.

 

[Paul Cunningham]

Truth.
Financially, an aggressive management team would have seen 15 years ago that film was going away and taken action to get into something else.

Like digital sensors? I think they tried that, but were unable to pull it off.

 

[Paul Cunningham]

"Last I heard", the North American market gobbled up ~30 million rolls of film in 2013, up from 22 million in 2012; not including motion picture footage.

I wish I had a viable link.

Is there a viable source revealing the reality?

Anecdotally, I overheard (in a local camera shop) a salesman saying they've been selling film like mad and 'have trouble keeping it on the shelf'. I take this with a grain of salt, but it supports your 25% growth figure.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Moments ago I received a reply from Mr. Gabershagen thanking me for reaching out to him. He wrote that he'd forwarded my message to Kodak Alaris' Director of Operations / VP in the UK and Film Capture Business Manager in Rochester so they can "assist with my questions."

I'll post again if/when substantive answers are received.

Yesterday morning the Film Capture Business Manager (heritage Eastman Kodak, located in Rochester), having been delegated to deal with my questions, sent a reply of exactly the nature I expected:

"Dear Mr. Santamaura,

As you've noted, our award-winning portfolio of consumer and professional films are manufactured in Eastman Kodak's world-class film factory via a supply agreement. Unfortunately, due to commercial and contractual reasons it is not possible for us to answer many of your questions directly.

That said, film is our heritage. Kodak Alaris remains committed to the film capture business and has the ability to meet the needs of our customers for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Mooney | Product Line Business Mgr - Film Capture | "​

While he might have included a blind copy to the CEO, what I received was addressed to only me. I quickly sent this follow up to both him and Ralf Gabershagen:

"Dear Mr. Mooney and Mr. Gabershagen,

I anticipated you might be bound by PIAs with Eastman Kodak Company that would prevent you from answering my questions. It nonetheless seemed worthwhile to ask them, on the off chance that a subset fell within the "allowable" range. Mr. Mooney's response included the phrase "it is not possible for us to answer many of your questions directly." Does that mean there are any you can answer? If so, I look forward to hearing more.

My inquiry reflects the interest of a lifelong Kodak film user whose late mother was even a Kodak employee seven decades ago. It has been painful to watch the brand plunge toward oblivion while corporate management made decisions that appeared to have enhanced external forces conspiring against silver halide imaging, rather than working against them. Lately, substantial price increases for Kodak film, combined with the kind of vague statements found in Alaris communications, including Mr. Mooney's response ("Kodak Alaris...has the ability to meet the needs of our customers for the foreseeable future"), have convinced me that the foreseeable future ends very soon. Perhaps as soon as next year. I take no pleasure from this and hoped that, if you could disseminate substantive, positive answers, your loyal customers would be willing to pay higher prices and stick with your film products. Absent such transparency, I suspect flight to competitors' films will continue unabated, if not increase rapidly. Already some of your staunchest supporters have publicly indicated that much of their work is now being done using non-Kodak films.

While the "contractual reasons" Mr. Mooney cites for inability to disclose information may not be easily overcome, in my opinion perpetuating secrecy on these matters for "commercial reasons" is exactly the wrong decision. If KPP accepted Kodak Alaris as the best bankruptcy deal it could extract and hopes to milk film sales for as long as Eastman Kodak will coat product, then abandon the market, you might do well enough. However, if Kodak Alaris has any desire to continue in the film business after Building 38's coating line joins Building 29's on the scrap heap, I strongly suggest a much more open dialog with your customers. That's the only thing imaginable which might motivate them to stick with you at today's prices.

My sincere best wishes for success.

Sal Santamaura"​

I waited a full day before posting this in case anything further came from either of them. It's been silent. Given how Gebershagen responded to the Democrat and Chronicle's questions in that article Fred linked to, I'm neither surprised, expecting real information from Alaris nor able to conclude its "commitment" to film differs in any way from that of Eastman Kodak.

 

[removed account4]

thanks sal !

===

Reasoned and relevant discussion is occurring here.

Ignoring such threads is also always an option.

Ken

doesn't sound like a lynch mob is reasoned
this person has nothing to do with what happened before
yet he is painted with the same old brush that kodak is always painted with.
it is sad for anyone to think that even if george eastman came back from the grave in 2000
and tried his best to keep kodak alive in a changing market that he would have been able to
keep the company from going bankrupt ?


and to think that alaris would bring back slide film ?
or anything else that would dilute its current small share in film photography?
no one is left to process color film, the infrastructure has been removed yet people still want it ?

yep, another thread to soon be on ignore, not very reasoned discussion

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sal,

I sent them a letter to similar extent, looking at how they communicate with their customers along with a huge improvement in their distribution model, making the product available for people to purchase.

Good job. You expressed yourself far better than I was able to.

Yesterday morning the Film Capture Business Manager (heritage Eastman Kodak, located in Rochester), having been delegated to deal with my questions, sent a reply of exactly the nature I expected:

"Dear Mr. Santamaura,

As you've noted, our award-winning portfolio of consumer and professional films are manufactured in Eastman Kodak's world-class film factory via a supply agreement. Unfortunately, due to commercial and contractual reasons it is not possible for us to answer many of your questions directly.

That said, film is our heritage. Kodak Alaris remains committed to the film capture business and has the ability to meet the needs of our customers for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Mooney | Product Line Business Mgr - Film Capture | "​

While he might have included a blind copy to the CEO, what I received was addressed to only me. I quickly sent this follow up to both him and Ralf Gabershagen:

"Dear Mr. Mooney and Mr. Gabershagen,

I anticipated you might be bound by PIAs with Eastman Kodak Company that would prevent you from answering my questions. It nonetheless seemed worthwhile to ask them, on the off chance that a subset fell within the "allowable" range. Mr. Mooney's response included the phrase "it is not possible for us to answer many of your questions directly." Does that mean there are any you can answer? If so, I look forward to hearing more.

My inquiry reflects the interest of a lifelong Kodak film user whose late mother was even a Kodak employee seven decades ago. It has been painful to watch the brand plunge toward oblivion while corporate management made decisions that appeared to have enhanced external forces conspiring against silver halide imaging, rather than working against them. Lately, substantial price increases for Kodak film, combined with the kind of vague statements found in Alaris communications, including Mr. Mooney's response ("Kodak Alaris...has the ability to meet the needs of our customers for the foreseeable future"), have convinced me that the foreseeable future ends very soon. Perhaps as soon as next year. I take no pleasure from this and hoped that, if you could disseminate substantive, positive answers, your loyal customers would be willing to pay higher prices and stick with your film products. Absent such transparency, I suspect flight to competitors' films will continue unabated, if not increase rapidly. Already some of your staunchest supporters have publicly indicated that much of their work is now being done using non-Kodak films.

While the "contractual reasons" Mr. Mooney cites for inability to disclose information may not be easily overcome, in my opinion perpetuating secrecy on these matters for "commercial reasons" is exactly the wrong decision. If KPP accepted Kodak Alaris as the best bankruptcy deal it could extract and hopes to milk film sales for as long as Eastman Kodak will coat product, then abandon the market, you might do well enough. However, if Kodak Alaris has any desire to continue in the film business after Building 38's coating line joins Building 29's on the scrap heap, I strongly suggest a much more open dialog with your customers. That's the only thing imaginable which might motivate them to stick with you at today's prices.

My sincere best wishes for success.

Sal Santamaura"​

I waited a full day before posting this in case anything further came from either of them. It's been silent. Given how Gebershagen responded to the Democrat and Chronicle's questions in that article Fred linked to, I'm neither surprised, expecting real information from Alaris nor able to conclude its "commitment" to film differs in any way from that of Eastman Kodak.

 

[StoneNYC]

Like digital sensors? I think they tried that, but were unable to pull it off.

Ummm... Wrong, they were quite successful, they just foolishly sold off the parents because they thought film was better at image making...

 

[MattKing]

Ummm... Wrong, they were quite successful, they just foolishly sold off the parents because they thought film was better at image making...

They licensed many of the patents (not parents) in order to get cash flow to fund all their non-film endeavours.

And then, once the bankruptcy trustees stepped in, they tried to sell the rest, but the market got together and forced a sale at pennies on the dollar, because the market could.

By the end, most of the Eastman Kodak management didn't care about their technology - just their ability to earn high profits in any way available.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ummm... Wrong, they were quite successful, they just foolishly sold off the parents because they thought film was better at image making...

I thought it was Leica who used Kodak sensors in their M-series digital cameras until just a couple of years ago? There was a Kodak branded SLR many years ago that was a really great camera for the time. Slow, but very good image quality.

 

[removed account4]

I thought it was Leica who used Kodak sensors in their M-series digital cameras until just a couple of years ago? There was a Kodak branded SLR many years ago that was a really great camera for the time. Slow, but very good image quality.

unfortunately there was only one repair facility for the whole country ( USA ).
and they often needed to be repaired so if you used one, you needed ...
either a 2nd camera to take up the slack or a vacation to get it fixed...
and high end professional cameras ain't ( weren't ) inexpensive ..

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

unfortunately there was only one repair facility for the whole country ( USA ).
and they often needed to be repaired so if you used one, you needed ...
either a 2nd camera to take up the slack or a vacation to get it fixed...
and high end professional cameras ain't ( weren't ) inexpensive ..

Exactly. Not very well managed. They failed miserably to capitalize on an astoundingly good product! And that's the problem.

 

[StoneNYC]

I was speaking in generality, they spent significant time developing the digital sensor, I was under the impression they essentially created it...

So I'm saying, they created something and then cast it off for others to utilize and they did, and it put kodak in it's current spot.

But the CEO's (parents hehe) were dumb... And didn't have any foresight.