How about they throw their leadership overboard. They have repeatedly missed the boat on a number of 'key' scenarios that they could have capitalized on and still have the same mentality at the top. They need to take an approach like Ilford.
Hard times for Kodak continue
-
A
- Thread starter david b
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500ELX kit with CT80 lens
- Started by EgawaShiro
-
Free Kodak slide carousels
- Started by Mkaufman
-
Free Case of 22B Flashbulbs -- NE Ohio pickup
- Started by 2Dogs
-
For Sale Zone VI Development Timer and Newsletters
- Started by 2Dogs
-
Sold Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
Unfortunately Kodak's shareholders aren't necessarily film consumers, they want dividends and a better share price. They aren't interested in us.
Ian
Ian
Nevertheless, the numbers in this thread show that the film end of the business is holding up at least as well, indeed better than the digital end. Why would this not make film look like a good thing to shareholders?
The numbers in this thread? How so.
The same 10 - 20 people keep posting here over and over. If we consider the Subscriber / Member ratio and the Poster / Member ratio, these numbers are very tiny compared to the needed sales to support a WW business.
PE
Ideal situation would be if Kodak could develop a production line for smaller and less popular products, produced in smaller batches than the monster rolls they have to make every time they coat. I think many people that liked the papers, films, and (now) chemicals that have been discontinued, use a lot of the high volume items as well; these people may well have turned their backs on Kodak whenever they feel they have no support from them.
Kodak makes some amazing products, their films and chemistry are absolutely amazing products. Since places like Adox can resurrect Agfa's old products and make it a viable product, perhaps it would be possible for giant Kodak to do something similar, sort of like what Samuel Adams is doing with beer. They have the standard products that they sell boat loads of, and then they have the 'micro brews' that they make in smaller facilities. It's also similar to how automakers like Audi make upper class sedans, SUVs, and crossovers, while they also put out very small runs of exotic sports cars such as the R8. Two entirely different approaches within the same company. The high end stuff is for building company image and reputation of being something exotic. Even though you might only be able to afford an Audi A4 (I wish I could), you feel almost genetically connected to the sport racer that costs 3-4 times the price of your sedan.
A company can build a very strong image that way. How come Kodak can not? It's not easy, I understand that, with a product that is falling out of favor where it matters - commercially. I can't believe how long they hung on to Kodachrome, a miracle all things considered.
I think as a business you have to capitalize on every opportunity you can realistically get involved with. I'm sure Kodak's marketing people are no dummies. But a small production line where they can make smaller master rolls and batches would enable them to put out more exotic products to cover a wider base of customers.
Kodak makes some amazing products, their films and chemistry are absolutely amazing products. Since places like Adox can resurrect Agfa's old products and make it a viable product, perhaps it would be possible for giant Kodak to do something similar, sort of like what Samuel Adams is doing with beer. They have the standard products that they sell boat loads of, and then they have the 'micro brews' that they make in smaller facilities. It's also similar to how automakers like Audi make upper class sedans, SUVs, and crossovers, while they also put out very small runs of exotic sports cars such as the R8. Two entirely different approaches within the same company. The high end stuff is for building company image and reputation of being something exotic. Even though you might only be able to afford an Audi A4 (I wish I could), you feel almost genetically connected to the sport racer that costs 3-4 times the price of your sedan.
A company can build a very strong image that way. How come Kodak can not? It's not easy, I understand that, with a product that is falling out of favor where it matters - commercially. I can't believe how long they hung on to Kodachrome, a miracle all things considered.
I think as a business you have to capitalize on every opportunity you can realistically get involved with. I'm sure Kodak's marketing people are no dummies. But a small production line where they can make smaller master rolls and batches would enable them to put out more exotic products to cover a wider base of customers.
Reap what you sow... There's no sense in forcing the horse to drink...
Last but not least, Gordon Gekko would like to pipe in with his wisdom which I'm sure the shareholders have been living by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upG01-XWbY
I wonder if Kodak looks at this website.....
Yep, my second OM-1 was $42 on auction, and looked to be just fine. (Sent it through Camtech anyway. Life's too short to wonder whether the equipment is accurate).
The McDonald's index [personal edition] to the rescue.
I started using HP5 (35mm) around 1979. In a rare aspect of good memory, I recall that I was paying $1/roll. Oddly, I also recall that I was paying just about the exact same amount for a Quarter Pounder with Cheese.
At this point, the film is about $4 mail order and $5.50 local. I think that's about 1.5x to 2x the burger price. Considering that film is based on a precious metal and burgers aren't, I'm not going to complain too loudly.
Though I did just pick up my first bulk roll.
Perhaps because it's not in their culture?
Corporate culture is a strong force, as strong as an individual personality. An organization's actions come directly out of this culture. Look at the products (and marketing) of Apple, Microsoft, GM, and other large organizations, and you can see the corporate culture that led to those products.
Just as you can't force an individual to think in a way that's not comfortable to them, you can't force an organization, either. This is especially true in an old organization: and Kodak's one of the oldest!
From an outsider's point of view, Kodak seems to value large-scale production of quantitatively high-quality products. They've put a lot of energy (and $) into consolidation, large facilities, and a smaller, safer product range (that can be used across different industries, eg, photography & movies). Those movements are pretty opposite to a "boutique" style of producing smaller quantities of more specialized, innovative products. As an organization, they may not be able to think both large and small at the same time. And perhaps they shouldn't: leave the smaller market to the smaller players who want to be more nimble.
Personally, while I use some Kodak chemicals, most of my film is Fuji and Ilford, with some smattering of Efke and other obscurities. With the exception of Tri-X and Plus-X, I find Kodak's products to be a bit too clean and perfect: no soul.
"Perhaps because it's not in their culture?"
How can you argue with that? If it was in their culture they might have considered it. This is why I like Andrew Moxom's reply above. Corporate culture trickles down from the top; it may not be able to change it quickly, but it can be done. I work for a company that is today very progressive and aggressive, adapting to many different segments of the market, simply because we're operating in an environment where our market is saturated.
In the last recession (or pinch, as it was) back in 2000, the same company laid off thousands of people and ran for the hills. Today, ten years later, it's a completely different company, operating aggressively and investing in new products going after the market share now belonging to the competition. This is thanks to creative thinking at the highest levels of management, and seeds planted over the years that are now maturing and firmly rooting in minds of employees.
There is no reason Kodak can't do the same.
How can you argue with that? If it was in their culture they might have considered it. This is why I like Andrew Moxom's reply above. Corporate culture trickles down from the top; it may not be able to change it quickly, but it can be done. I work for a company that is today very progressive and aggressive, adapting to many different segments of the market, simply because we're operating in an environment where our market is saturated.
In the last recession (or pinch, as it was) back in 2000, the same company laid off thousands of people and ran for the hills. Today, ten years later, it's a completely different company, operating aggressively and investing in new products going after the market share now belonging to the competition. This is thanks to creative thinking at the highest levels of management, and seeds planted over the years that are now maturing and firmly rooting in minds of employees.
There is no reason Kodak can't do the same.
Yes, I will give you that. However, the change won't happen without a lot of pressure, both internal and external. Buying more Tri-X, or hoping for innovation, won't do it.
Perhaps the best thing for photographers to do is to buy Kodak stock (at this moment, a share costs less than a roll of Tri-X!), vote in board elections, and show up en masse at shareholder meetings and raise issues there.
I like Thomas' approach -- innovative ideas and constructive, positive thinking will always accomplish more than endless carping.
My point was that one shouldn't take film companies' decisions personally. You can vote with your feet, and that's fine. Hey, I seem to have settled (to a great degree) on Pan F+ as my most-used film, although I am very grateful for the offerings Kodak has in that field (I find myself reaching for TMX a lot, also). They made a major leap with the new TMY and continue to offer Tri-X, and others too.
My point was that one shouldn't take film companies' decisions personally. You can vote with your feet, and that's fine. Hey, I seem to have settled (to a great degree) on Pan F+ as my most-used film, although I am very grateful for the offerings Kodak has in that field (I find myself reaching for TMX a lot, also). They made a major leap with the new TMY and continue to offer Tri-X, and others too.
The very first post indicates that film sales are down by less than digital sales.
Kodak got rid of the micro-brew machines before you were born. All the machines are built for large productions. To do what you want would require scraping all of the machines and building new machines by hand. No one makes the machines any more. The expense would not be justified by tiny profits.
Again we have another series of posts that claim to know more about producing photographic products from the computer chair without any real experience. The Kodak R&D and manufacturing people are not stupid and in contradiction to popular belief, they do have original ideas. [See all the "we can make Kodachrome in my barn" posts.]
Steve
Steve,
I'm trying to understand why the Kodak business model seems to be failing. Isn't it true that most companies that have manufacturing lines have to build a lot of their equipment to produce their products? If the answer is 'no' I stand corrected.
I don't profess to be an expert in setting up manufacturing lines, but the broad idea has worked for lots of other companies where diversification and smart marketing efforts, in saturated markets, has led them to success.
If Kodak rests on their laurels, they will fail if it continues as it is. They have to find another way, regardless of cost. That's just what it boils down to.
And frankly, shooting my opinion down like you have leads us nowhere. It took me all my life to come to where I am today, and to have the knowledge and opinions I have. Even though I'm young, I deserve some respect for that, if you want any in return. What is your suggestion? What do you think Kodak needs to do to improve their image with their customers? It is after all true that they take, perhaps undeservedly, a beating here from time to time, for yanking products from under our feet. But the fact remains that people have this opinion of Kodak and are quick to raise their battle axes when more products disappear.
That is not the customer's fault; shame on Kodak for allowing its customers to have that view of them.
I'm trying to understand why the Kodak business model seems to be failing. Isn't it true that most companies that have manufacturing lines have to build a lot of their equipment to produce their products? If the answer is 'no' I stand corrected.
I don't profess to be an expert in setting up manufacturing lines, but the broad idea has worked for lots of other companies where diversification and smart marketing efforts, in saturated markets, has led them to success.
If Kodak rests on their laurels, they will fail if it continues as it is. They have to find another way, regardless of cost. That's just what it boils down to.
And frankly, shooting my opinion down like you have leads us nowhere. It took me all my life to come to where I am today, and to have the knowledge and opinions I have. Even though I'm young, I deserve some respect for that, if you want any in return. What is your suggestion? What do you think Kodak needs to do to improve their image with their customers? It is after all true that they take, perhaps undeservedly, a beating here from time to time, for yanking products from under our feet. But the fact remains that people have this opinion of Kodak and are quick to raise their battle axes when more products disappear.
That is not the customer's fault; shame on Kodak for allowing its customers to have that view of them.
Thomas, Steve;
You are both right in a way. Kodak built big machines for the "expansion" of the 90s which became a bust. They ignored Moore's law and didn't see the price drop or jump in computer and digital imaging. They thought they had a cash cow in analog and that the developing 3rd world would be a big market for analog before digital kicked in.
At the same time, they disassembled most of their small machines. This was to allow rapid expansion of the big ones based on some faulty premises. Now, due to the economy and these decisions they are in financial difficulties and cannot restart or redesign products for smaller scale. Thereby hangs the tail!
It takes money to make money. The small machines are gone in favor of the big ones and the train is pulling out of the station. Perez is doing what he can, but he does not know the film market. One thing is sure, and that is that not all of the decisions about analog are bad ones! That I know.
PE
You are both right in a way. Kodak built big machines for the "expansion" of the 90s which became a bust. They ignored Moore's law and didn't see the price drop or jump in computer and digital imaging. They thought they had a cash cow in analog and that the developing 3rd world would be a big market for analog before digital kicked in.
At the same time, they disassembled most of their small machines. This was to allow rapid expansion of the big ones based on some faulty premises. Now, due to the economy and these decisions they are in financial difficulties and cannot restart or redesign products for smaller scale. Thereby hangs the tail!
It takes money to make money. The small machines are gone in favor of the big ones and the train is pulling out of the station. Perez is doing what he can, but he does not know the film market. One thing is sure, and that is that not all of the decisions about analog are bad ones! That I know.
PE
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
i know someone who was used to cooking for hundreds of people,
when it came time to cook for 7 it was nearly impossible.
when it came time to cook for 7 it was nearly impossible.
Is it my impression or did Kodak actually had to rationalise their production scale some years ago?
Here Here!!!
Their failed business model continues and so does the management that is behind it. They need to scale back to a more realistic market level like Ilford has done and reinvent themselves to be in a good position to carry film forward... If they are interested in doing so. While it appear they are trying to keep film going as long as they can. We've gotten a few new films from them in the last few years, but their decreasing chemistry line up really impacts the lab world, especially for the larger quantitiy items that most labs would purchase is a sign of the times. Then again, I see labs decreasing too so again its about economies of scale. Could I run their company any better... Hell no, the fact is their loyalty to their customers is based on pure economics. No more no less. With every decision they've made, are we a film company? A digital company? It's resulted in more losses to their bottom line, and to the consumer. Why not scale back to a size they can sustain a business model, and with people who know how to run a smaller and adaptable organization like that??
Their failed business model continues and so does the management that is behind it. They need to scale back to a more realistic market level like Ilford has done and reinvent themselves to be in a good position to carry film forward... If they are interested in doing so. While it appear they are trying to keep film going as long as they can. We've gotten a few new films from them in the last few years, but their decreasing chemistry line up really impacts the lab world, especially for the larger quantitiy items that most labs would purchase is a sign of the times. Then again, I see labs decreasing too so again its about economies of scale. Could I run their company any better... Hell no, the fact is their loyalty to their customers is based on pure economics. No more no less. With every decision they've made, are we a film company? A digital company? It's resulted in more losses to their bottom line, and to the consumer. Why not scale back to a size they can sustain a business model, and with people who know how to run a smaller and adaptable organization like that??
They made decisions based on imperfect information and lack of knowledge of what the future would really be like.
Steve
Yep, I saw PE's post after posting...
True, but they are not resting on their laurels. They have developed [no pun intended] new emulsions and brought them to market the last few years.
Let the experts in their field come up with solutions. Perez and the stock holders are a bigger part of the problem.
Advertise. Work with user groups like ours.
Steve
My Suspicious side wonders if it is planned to damage Foma. The Premium sells for the exact price as the EDU Ultra. One assumes that Foma is also making the Ultra as a way of keeping up volume.
I don't buy much of either but I make it a point to both equal quantities of both.
If you want to be kept informed of Kodak's position in the imaging marketplace simply sign up for their newsletters. They have always stated they are devoted and committed to the future of silver imaging products. Of course their sales are off of recent times, look at the economic conditions here and worldwide.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |