• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Interesting article on what Kodak could learn from Polaroid

As it turns out, the film business has fallen so far that it may have stabilized. As Mooney said, among professionals, “there isn’t that much digital incursion left.”
Click to expand...

I don't see this stabilisation at all!



Either his figures do not fit, or he counts them apart. Eitherway I find this most irritating.


I totally agree on the standing the name Polaroid still has.
But I got no idea what the title of that article is hinting at. Polaroid as manufacturer is dead. Kodak, Fuji and Agfa are alive. Learning to survive from a deceased??
 
Polaroid has become nothing more than a brand name. There is nothing left of Polaroid film except for a refurbished machine the Impossible Project bought.

What the author is writing about is not using Polaroid as a good example, but as an example of what not to do. "Dead Link Removed: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

Another one of the problems with the article is that the author doesn't have any understanding of what it takes to manufacture film. Kodak can't do a small run, so it can't sell to tiny niche markets, like a Kodachrome run or a Plus-X run. The author has some good points, but aside from indexing executive pay to company profits, Kodak is doing all that it can.
 

Agreed...can't really see the connection between Kodak and Polaroid. Polaroid cameras were a niche area so far as the general public were concerned...the novelty of instant pictures, but normally one copy only, quite expensive films, and fairly bulky cameras. For the casual snapshotter, a small 35mm, Instamatic or APS camera would score in most respects, and there were plenty of one-hour services if prints were needed quickly. And now, of course, digital.

The Polaroid brand name does seem to hold some value, though any company needs to keep close control on branded third-party goods using its name.
 
What does the author say?


-) Kodak lost 98% revenue in the US-film market

-) Kodak should dare to raise prices as aficionados would pay them

-) Kodak should not try to sell film by means of first selling cheap cameras

-) Kodak should sell single-use cameras

-) Kodak should contract-manufacture for Lomography Comp.

-) Kodak should stick to manufacture high-end photographic films as they are unique on the market and could set higher margins on them

-) Kodak should make something from the goodwill its name has
 
The most impressive pair of numbers (to me at least) in that article is 20 million rolls of Kodak film sold versus 1 million packs of TIP film. Note that Kodak kicked Ektachrome into the curb because it made only a tiny percentage of their overall film sales so chances are more TIP film packs were sold than rolls of Ektachrome. Remember that TIP can neither match the precious colors of Ektachrome nor does a TIP photo have the resolution and the many flexible options for use and post processing. And it's much more expensive than a roll of Ektachrome and has only 8 vs. 36 frames, too.

If Kodak couldn't sell more Ektachrome than TIP by a large factor, their strategy and marketing are abject failures, and blaming their demise on the "digital revolution" is nothing but a sleazy cover up for that.
 
You are using attitudes of the past to reflect on consumer sales of today.
 
I read this article as well. I didn't agree with the author that film prices need to jacked up to boutique prices.....ilford is a small company and they manage to sell film at competitive prices and if I'm correct make a profit. I do think Kodak was horribly managed. I think had they made a serious effort at digital (they had one of the first digital cameras) they would have had the resources to make a profit off of they're film and taken full advantage of the lomography movement.
 
Rudeofus said:
If Kodak couldn't sell more Ektachrome than TIP by a large factor, their strategy and marketing are abject failures, and blaming their demise on the "digital revolution" is nothing but a sleazy cover up for that.
Click to expand...

Manufacturing costs and demand.

The formulated batch sizes for Ektachrome were too large so they had to throw away barrels of dye and emulsion for each run, and the cost to reformulate the film wouldn't have turned a profit. When new regulations meant that Fujifilm had to reformulate Acros 400 in 120, it was discontinued due to lack of profit due to the cost of reformulation. The demand just wasn't there to support the cost of reformulation, for both Kodak and Fujifilm.
 

sheet film prices for kodak films are already jacked up to be 2x the price of ilford
seems to me they are already boutique prices ...
 
Brian C. Miller said:
Manufacturing costs and demand.
Click to expand...
If decent marketing can sell 1 million packs of an expensive, colorwise unstable and in many other aspects deficient product, then it's time to question the overstretched argument with "lack of demand" for analog products. The big difference is that TIP opens or partners with stores and outlets all over the world, while Kodak and Fuji desperately try to make everyone forget that they ever made and sold analog products. Reminds me of this situation ...
 

I do agree with the last part, they only sell lomography at urban outfitters, not other film types, BUT they may not be able to sell because of some non-compete that lomography already set up...

Man I hope they don't reformulate acros100....


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register