Kodak Alaris responses and dispatches

Yes, that is an important point. On one side there are the figures, which no one should deny. On the other sider is the "upbringing". A CEO or other leading manager "brought up" in the photochemical industry has of course a strong relation to those products. But even in this case it need not to be a love relation!
The question now is to what extent such upbringing influences decisons or even the openess to listen. If there would be someone to talk...


Concerning Eastman Kodak there had been in the recent years leading managers with that upbringing.

It could well be as simple as that. One self-important dude selling stuff that other self-important dudes don't respect.

Sal Santamaura said:

How could Kodak Alaris possibly distribute and sell anything without incurring costs in the process of doing so? Has anyone who complains about the price of Kodak film increasing lately not considered that there's now another middleman which didn't previously exist between Eastman Kodak and retailers?

Click to expand...

Película said:

Of course there's always a cost for any distribution and sales, but what was implied is that providing there are no additional costs for KA in offering their film products then they will keep selling it, assuming people will keep buying it. I'm pretty sure that's what Gebershagen meant when he said film will stay "as long as it is profitable." So yes, costs are incurred but made up for by sales...

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by "additional costs." Costs in addition to what? Kodak Alaris is a completely separate entity from Eastman Kodak. It (Alaris) has to acquire Kodak-branded film products from Eastman Kodak at some cost. It then markets (ha!) and sells them down the chain to, eventually, retailers. Like any other such middleman, Alaris needs to sell for a sufficient margin above acquisition cost so that, after expenses, revenues cover all product line costs with enough left over for a level of profit satisfactory to its owner. Very simple concept.

Película said:

But am I understanding correctly that you are suggesting that KA is now a 'middleman' between EK and the retailers?...

Click to expand...

Yes. Notwithstanding the specific terms of whatever supply agreement Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris have entered into.

Película said:

...Do you know if the creditor settlement of KPP's getting the PI and DI divisions meant that EK would sell the film to KA to distribute and sell to retailers? Or is EK getting a share of sales to pay for the costs of coating, etc? Or is the product being provided by EK on demand as part of the deal? It would be nice to know how that supply contract reads...

Click to expand...

Those who know details of the supply agreement are unable due to proprietary data agreements or unwilling for commercial reasons to disclose them. I've asked both here when Kodak had a PR person participating and via email directly to Gabershagen. No substantive answers are forthcoming. We won't know for many years, if ever. Just as a matter of interpreting what has been publicly discussed and described about Alaris, I deduce that Eastman Kodak is selling film to Kodak Alaris rather than accepting compensation in the form of sales share. That's the only way I see for Eastman Kodak to have truly divested itself of the still film business' risk. However, I've no insider information to confirm or deny this deduction.

omaha said:

I was ruminating on this last night, and it occurs to me that the current KA management team is embarrassed by their film heritage. It seems to me that you have a bunch of high-tech, whiz-bang Silicon Valley wannabe zillionaires who all hang around with other high-tech, whiz-bang Silicon Valley wannabe zillionaires, only KA's wannabe's have to say they sell film!! Ugh. That's like, so 1958!! The guys from Google don't sell film!

Click to expand...

Truly depressing. And yet the total lack of any communication from KA makes me believe what you say.

We don't know, but the most plausible situation would be that Kodak Alaris run their new film business on own risk and initiative. That means that Eastman Kodak only act as OEM manufacturer on order of KA.

Película said:

I dunno, but for me the difference between the emulsions of TMY-2 and HP5+ are enough to not substitute. I'll pay the per sheet difference to be able to use the TMY-2 over the HP5+. They are just too different. If Ilford made Delta 400 in 4x5, then I might be inclined to try to substitute with that. TMY-2 isn't outrageously priced (at least imho.) Fuji Acros in sheets did get too expensive, however. I never recalled paying that much for it ($56.50 for 20 sheets.) I have a couple of boxes left but I don't think it was anywhere near that cost back when I bought.

Prices are going to go up, that's inevitable. But I'm still willing to pay for film that I prefer unless it gets completely out of reach.

Click to expand...

It depends what you are doing with it. If you print very large, the difference in grain and sharpness may be important. I only print up to 16x20 and that's only a 4x enlargement from 4x5 and grain is invisible from either at that size. If you shoot in low light TMY-2 has better reciprocity failure characteristics. I generally don't use exposures much over a second, at least not with 400 film. And if you shoot in very low light it might be worth paying the bigger premium for Acros though the fact TMY-2 starts out two stops faster makes up for a lot of the difference. Exposures have to get really long to gain those two stops back. Then again, with Acros when there's no need for additional exposure there's also no contrast change and no need for calculations or guess work, just meter and shoot.

But for exposures of a couple of seconds or less, printed to 16x20 or smaller, which describes pretty much all of my shots, I don't see it being worth the difference. Oddly enough, if I were shooting 35mm black and white to print large then I'd be willing to pay significantly more for TMY-2. But I rarely shoot 35mm black and white except low light for which I use Tri-X (in Diafine usually) or TMZ (from what I have in my freezer though the oldest is about to expire and freezing doesn't help it that much) or D3200. And when I do shoot 35mm B&W I rarely print it larger than 8x10. Finally, there's little price difference in 35mm anyway.

RattyMouse said:

Truly depressing. And yet the total lack of any communication from KA makes me believe what you say.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of great information on this site, a lot of facts. Kodak Alaris has also given what I consider to be really good information that tells me to just keep on using the products, for now it is stable...

But speculations are not facts, even if forensics are used to guess what will happen next. So out of all of the information on this site, speculations are nothing to get upset over or depressed about because in the grand scheme of things, it is the most worthless of all information.

Imagine that topics on APUG that cover films, development times, darkroom techniques, those are like the purity of the rocky shoreline I am about to exit my camper for and go shoot. But I look under the rocks and see some trash, that is what speculation is, garbage left by someone who is self serving....for someone else to pick up.

So don't get depressed at totally worthless information, that is truly a waste of time and energy...

Corporate speak is designed to always sound postive, even when you are delivering bad news. That's why it's important not to take it at face value, but to decode it to find the reality behind it. I think that's what we have been doing.

If KA had been totally committed to keeping film alive, they would have said so. But they haven't and that's the single most revealing fact in all their statements.

PKM-25 said:

There is a lot of great information on this site, a lot of facts. Kodak Alaris has also given what I consider to be really good information that tells me to just keep on using the products, for now it is stable...

But speculations are not facts, even if forensics are used to guess what will happen next. So out of all of the information on this site, speculations are nothing to get upset over or depressed about because in the grand scheme of things, it is the most worthless of all information.

Imagine that topics on APUG that cover films, development times, darkroom techniques, those are like the purity of the rocky shoreline I am about to exit my camper for and go shoot. But I look under the rocks and see some trash, that is what speculation is, garbage left by someone who is self serving....for someone else to pick up.

So don't get depressed at totally worthless information, that is truly a waste of time and energy...

Click to expand...

Jaf-Photo said:

Corporate speak is designed to always sound postive, even when you are delivering bad news. That's why it's important not to take it at face value, but to decode it to find the reality behind it. I think that's what we have been doing.

If KA had been totally committed to keeping film alive, they would have said so. But they haven't and that's the single most revealing fact in all their statements.

Click to expand...

Yes, because whatever that reality is, that's what will affect us tomorrow. And it's what we will be dealing with before we know it. Not the often overly-rosy often self-serving pictures painted today.

Dan is correct, as far as he takes the argument. It is extremely important to enjoy the blessings of the day at hand, as it's always possible that for some tomorrow may unexpectedly never come. Sadly, just read the news reports of late.

But as I walk down that beautiful beach trail of life today, given the choice I would much rather know in advance if that tangled stump of brush I'm about to step over actually conceals a 300-foot sheer drop to the most beautifully pure rocky shoreline I've ever seen.

What I don't want is to come to the belated realization as I pass the 150-foot mark that,

"Geez Ken, if you had only opened your eyes and looked a little closer at that stump of brush, you could have seen the obvious danger, avoided it in advance, and continued walking down that beautiful trail for many more days or years to come. But now? Well, the view is still beautiful, but I suspect it's going to end a lot quicker than I had anticipated."

When ignorance is bliss, the devil is in the definition of bliss...

Ken

Look, let's face facts. The only goal of Kodak Alaris management is to keep Kodak Alaris alive - and that should be their goal above all else.

It's really very simple. If film sales contributes to that goal, they will sell film, if film sales stop contributing to that goal, film will be dropped.


All the griping and complaining about Kodak Alaris here does nothing to make it more likely that Kodak branded film will survive.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Yes, because whatever that reality is, that's what will affect us tomorrow. And it's what we will be dealing with before we know it. Not the often overly-rosy often self-serving pictures painted today.

Dan is correct, as far as he takes the argument. It is extremely important to enjoy the blessings of the day at hand, as it's always possible that for some tomorrow may unexpectedly never come. Sadly, just read the news reports of late.

But as I walk down that beautiful beach trail of life today, given the choice I would much rather know in advance if that tangled stump of brush I'm about to step over actually conceals a 300-foot sheer drop to the most beautifully pure rocky shoreline I've ever seen.

What I don't want is to come to the belated realization as I pass the 150-foot mark that,

"Geez Ken, if you had only opened your eyes and looked a little closer at that stump of brush, you could have seen the obvious danger, avoided it in advance, and continued walking down that beautiful trail for many more days or years to come. But now? Well, the view is still beautiful, but I suspect it's going to end a lot quicker than I had anticipated."

When ignorance is bliss, the devil is in the definition of bliss...

Ken

Click to expand...

The real problem is that there is pretty much nothing we can do to avoid the drop, other than to maybe go walk on another beach.

Hello Ilford-beach.

Roger Cole said:

The real problem is that there is pretty much nothing we can do to avoid the drop, other than to maybe go walk on another beach.

Hello Ilford-beach.

Click to expand...

Because it has such beautiful colours?

Prof_Pixel said:

Look, let's face facts.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that is exactly what most of us are doing. Facing the cold, hard EK/KA facts as they relate to the future of Kodak film squarely in the face, and not particularly liking what we see. Hence the very understandable grumpiness. This is a film-based photography forum, after all.

But as you so correctly point out, by now it simply is what it is, and can never again be what it isn't any longer.

I think the griping and complaining will subside substantially if and when reliable alternative sources of color film come online. People gripe because they are afraid. And they are afraid when they don't know what's happening, but the outcome matters to them.

Unfortunately EK has kept people constantly afraid for Kodak film—and by extension, all film—since Perez became the Kodak CEO in 2005. That's 9 years back. That's a long time to be waiting for the other shoe to drop. And a lot of grumpiness in between.

Ken

Jaf-Photo said:

Because it has such beautiful colours?

Click to expand...

I like to surf at Ektar Beach....although most of the time I'm found at Portra Point.

Jaf-Photo said:

Because it has such beautiful colours?

Click to expand...

Well there's the rub. We have ample alternatives in black and white. In color there's only Fuji and options there are very limited now, not only in C41 but even in E6 now.

Ken Nadvornick said:

It seems to me that is exactly what most of us are doing. Facing the cold, hard EK/KA facts as they relate to the future of Kodak film squarely in the face, and not particularly liking what we see. Hence the very understandable grumpiness. This is a film-based photography forum, after all.

But as you so correctly point out, by now it simply is what it is, and can never again be what it isn't any longer.

I think the griping and complaining will subside substantially if and when reliable alternative sources of color film come online. People gripe because they are afraid. And they are afraid when they don't know what's happening, but the outcome matters to them.

Unfortunately EK has kept people constantly afraid for Kodak film—and by extension, all film—since Perez became the Kodak CEO in 2005. That's 9 years back. That's a long time to be waiting for the other shoe to drop. And a lot of grumpiness in between.

Ken

Click to expand...

The very future of color film photography is threatened, and some do not understand why the vibe here is sour? As you say, this IS a film forum.

Kodak has shown absolutely zero leadership in the film market, despite having enormous resources and products. I cannot express in words how disappointing this is to me personally. As I have stated before, this unease in the future of film really makes me regret in some ways my return to film photography. I never had such disappointment as a digital shooter.

Now that I have given up all hope with Kodak, I see them for what they are, totally uninterested in film except to milk every last profit from it while letting it die. Just like Perez did. KA is no different at all than Perez and that disgusts me to no end.

Fujifilm is from a different culture, and Japanese companies are far less communicative than western ones. Yet Fujifilm has brought back some emulsions (not permanently sadly), and has stated their commitment to film, how their other technologies are related to film, etc. It aint much, but it is worlds better than Kodak. I truly believe that inside of Fuji, there are a core group of people devoted to film. I could be wrong at this, but that is what I believe.

I don't want to be a black and white only photographer so I am always filled with unease about film and its future.

RattyMouse said:

Fujifilm has brought back some emulsions (not permanently sadly), and has stated their commitment to film, how their other technologies are related to film, etc. It aint much, but it is worlds better than Kodak. I truly believe that inside of Fuji, there are a core group of people devoted to film. I could be wrong at this, but that is what I believe.

Click to expand...

According to Leica: "Leica produces around 1000 film cameras per year, 60% of them are sold in Japan."

(Overall, I use very little B+W film. Only for fun. Anything 'serious' is with color. And I prefer the color that comes from film over digital. There's usually a lot of work needed when editing digital color and not so much with film; film just looks more natural to me.)

Película said:

According to Leica: "Leica produces around 1000 film cameras per year, 60% of them are sold in Japan."

http://leicarumors.com/2014/05/28/i...-alfred-schopf-from-leica.aspx/#ixzz333EIq1GW
​

(Overall, I use very little B+W film. Only for fun. Anything 'serious' is with color. And I prefer the color that comes from film over digital. There's usually a lot of work needed when editing digital color and not so much with film; film just looks more natural to me.)

Click to expand...

Japan is indeed film country. The camera stores there have very impressive film displays, which is why I think Fujifilm, despite being so uncommunicative, is still committed to film.

Prof_Pixel said:

Look, let's face facts. The only goal of Kodak Alaris management is to keep Kodak Alaris alive - and that should be their goal above all else.

It's really very simple. If film sales contributes to that goal, they will sell film, if film sales stop contributing to that goal, film will be dropped.


All the griping and complaining about Kodak Alaris here does nothing to make it more likely that Kodak branded film will survive.

Click to expand...

It's that simple and thankfully most people on this site know this and just get on with their life enjoying the great craft of film photography instead of posting near-legion amounts of threads and posts complaining. In Ratty's case he has made it clear on numerous occasions that he can easily afford photography so why he does not just stock up and be happy baffles me and many others on here I suspect.

Most people on here have the common sense to know that KA is in effect no different than any other maker of film and is working within both the limits of a contracting marketplace and specific set of overhead requirements, just....like....Ilford who's rear end gets kissed constantly. If I never heard a peep out of Simon Galley again I would keep right on using Ilford products because I don't need my diaper changed like some on here do.

I think Sean out to ban these kinds of threads for at least 6 months, the fact they get closed really tells it like it is. In fact I will donate $500 to APUG if he does that.

KA do not make film currently EK still make the cine and still film and probably finish it to.

Im sure Sean will be pleased with a down payment...

I regret to suggest that I won't be buying Kodak until they adjust their price so the Trix is not twice the price of the HP5+ in both the independent & local brick discount shops I buy in.

Prof_Pixel said:

If film sales contributes to that goal, they will sell film, if film sales stop contributing to that goal, film will be dropped.

Click to expand...

Sales don't just happen. A business has to make them happen. There are many of us here who have run their own businesses, been in upper management of companies, or study business. We, in large part, have been baffled by KA's extremely poor sales/marketing/PR as it relates to consumer film products. They seem to do everything the "text book" tells you NOT to do.

Hatchetman said:

There are many of us here who have run their own businesses, been in upper management of companies, or study business. We, in large part, have been baffled by KA's extremely poor sales/marketing/PR as it relates to consumer film products.

Click to expand...

If you've been in business, you know that with limited resources (cash and personnel) you must first concentrate on the parts of your business that offer the best financial return.

Prof_Pixel said:

If you've been in business, you know that with limited resources (cash and personnel) you must first concentrate on the parts of your business that offer the best financial return.

Click to expand...

Two things:

(1) You can't do anything in the marketplace unless you have a good name. At the moment Kodak is synonymous with failure. On top of this they are doing their utmost to divorce themselves from the photography business and more particularly from photographers. The irony is that photographers may be the only ones who understand the once greatness of Kodak. Others may likely go " You are the film company that couldn't sell film. Why are you trying to sell me these scanners and printers?"

(2) Kodak's personal imaging business (including film and paper) is actually three times bigger than the document imaging business (printers and scanners). This is based on 2012 numbers, pre Kodak Alaris. Then personal imaging accounted for 1.3 bn of revenue, whereas document images only generated 0.433 bn. According to estimates, the total revenue for KA is expected to be a bit less than that 2014, but the relation between personal imaging and document imaging is unlikely to have changed much.

That means that Kodak Alaris is actually focusing on the part of the business that is making the least money for them and where they are a minor player and late comer in the market. That means that document imaging is a much more expensive and uncertain market segment to be mining.

Jaf-Photo said:

(2) Kodak's personal imaging business (including film and paper) is actually almost three times bigger than the document imaging business (printers and scanners). This is based on 2012 numbers, pre Kodak Alaris. Then personal imaging accounted for 1.3 bn of revenue, whereas document images only generated 0.433 bn.

Click to expand...

But film is only a (tiny) fraction of that revenue.

Furthermore Kodak Alaris are likely to compete with themselves in the rest: each effort in promoting just their kiosks would result in decline on their anonymous RA-sales. Thus a more broader approach would be necessary.
Such approach then would benefit the competitors too.

Prof_Pixel said:

If you've been in business, you know that with limited resources (cash and personnel) you must first concentrate on the parts of your business that offer the best financial return.

Click to expand...

C- marks in home work

KA have just extracted film from EK cause EK did not have negotiable asset to cover the pension fund debts.

If the assets were worthless in short term maybe it was a good deal if the assets were also worthless in longer time as well may be not?

KA are ex EK employees apart from CEO and any new blood.

Id say it was same old horses same old glue.

EK should have been able to keep the market share they had in 1950. They should not have wasted money on instance snaps, copied patented ideas and enabled a successor at the same time.

Fuji are selling instant and dcameras maybe Fuji got an A for their home work?