Kodak Alaris responses and dispatches

KA certainly seems to value printing and kiosks in their Personal Imaging business. The problem is, people take thousands of digital pictures, and rarely view them, let alone print them. The ease and immediacy of digital makes many of the things KA is focusing on rather tenuous. The proliferation of computers and mobile devices makes it easier to "share" without a physical medium. KA obviously realizes this, and have even admitted they must foster/create/grow this market.

To succeed, KA must promote the "Personal Imaging" business, and convince people that it is something they want to do. KA is also competing with companies that have far more experience and accomplishment in much of the technology involved (consumer electronics - basically computers, scanners, and printers). Action must be taken to encourage consumers to do this, and to chose KA products to do it with. To just sit back and rely on their existing market share in the electronic/digital arena would ensure failure.

In this respect, I feel their film business is no different, and it is rather curious they do not treat it similarly, at least when marketing.

If Kodak films stay as they are now, I would be happy. However, to say there are no possible improvements is just avoidance of a meaningful response. I could see through comments like that in my early teens, and I don't believe I was or am particularly special.

I do not feel the negative responses here are about the market realities. Rather, they seem to be about KA's perceived lack of interest in film products; the apparent attitude. I think some of the backlash and hard feelings in this thread result from a standardized "flak" response. The response feels dismissing and patronizing; a perceived devaluing of consumers of particular products. While the profitability issue is quite true, a simple statement of support and commitment, with a caveat about profitability, would probably garner more favor. Even suggesting they would be sad if it became unprofitable might make some feel better - feel heard and valued.

Lee Rust said:

For many of us here of a certain age, especially Americans, Eastman Kodak has been the bright yellow star at the center of the photographic solar system for all of our lives. Our photographic hobbies and careers have been fashioned out of Kodak films, paper and chemicals. We've taken our pictures with Kodak cameras, sent countless rolls of film to Kodak labs for processing, labored for untold hours in Kodak supplied darkrooms, shown our slides on Kodak projectors, and honed our skills reading Kodak publications. Eastman Kodak was like a respectable, trustworthy member of the family upon whom we could always rely. Of course, this public image was the result of relentless corporate marketing, but the products and the services fully supported it. We believed in Eastman Kodak in the same way that many believe in Apple today.

A corporation known as Eastman Kodak does yet exist, but it is only an imposter with a similar logotype, a doppelgänger that makes inkjet printing equipment and produces commercial packaging materials for other corporations. It has no interest in our family snapshots and artful imagery. The old Kodak that we knew and admired lies brain dead and immobile in a dark hospice room with only a faint filmic heartbeat remaining. A distant British cousin has been appointed executor to settle family affairs with the rest of us, but there's no love in that relationship and it will fade when the end finally comes for our old friend.

Sooner or later, each of us will have to mourn this passing in our own way. The demise of the old Kodak and its products is as inevitable as our own. Arguing about what might have been done or what should yet be done to save Kodak is a cathartic way to express some grief and anger, but it serves no other practical purpose. We should all get together and organize a fine wake to celebrate the accomplishments, acknowledge the failures and pardon the sins of George Eastman's Kodak. Then we should move on.

The rest of the world has already done so.

Click to expand...

Are you a writer by profession? Dang but this was wonderful to read. I really wish I could write so well.

Roger Cole said:

Well maybe. But I can imagine all kinds of ways that modern films could be further improved. (That is, not being a chemical or photo engineer, I can imagine the improvements, not how they could be done...)

How about a film like Ektar 100 in a 400 or faster speed? Something even more saturated like the old Agfa Ultra 50? So many people are enamored of Velvia or cranking up the saturation in digital, that might go over well. How about an intentionally low saturation film with near pastel color? How about a Portra with the grain of 800 and a speed of 1600 or 3200? Bringing back E6 wouldn't really count as innovative, I suppose, but we could dream about better E6 films - something akin to Provia 400X but in 800 or faster speed.

In black and white we haven't seen any real innovation (possible exception of some Adox stuff - I haven't tried the CHS II or Silvermax) since t-grain films came out. How about a truly faster film with a real ISO speed of at least 1600, not just a "low contrast so it pushes well ISO 1000 or so film" like TMZ was and D3200 is? How about something with the grain and sharpness of Tech Pan but without the excess red sensitivity and need for special ultra low contrast developers? How about...

Oh I can imagine a LOT! ;-)

Click to expand...

Sorry best is...
winnowing the middle management and making more profit thereby
etc.?...

Ratty, I'll assume you're not being ironic here, so thanks for the compliment. I'm not a writer, just a lifelong photo amateur and Rochester area resident who often passes by the empty spaces where Kodak used to be.

Lee Rust said:

Ratty, I'll assume you're not being ironic here, so thanks for the compliment. I'm not a writer, just a lifelong photo amateur and Rochester area resident who often passes by the empty spaces where Kodak used to be.

Click to expand...

Nope, not being ironic. You use words well. Very well.

Within my post, far above, was the opinion that KA is not making a big effort for film because they are aware that within a couple of years, with the end of bulk cine products, the volume of materials being produced by Kodak at Rochester will fall below the minimum viable level and that will be the end of it. They know there is no viable 'right-size' option for manufacturing by EK, and they also know that we certainly will buy the leftovers for a number of years. If the situation was optimistic, with alternate manufacturing locations available, then KA would be behaving differently.

I think it is a little too early to write off Kodak manufactured film just yet, cine or stills products.

Tom

Yes, it sounds arrogant, and yes KA doesn't seem to want to have as close of a relationship with it's film customers as ILFORD and the questions were answered with corporate speak, but I do appreciate the fact that the answers aren't creating false expectations. ANY company that is going to provide film in the future will have to turn a profit. KA has other irons in the fire and when film becomes a drag on profits it will be discontinued. I will continue buying and using their film up to the point it disappears or becomes cost prohibitive. Further, I think all of us, realistically, expect that it's more of matter of "when" than "if". I also fully expect that both color and BW film will be available from someone for the rest of my life (at least 30 years hopefully) albeit with even less variety and at a higher cost.

TomNY said:

Yes, it sounds arrogant, and yes KA doesn't seem to want to have as close of a relationship with it's film customers as ILFORD and the questions were answered with corporate speak, but I do appreciate the fact that the answers aren't creating false expectations. ANY company that is going to provide film in the future will have to turn a profit. KA has other irons in the fire and when film becomes a drag on profits it will be discontinued. I will continue buying and using their film up to the point it disappears or becomes cost prohibitive. Further, I think all of us, realistically, expect that it's more of matter of "when" than "if". I also fully expect that both color and BW film will be available from someone for the rest of my life (at least 30 years hopefully) albeit with even less variety and at a higher cost.

Click to expand...

I think the point is that KA doesn't really have a business model or any ideas that seem viable.

It's more likely that these other "irons in the fire" will become a drag on their film business than the other way around.

Their film business costs next to nothing. Basically, it's the cost of manufacture and distribution, plus a few guys to run it.

To develop new products and break into markets that are already dominated by other players, is hugely expensive and highly uncertain.

Jaf-Photo said:

I think the point is that KA doesn't really have a business model or any ideas that seem viable.

It's more likely that these other "irons in the fire" will become a drag on their film business than the other way around.

Click to expand...

That could very well be, unfortunately the end result is the same for us film users. As far as their business model goes I really don't know enough about it, but from what I see they they don't seem to have anything unique to offer businesses or consumers.

Well it took me 2 hours and developing 4 rolls of film (3 Eastman Double-X and one Kodak HIE by the way) just to get to the end of this thread.

There were so many points I wanted to make but there's just too much in here.

I think it's great that he actually posted my question, it was exciting to see my name, I did not expect that! Even if the answer was NO.

I agree with many that they aren't harnessing the power of social media, and are really just sucking it dry until it's not sustainable but not using some of that toward advertising and keeping it alive.

They could EASILY come out with some cheap plastic "folder" type "Lomo" camera and sell a ton of those as long with their film and easily kill Lomography with better film prices (even now it's cheaper than the Lomo films).

They could come out with various emulsions like Roger mentioned. And they've lost the "respect" and family feel as Lee mentioned.

I also think there's a lot of "corporate" going on, the mention that KA is involved on APUG tells me that the new CEO asked "are we involved in this forum mentioned here in this email?" And his lowers said "I'll check" those people went to their people and asked "are we involved" and the PR lady who has posted here once or twice said "yes I'm on there, see I have an account and post our marketing info to keep them informed" this helps her keep her job and no one is checking on her, and those who spoke with her are convinced (because she's good at PR... Duh!) and told the new CEO "yes we are very involved there" and he has no way of checking and provably doesn't care enough to check further.

So it's not all his fault that they aren't truly involved.

And to be fair, we are a bit harsh on them when they do show up, if we could encourage them to stay long enough to start a relationship without bashing them to death for "the past" they might actually be able to get more involved.

At least they asked and tied AND continued with it by posting some responses.

It's better than old kodak has done in the past 10 years so it's at least a positive step.

And finally, it's POSSIBLE that the increase in prices, could be part of a larger plan, if they can generate additional monies for even just 4 quarters, they might be able to afford to "downsize" and create a new more economical facility. We don't know their plans just yet...

Jaf-Photo said:

I think the point is that KA doesn't really have a business model or any ideas that seem viable.

It's more likely that these other "irons in the fire" will become a drag on their film business than the other way around.

Their film business costs next to nothing. Basically, it's the cost of manufacture and distribution, plus a few guys to run it.

To develop new products and break into markets that are already dominated by other players, is hugely expensive and highly uncertain.

Click to expand...

KPP (the owner of KA) kind of 'got what they got' when they ended up with the 'leftovers' i.e., Eastman's Personal Imaging and Document Imaging divisions. Eastman owed KPP quite a lot of money and this was better than potentially getting zero out of Eastman's bankruptcy proceedings. So they struck a deal to inherit those two divisions and a perpetual license to use the 'Kodak' name. http://graphics.kodak.com/DocImaging/US/en/About_Us/News/2013/130903a.htm

Photographic film (still film only and not motion picture film; Eastman kept their motion picture film division) was simply part of the deal. The other "irons in the fire" are existing products that were part of the divisions that KA received in their bankruptcy creditor's deal. It's those products (see the above link) that KA is focusing on and trying to grow. If they can also make a profit from still film sales, then that will remain in their portfolio (but remember that the film itself is still being manufactured by Eastman, with the distribution and sales by KA.)

Part of the uncertainty comes from whether or not Eastman stays in the film manufacturing business after the motion picture industry demands start to diminish to where it may not be possible to support the manufacturing facilities. No outsider knows how the contract between KPP/KA and Eastman reads; does it say that film will be available to KA forever? Or just until Eastman decides to no longer make the stuff? Or is KA planning on somehow continuing with film without Eastman (e.g., take over manufacturing.) That may well be part of why the KA CEO is being somewhat coy about future film sales. And if the other products that they inherited are cultivated well and become profitable enough (remember that the goal here is really to keep the pension plan alive and safe), then they might feel that film is not worth keeping in their product line.

Again, the real issue behind this acquisition was to get something from a company (Eastman Kodak) that was in bankruptcy and owed a lot of money to one of its creditors. The pension plan's position (the UK's KPP) was to get something that could generate funds. And this is what they got. Film was just in there as part of the package. In the meantime I think what some of the concerns here are partly about, is that it would be nice to promote the use of film in any way possible. By being ambivalent about it, the CEO is kind of sending out signals that it's not something KA is going to really be invested in (which is probably quite true and understandable from the standpoint of KPP's agenda.) And one can argue that at least he's being honest. But when users of film hear that sentiment then they don't get very enthusiastic themselves. Instead it creates an atmosphere of cynicism about Kodak and about film in general. And it's particularly damaging to new users of film and those who would like to try film as an alternative. As I mentioned earlier there is a large contingent of young people using film or wanting to get into using film. Ideally it would be nice if film was promoted by KA in a positive way and as a product worth trying out. Even if Kodak film may not be around forever, it's still an excellent product and so why not try it and use it while it's still available. The more that newcomers see film around and being talked about in a positive way, they more they will be willing to get into it and buy the stuff.

StoneNYC said:

I agree with many that they aren't harnessing the power of social media, and are really just sucking it dry until it's not sustainable but not using some of that toward advertising and keeping it alive.

Click to expand...

If you follow Kodak Alaris on Linkedin, you'll know that they are VERY active using that social media to promote their business, sadly only their digital business. Out of all the companies that I follow on Linkedin, Kodak Alaris is easily THE most active organization.

KA knows how to use social media, they just choose not to use it to promote their films.

Kodak Alaris Responds!

RattyMouse said:

If you follow Kodak Alaris on Linkedin, you'll know that they are VERY active using that social media to promote their business, sadly only their digital business. Out of all the companies that I follow on Linkedin, Kodak Alaris is easily THE most active organization.

KA knows how to use social media, they just choose not to use it to promote their films.

Click to expand...

Yes their twitter account is mostly corporate social marketing and not consumer based.

I don't understand linked in, I've had an account their forever but find it disorganized and I didn't even know there was a "follow" feature.

Again, the failure in seeing the value if the less business oriented and more consumer oriented social media is just like having no social media at all. Not for the regular guy... And it's nice that kodak interacts socially with the "1%" but even "CSX" does a better job of advertising... And I don't even know what CSX is or what they do or how they could help me or even if I should care, but I have brand awareness of them because they have good advertising... All I know is that they have trains that are fuel efficient...

Kodak needs to touch the PEOPLE as Lee Rust spoke about, because in the end, we drive the product by buying it... But only if we know it exists and have some kind of idea that it is of worth to us (even if it's all an illusion and corporate marketing) like the straight razor... Women didn't even know they were "supposed" to shave their armpits until the media told them they were supposed to. Kodak needs to tell people they should shoot film if they want to be real artists... All it takes is a mindset change...

PS I don't actually believe women are "supposed to" shave, I just am using that as a perfect example of advertising changing the mindset of an entire nation (and the world). Kodak needs to learn this, tell people they aren't artists if they don't use film, and instantly they will be back in business...

I certainly don't think that's the only option, I just think that doing something like that is better than doing nothing at all..

StoneNYC said:

Yes their twitter account is mostly corporate social marketing and not consumer based.

I don't understand linked in, I've had an account their forever but find it disorganized and I didn't even know there was a "follow" feature.

Again, the failure in seeing the value if the less business oriented and more consumer oriented social media is just like having no social media at all. Not for the regular guy... And it's nice that kodak interacts socially with the "1%" but even "CSX" does a better job of advertising... And I don't even know what CSX is or what they do or how they could help me or even if I should care, but I have brand awareness of them because they have good advertising... All I know is that they have trains that are fuel efficient...

Kodak needs to touch the PEOPLE as Lee Rust spoke about, because in the end, we drive the product by buying it... But only if we know it exists and have some kind of idea that it is of worth to us (even if it's all an illusion and corporate marketing) like the straight razor... Women didn't even know they were "supposed" to shave their armpits until the media told them they were supposed to. Kodak needs to tell people they should shoot film if they want to be real artists... All it takes is a mindset change...

PS I don't actually believe women are "supposed to" shave, I just am using that as a perfect example of advertising changing the mindset of an entire nation (and the world). Kodak needs to learn this, tell people they aren't artists if they don't use film, and instantly they will be back in business...

I certainly don't think that's the only option, I just think that doing something like that is better than doing nothing at all..

Click to expand...

Absolutely. And to top it off, the cost of doing communication like this is next to nothing, especially compared to back in the "old" days. Talk about film on Linkedin, publish some nice web ads, generate some interest.

They have one of the best products on the planet and are letting it all waste away.

God this is painful to watch...

Ken Nadvornick said:

God this is painful to watch...

Click to expand...

They make an unsubscribing button

APUG existed before the demise of Ilford. Does anyone know if Ilford contributed then as Harman in the form of Simon Galley does now?

I suspect that Ilford didn't in those far-off pre 2005 days. The Harman phoenix-like rise from the ashes of Ilford as a management buy-out was a real risk for that management and Harman may have needed all the friends it could get and if it were to survive and prosper it needed all the friends it could get in the very big market of the U.S.

In those conditions it made sense to cultivate a relationship with APUG. In terms of the time devoted to APUG versus the returns Harman gets it may be worthwhile and while I think that Harman enjoys its relationship with APUG then even if the returns aren't big there is the "riding the tiger" factor.

Not having a presence here after this length of time would be risky. Sounds comical but leaving devoted Harman fans on APUG now carries the "bunny boiler" risk.

I do wonder how much the future of film in global terms depends on companies building relationships with forums. We are big but how much is added to Harman's global sales of film, paper etc based Simon Galley's presence here on APUG?

I have no idea but those who contribute to threads such as this one are part of a very small hardcore of active posters whose buying power I feel is quite small even in relation to a small company such as Harman.

Kodak's situation may be quite different from Harman's and its future, as others have said, may be based on different circumstances.

So we cannot automatically expect Kodak Alaris to develop it's relationship with APUG in the way that Harman did. Indeed neither company's survival may depend on APUG despite what some of us think about how important APUG is to Harman.

We need to wait and see how KA develops. There appears to be some recognition of our presence from KA but I don't suppose that the loss of those who have turned against Kodak here on APUG will make any difference to Kodak Alaris' future or keeps the CEO awake at night, especially if he thinks we are a lost cause.

It might never make sense for KA to cultivate the Harman/APUG relationship but if I were the KA CEO and were reading these APUG posts I might conclude that for a sizeable number of APUGers the sins of the Kodak fathers had been visited on the KA offspring and there was no way to convert them back.

KA is new as was Harman in 2005. We gave Harman a chance to succeed but it had the head-start of not having to carry Ilford's millstone around its neck when it sought to establish itself unlike KA which carries years of Kodak's "sins of the fathers".

Cutting KA some slack gives the best chance for the continuation of Kodak film and employment in Rochester. This has to be the classic win/win approach advocated by J.K. Galbraith in his book "Getting To Yes". A distinguished N. American writer.

Worth a read by all who ever have had even the slightest doubt about the benefits of pursuing a win/lose strategy or seeing outcomes in this way. Lunch isn't for wimps despite GG's quote to the contrary

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

APUG existed before the demise of Ilford. Does anyone know if Ilford contributed then as Harman in the form of Simon Galley does now?

I suspect that Ilford didn't in those far-off pre 2005 days. The Harman phoenix-like rise from the ashes of Ilford as a management buy-out was a real risk for that management and Harman may have needed all the friends it could get and if it were to survive and prosper it needed all the friends it could get in the very big market of the U.S.

In those conditions it made sense to cultivate a relationship with APUG. In terms of the time devoted to APUG versus the returns Harman gets it may be worthwhile and while I think that Harman enjoys its relationship with APUG then even if the returns aren't big there is the "riding the tiger" factor.

Not having a presence here after this length of time would be risky. Sounds comical but leaving devoted Harman fans on APUG now carries the "bunny boiler" risk.

I do wonder how much the future of film in global terms depends on companies building relationships with forums. We are big but how much is added to Harman's global sales of film, paper etc based Simon Galley's presence here on APUG?

I have no idea but those who contribute to threads such as this one are part of a very small hardcore of active posters whose buying power I feel is quite small even in relation to a small company such as Harman.

Kodak's situation may be quite different from Harman's and its future, as others have said, may be based on different circumstances.

So we cannot automatically expect Kodak Alaris to develop it's relationship with APUG in the way that Harman did. Indeed neither company's survival may depend on APUG despite what some of us think about how important APUG is to Harman.

We need to wait and see how KA develops. There appears to be some recognition of our presence from KA but I don't suppose that the loss of those who have turned against Kodak here on APUG will make any difference to Kodak Alaris' future or keeps the CEO awake at night, especially if he thinks we are a lost cause.

It might never make sense for KA to cultivate the Harman/APUG relationship but if I were the KA CEO and were reading these APUG posts I might conclude that for a sizeable number of APUGers the sins of the Kodak fathers had been visited on the KA offspring and there was no way to convert them back.

KA is new as was Harman in 2005. We gave Harman a chance to succeed but it had the head-start of not having to carry Ilford's millstone around its neck when it sought to establish itself unlike KA which carries years of Kodak's "sins of the fathers".

Cutting KA some slack gives the best chance for the continuation of Kodak film and employment in Rochester. This has to be the classic win/win approach advocated by J.K. Galbraith in his book "Getting To Yes". A distinguished N. American writer.

Worth a read by all who ever have had even the slightest doubt about the benefits of pursuing a win/lose strategy or seeing outcomes in this way. Lunch isn't for wimps despite GG's quote to the contrary

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I would actually be really interested in seeing some of Simons initial post and if they often got the same kind of negative Flack, and how if so Simon was able to turn that around... I wasn't here then so I wouldn't know ...

Media as Apug is hardly a tool for companies of the kind of Harman to gain significant sales from the relative few that read their contribution. It is rather a means of using those few as those spreading the news.

Or think of Agfa. They do quite some social media work. But hardly reach those who buy their stuff. But part of those using it. And by that creating goodwill. That will enhance the connection to their stuff and things they will offer in future.

As the latter example shows, the way to achieve sales might lead over diversions. And in the marketing concerto social media is only one instrument of the orchestra. Its audibilty strongly depends on the public. Those using film are diverted: There are those who only use/know Apug as a social media, and would never be reached by any other internet media and for the rest cling to the real world. Others then would not even perceive anything if not presented via the net and the media they prefer.

AgX said:

Media as Apug is hardly a tool for companies of the kind of Harman to gain significant sales from the relative few that read their contribution. It is rather a means of using those few as those spreading the news.

Or think of Agfa. They do quite some social media work. But hardly reach those who buy their stuff. But part of those using it. And by that creating goodwill. That will enhance the connection to their stuff and things they will offer in future.

As the latter example shows, the way to achieve sales might lead over diversions. And in the marketing concerto social media is only one instrument of the orchestra. Its audibilty strongly depends on the public. Those using film are diverted: There are those who only use/know Apug as a social media, and would never be reached by any other internet media and for the rest cling to the real world. Others then would not even perceive anything if not presented via the net and the media they prefer.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more.

Word of mouth is still the classic "social media"

Because of Ilford, Adox, and Ferrania's presence here, I constantly talk about them, to new and returning photo BUYERS and because of my comments, they have begun buying those products when previously only bought (or even knew about) Kodak.

All that we have to utter is "ilford is actually involved in their customers and has a presence and cares and has stated they will be in it for the long haul" and now that idea gets passed along to others, and spreads like wildfire ...

Just this week I got 3 people from around the globe to purchase HP5+ and Delta100, about 30 rolls in total, just by recommending them, 30 rolls that would not have been bought without Simon's presence here, because I read Simons words, and believed in ilford, and passed that mythos on to someone else.

An idea can spread...

Like "pay it forward"

Ken Nadvornick said:

God this is painful to watch...

Click to expand...

Yet you voluntarily read this thread. Inexplicable.

EDIT: I misread you. I apologize.

pentaxuser said:

APUG existed before the demise of Ilford. Does anyone know if Ilford contributed then as Harman in the form of Simon Galley does now?

I suspect that Ilford didn't in those far-off pre 2005 days. The Harman phoenix-like rise from the ashes of Ilford as a management buy-out was a real risk for that management and Harman may have needed all the friends it could get and if it were to survive and prosper it needed all the friends it could get in the very big market of the U.S.

Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like Kodak Alaris' situation. The name Kodak has become synonymous with failure, bankruptcy, corporate hubris, and all kinds of other negatives connotations. KA needs friends and needs advocates.

pentaxuser said:

In those conditions it made sense to cultivate a relationship with APUG. In terms of the time devoted to APUG versus the returns Harman gets it may be worthwhile and while I think that Harman enjoys its relationship with APUG then even if the returns aren't big there is the "riding the tiger" factor.

Not having a presence here after this length of time would be risky. Sounds comical but leaving devoted Harman fans on APUG now carries the "bunny boiler" risk.

I do wonder how much the future of film in global terms depends on companies building relationships with forums. We are big but how much is added to Harman's global sales of film, paper etc based Simon Galley's presence here on APUG?

I have no idea but those who contribute to threads such as this one are part of a very small hardcore of active posters whose buying power I feel is quite small even in relation to a small company such as Harman.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. The # of active posters is quite small. But the affect of APUG is far more than a few posters. No one can quantify the lurkers here. I lurked for YEARS before coming back to film. Simon's activity was a huge part of that. His enthusiasm for film and support for film (and by definition, Ilford's support), was very influencing to me.

pentaxuser said:

Kodak's situation may be quite different from Harman's and its future, as others have said, may be based on different circumstances.

So we cannot automatically expect Kodak Alaris to develop it's relationship with APUG in the way that Harman did. Indeed neither company's survival may depend on APUG despite what some of us think about how important APUG is to Harman.

We need to wait and see how KA develops.

Click to expand...

How long do KA's customers have to wait? How long has KA been around? Is wanting one reasonable corporate press release about their vision and support for film too much to ask for? Really, is it THAT hard for KA to do this?

pentaxuser said:

There appears to be some recognition of our presence from KA but I don't suppose that the loss of those who have turned against Kodak here on APUG will make any difference to Kodak Alaris' future or keeps the CEO awake at night, especially if he thinks we are a lost cause.

It might never make sense for KA to cultivate the Harman/APUG relationship but if I were the KA CEO and were reading these APUG posts I might conclude that for a sizeable number of APUGers the sins of the Kodak fathers had been visited on the KA offspring and there was no way to convert them back.

Click to expand...

That would be pretty miserable thinking on Kodak's part. Customers can ALWAYS be won back. Audi was on death's door in the US market in the 80's. They came back. Apple was on death's door in the 90's and they came back. All kinds of companies made poor moves and were able to win back customers. For some odd reason, Kodak is always given up as being hopeless and inept. Kodak is seemingly invincible in propagating the feeling of failure. Customers don't like this. Customers want passion and success. Kodak's lack of message translates into one of failure by default.

pentaxuser said:

KA is new as was Harman in 2005. We gave Harman a chance to succeed but it had the head-start of not having to carry Ilford's millstone around its neck when it sought to establish itself unlike KA which carries years of Kodak's "sins of the fathers".



pentaxuser

Click to expand...

People are not looking for Kodak to turn it all around at once. For myself, I just want to see the *start* of something new from Kodak Alaris. ANYTHING, even the smallest of efforts, followed through with conviction. I see time and time again people giving up on Kodak Alaris and moving to Ilford.

Remember this: Customers determine the time a company has to act, not the other way around. Kodak can take all the time that they want to straighten out their mess, but the customers will determine if they succeed or not.

I shot my final 2 rolls of Tri-X this past week. My 400 speed film supply now has 50 rolls of HP5. That completes my transition 100% over to Ilford. Kodak's lack of message was a *huge* part of the reason why I no no longer buy their products.

The Kodak name will be in my house for the rest of the year as I work on finishing off my bottle of HC-110. I'll re-evaluate even this once that is near empty.

Ken Nadvornick said:

God this is painful to watch...

Click to expand...

StoneNYC said:

They make an unsubscribing button

Click to expand...

Not this thread. No. The entire last five plus years of dysfunctional Kodak insanity.

There are no secret plans. There are no rabbits in hats waiting. There are no white knights on stallions galloping here as fast as they can. The end-game for Kodak film is as certain as tonight's sunset. It always has been.

EK has not wanted their film business since the day Perez slid into George's office chair. He wanted digital billions. Because digital always equates to billions. EK kept film around only while waiting for those billions to inevitably materialize. They didn't. But bankruptcy did. Perez's dreams of easy peasy digital billions were his undoing. And EK's undoing.

But I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that if we asked him, he'd say if given another chance, a do-over, a mulligan, that he'd try just as hard again for those elusive digital billions. He's a high-tech guy. It's in his genes. Digital means billions. Period. There are no other options. No other lines of thought. Always go toward that light. Always.

Post-bankruptcy, post-Kodak digital failure, post-Perez billions failure, we all held our collective breath hoping against hope for a more balanced approach from the new KA. They are owned by KPP after all. Good people in retirement. Who still need to eat. A more modest, sustainable revenue stream only made sense. No more single-minded, self-destructive, ego-centric pursuit of digital billions.

Perhaps instead a reasonable mix of new and previous technologies to assure a constant reliable supply of retirement income. For the good people. For supper. A much improved diversification to help mitigate the wild risk that is always associated with high-tech gambling. Perhaps in this environment Kodak film might just somehow play an active part. Perhaps survive to do so.

I have an investment advisor who manages my money for the goal of an upcoming retirement. This is exactly what he does. Diversifies into sustainable investments. He knows the risks associated with solo high-tech gambling using OPM (Other People's Money). So he doesn't do that. Not with retirement funds. He knows better. Everybody knows better. You don't throw it all onto the red. Or into penny stocks. Nobody does that.

Then KA decided to hire a high-tech guy as CEO. Motorola, by way of Google. Mobile high-tech. Online high-tech. Digital high-tech. And guess what? Digital means billions. Did you all know that? Just waiting to be plucked like low-hanging fruit. I'm tellin' ya'.

Risk? What risk? There is no risk in low-hanging billions. Just reach up and grab 'em. All we need do is to keep Kodak film around until those billions inevitably materialize. And materialize not from easy shares and inkjets, but from photo kiosks and office scanners, no less. EK's final MP contract should do perfectly. Then it'll be their fault, not ours. Easy peasy, guys. I'm tellin' ya'.

Yeah. Easy peasy, guys...

Ken

Wow Ken, I've never seen you so... Passionate?

Well, I think IF Kodak had embraced the digital billions by way of continuing their digital camera patents and research instead of giving it away, they actually might have been ok. As a company, not as a film company.

Such is life, must go forward...

The smart companies look back only to learn, not lament...