Kodak announces reorganization

[bladerunner6]

Fujifilm would pick up the supply, at least for color print film and a bit of b & w. They would probably do very well with the added volume.

This is a valid point.

Maybe fewer, but bigger suppliers.

Perhaps primarily Fuji and Ilford.

 

[Pioneer]

it's definitely one for your "Mad money" not money you're not willing to see disappear.

Without a doubt. Investors in a company filing for bankruptcy usually lose so you never invest the milk money. But it is those little "mad money" bets that occasionally pay off big time. Face it, no one is getting rich buying Treasuries right now.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This is a valid point.

Maybe fewer, but bigger suppliers.

Perhaps primarily Fuji and Ilford.

You obviously dismissed the posts with counterpoints. Or you didn't read them.

PE

 

[Ektagraphic]

What?!

Earlier this year in its U.S. Bankruptcy Court filings, Kodak listed a variety of potential sales, including Cinesite, a special-effects business it unloaded in May, as well as its polyester film business, paper and output systems operation, and the motion-picture film business.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indus...ry/2012-07-11/kodak-reorganization/56149400/1

 

[Pioneer]

We live in interesting times

 

[benveniste]

On Reorganizations.

Once upon a time a CEO of an underperforming corporation was ousted. Since he had a nice golden parachute, he decided to give his successor some good advice.
"In the top right hand desk drawer," he said, "you'll find three numbered envelopes." When you find yourself in a crisis, open the lowest numbered envelope and follow the advice inside."

The new CEO put on their best phony smile and bade the old CEO farewell. 6 months later the company was still underperforming and the board of directors was not happy. In desperation the new CEO opened the envelope #1. "Blame your predecessor," it read.

This proved to be good advice, and the board, shareholders and business press seemed content to wait for a turnaround. Unfortunately, things didn't get better, so 9 months later the CEO opened envelope #2. "Reorganize," it read.

This again quieted the critics for a while, but in the end, the new executives weren't any better at solving the key business problems than the old ones. Finally, the CEO opened envelope #3.

It read, "prepare 3 letters."

 

[Chan Tran]

I wish I had the money to buy the Kodak film division. I think it would be a profitable business doing what Kodak was doing in the beginning of time that is to make, sell film, paper chemistry and to provide processing for film and optical printing. There may be not much business in film but there isn't much competition either.

 

[Chan Tran]

Any way I had a good chunk of my savings invested in Kodak and now I lost everything but Perez is expecting to get his bonus for losing my money. Wow.

 

[wblynch]

Personally I don't think the Kodak name has any value at all. As it is, most people have no idea that film even exists any more. Second, the Kodak name represents third rate crap cameras and printers. Why does anyone think they are bankrupt in the first place? Their crap didn't sell.

But I do love their film and paper products. It would be a crying shame to lose what is left of them.

I have optimistic hope that the film and paper business will survive and it makes no difference whatsoever what the name is. (as long as it isn't Blix).

 

[Europan]

George Eastman got his ass saved several times by people he treated shabbily. One can say it was different times in the Belle Epoque. EKC later heavily depended on Bell & Howell Co. The latter was a behind-coulisses floatation with an anonymous co-owning. 35-mm., the 16-mm., Double-8, and Super-8 projects were basically developed in Chicago. Super-8 is said to have been Kodak’s biggest single business. Since chemical film now slips into the past EKC has no chance in the long term unless they manage to be productive on a small scale.

 

[benjiboy]

Once upon a time a CEO of an underperforming corporation was ousted. Since he had a nice golden parachute, he decided to give his successor some good advice.
"In the top right hand desk drawer," he said, "you'll find three numbered envelopes." When you find yourself in a crisis, open the lowest numbered envelope and follow the advice inside."

The new CEO put on their best phony smile and bade the old CEO farewell. 6 months later the company was still underperforming and the board of directors was not happy. In desperation the new CEO opened the envelope #1. "Blame your predecessor," it read.

This proved to be good advice, and the board, shareholders and business press seemed content to wait for a turnaround. Unfortunately, things didn't get better, so 9 months later the CEO opened envelope #2. "Reorganize," it read.

This again quieted the critics for a while, but in the end, the new executives weren't any better at solving the key business problems than the old ones. Finally, the CEO opened envelope #3.

It read, "prepare 3 letters."

The way I heard this was envelope 3 said " change the name of the company.

 

[removed account4]

i think getting rid of their core industry was the best move they made !
zombies don't need much of a brain.

 

[Diapositivo]

The company will now have three separate operating groups -- a consumer group, a digital printing and enterprise group and a graphics, entertainment and commercial film group.

One thing I don't get: are film products all concentrated in one division?

It could be that consumer film and one-use cameras are in the "consumer group" division, and commercial (professional) film, motion picture film and chemistry for development are in the "commercial film group". Photographic paper (for optical printing) could be in both.

Maybe the divisions reflect distribution segments (groceries and general surfaces on one hand, commercial laboratories and professional users on the other hand).

 

[Photo Engineer]

i think getting rid of their core industry was the best move they made !
zombies don't need much of a brain.

Core industry? What was that?

Diapositivo;

It remains to be seen, by those of us outside EK, what will go where.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I don't think this link has been posted recently: Dead Link Removed

 

[Steve Smith]

One thing I don't get: are film products all concentrated in one division?

It could be that consumer film and one-use cameras are in the "consumer group" division, and commercial (professional) film, motion picture film and chemistry for development are in the "commercial film group". Photographic paper (for optical printing) could be in both.

It doesn't really matter. The divisions are only in the sales departments. The departments making actual product will not be divided up.


Steve.

 

[removed account4]

Core industry? What was that?

PE

core industry of kodak seemed to be making cameras, film, paper, chemistry and doing PHOTOFINISHING.
once they got rid of the cameras, paper and photofinishing and sold off the chemistry it was a lost cause ....
seeing they forgot how to advertise anything but all in one inkjet printers and scanners on the cartoon network.

it turned the company into a zombie ...

 

[PKM-25]

I can not imagine how Kodak must feel reading these threads full of bitching and complaining, people saying they want films like Kodachrome, Plus-X, High Speed Infrared and E6 back when we still have outstanding varieties like TMY, Ektar and Portra…..and the constant dissection of the restructuring.

And you DO know who Kodak is, do you not? Kodak is not so much the top executives, the shareholders and certainly not Mr. Perez. Who Kodak is are the people who are hard working, passionate about the products and proud of the brand that is Kodak. Who Kodak is are the people like Audrey Jonckheer who are still trying to help film find a way forward…besides buying the film, are you helping?

There is something else we are not doing…something besides websites like Flickr, APUG, etc. Something besides buying and using film that is not being done and it kept me up until 5AM this morning…it is troubling me..

Here is the trouble…

If Kodak were to stop selling film and no one took it over, I think it would be very, very bad for film in general. Here is why: Public Perception based on internet hype. For example, when Kodachrome disappeared, I can not tell you how many people thought that Kodak was no longer making any film and some even thought that meant no film left at all. That's right, one film's disappearance well publicized caused an tsunami of misconception by the general public. The same thing has happened with the C-11 filing by Kodak and all the news that has followed….this is a bad, BAD pattern folks. Because what ever potential numbers in growth that even niche film use there might be with the artistic resurgence of the medium, the growing perception that film is history is hampering a potential market segment that might otherwise give film a try.

This is not just Kodak's problem, it is Ilford's, Fuji's, Efke's problem and it is OUR problem. As much as I want to see Kodak get really creative in how they market to the potential film user, I think we are missing something really, reeeeally important as the film user. We say we use film, post images, fill our freezers, we do a lot, but we do it for us first, not to help out our film making companies, the ones who depend on us not only to use the product, but get the word out.

But I really do feel like we are missing the so called boat that Kodak has been said to have missed too…I am not sure what it is, but I am determined to figure it out.

Maybe it might have to do with crowd sourcing of an ad campaign that is not from the makers of film, but the users of it...something like that can go viral real quick...I think it is something like this that needs to happen, honestly...

 

[Brian C. Miller]

core industry of kodak seemed to be making cameras, film, paper, chemistry and doing PHOTOFINISHING.
once they got rid of the cameras, paper and photofinishing and sold off the chemistry it was a lost cause ...

What photos can be finished when the bottom has dropped out of the consumer film market? Kodak E-6 is gone. Isn't there any larger indicator of what's happening in film when a major segment totally tanks out? The consumer/pro roll film segment is riding the coat tails of the motion picture segment. The LF segment is riding the coat tails of the x-ray film segment. (Really, who needs 7-mil base film in mass quantities, $26 for 50 8x10 sheets?)

If the movie industry leaves film behind, expect roll film prices to shoot through the roof. If the radiology departments leave film behind, expect LF film prices to shoot through the roof.

Film would still be in dire straights even if Kodak was a perfectly healthy and thriving company. Imagine if Kodak did do everything right, and Kodak sensors were in at least 50% of the cameras manufactured, with a little logo, "Kodak Inside," and Kodak had 75% of the online image market. What would the film market be like? Same as today. It would still have tanked, and just as badly, with all of the same problematic external forces.

The problem, which will never go away, is the lack of consumer support. Product availability is based on consumers willing to pony up with money to buy the product. We have more film than consumers. That's all there is to it. So production lines have been idled and factories have been scrapped out. There isn't a market in the "third world" for film, either, since cell phones are ubiquitous. Even Mogadishu has full cell phone service. And really, does anybody expect some tribesman to waste money on Kodak moments? That's a first/second-world thing to do. And once you have any imaging device at all, that's what will be used.

 

[wblynch]

Here is how much I care about Kodak...

Are they selling products I like and can easily buy and use? Then I love Kodak.

Are they killing off products I like and can easily buy and use? Then Kodak doesn't exist.

It is not Kodak, it is the products. If the products are gone then Kodak is gone. Their name and history mean nothing to me. Only the products I can buy and use.

American business needs to flush out its management mentality. Giving multi-million dollar bonuses to failed executives is a symptom of the problem. These CEOs all sit on the Board of each others' companies and protect themselves from the top. They answer to no one and their investors and shareholders lose for the same reason the employees and customers lose. Executive plunder and pillage. They are a virus of vampires sucking the life out of every company they touch. Suck out the blood and leave the corpses behind them in the dirt.

 

[PKM-25]

Right, but to a degree, we have a hand in what the market for film is to become. If we the film user were in full control of that, what would be want it to be given the knowns of the market dynamics and the economies of scale that drive it?

We want our film companies to pull a profit, we want a healthy and realistic product line, but I feel like there are missing pieces of the puzzle, or worse, the pieces are right there in front of us and both the film user and the film companies are missing them..

What photos can be finished when the bottom has dropped out of the consumer film market? Kodak E-6 is gone. Isn't there any larger indicator of what's happening in film when a major segment totally tanks out? The consumer/pro roll film segment is riding the coat tails of the motion picture segment. The LF segment is riding the coat tails of the x-ray film segment. (Really, who needs 7-mil base film in mass quantities, $26 for 50 8x10 sheets?)

If the movie industry leaves film behind, expect roll film prices to shoot through the roof. If the radiology departments leave film behind, expect LF film prices to shoot through the roof.

Film would still be in dire straights even if Kodak was a perfectly healthy and thriving company. Imagine if Kodak did do everything right, and Kodak sensors were in at least 50% of the cameras manufactured, with a little logo, "Kodak Inside," and Kodak had 75% of the online image market. What would the film market be like? Same as today. It would still have tanked, and just as badly, with all of the same problematic external forces.

The problem, which will never go away, is the lack of consumer support. Product availability is based on consumers willing to pony up with money to buy the product. We have more film than consumers. That's all there is to it. So production lines have been idled and factories have been scrapped out. There isn't a market in the "third world" for film, either, since cell phones are ubiquitous. Even Mogadishu has full cell phone service. And really, does anybody expect some tribesman to waste money on Kodak moments? That's a first/second-world thing to do. And once you have any imaging device at all, that's what will be used.

 

[CGW]

Right, but to a degree, we have a hand in what the market for film is to become. If we the film user were in full control of that, what would be want it to be given the knowns of the market dynamics and the economies of scale that drive it?

We want our film companies to pull a profit, we want a healthy and realistic product line, but I feel like there are missing pieces of the puzzle, or worse, the pieces are right there in front of us and both the film user and the film companies are missing them..

One obvious missing piece is demand.

 

[Pioneer]

This is way beyond my expertise, if I have any left at all, but IMHO, part of the problem with film is product differentiation. We continually compare film to digital and they are really very different imaging systems, with different strengths and weaknesses. I don't want to re-start that debate here but I do believe it causes more harm than good in the minds of the everyday consumer. They have no reason to use film. They have not been given a strong enough reason to use film. They will not be leaving their digital imaging behind now, not when it is in just about every cell phone that is sold, but they have no reason to even consider adding film into the mix.

I do not know how to do it but somehow there has to be a place for film, that exploits the strengths of film, and without displacing digital. Instead of continually comparing film to digital we need to start differentiating film from digital and pointing out what is so wonderful about film, without the digital debate. Instead of Us vs Them, we need more thought given to how each system compliments the other. Why should the consumer consider film along with digital. Face it, if they cannot co-exist, then one will eventually go away, and I think we all know where that one is headed.

My two cents...or maybe that was just 1 cent.

 

[PKM-25]

One obvious missing piece is demand.

Not quite true, there is demand, but after the motion picture industry reduces color film to the niche level we now use it at, what does that demand look like and how can we expand it in every way we can in terms of reaching potential users?

 

[PKM-25]

Exactly, we have to do that by both continually pushing the limits with the content we produce and finding refined ways of reaching people. There are good ways already in place that do this, but my gut feeling is that there can be much, much better...

We need to be as innovative as the very innovations that have pushed film aside.

This is way beyond my expertise, if I have any left at all, but IMHO, part of the problem with film is product differentiation. We continually compare film to digital and they are really very different imaging systems, with different strengths and weaknesses. I don't want to re-start that debate here but I do believe it causes more harm than good in the minds of the everyday consumer. They have no reason to use film. They have not been given a strong enough reason to use film. They will not be leaving their digital imaging behind now, not when it is in just about every cell phone that is sold, but they have no reason to even consider adding film into the mix.

I do not know how to do it but somehow there has to be a place for film, that exploits the strengths of film, and without displacing digital. Instead of continually comparing film to digital we need to start differentiating film from digital and pointing out what is so wonderful about film, without the digital debate. Instead of Us vs Them, we need more thought given to how each system compliments the other. Why should the consumer consider film along with digital. Face it, if they cannot co-exist, then one will eventually go away, and I think we all know where that one is headed.

My two cents...or maybe that was just 1 cent.