Kodak clarification

Prof_Pixel · Sep 7, 2012

Just posted on Facebook:

Kodak Professional

This to clarify some confusion regarding our still consumer and professional films. Our film manufacturing for all our business lines happens in the same factory. Therefore, we expect that whomever purchases the BUSINESS that sells our still consumer and professional films will create a supply agreement with Kodak. As we've also stated, we will be open to negotiating a licensing agreement.

What does this mean this means the quality of the film you use today, whether it be PORTRA, EKTAR or any of our B&W films, will not change. We've always worked to ensure that we bring the best films to market.

donkee · Sep 7, 2012

Shouldn't that read

What does this mean this means the quality of the film you use today, whether it be PORTRA, EKTAR or any of our B&W films, will not change. We've always worked to bring the best films to be discontinued.

Couldn't resist.

DREW WILEY · Sep 7, 2012

That was indeed a Jackass remark. The films Kodak currently supplies are simply superb. Maybe a favorite for one person or another has been discontinued due to relative lack of demand or other
logistical issues; but the sheer quality and versatility of what they are still currently offering is unsurpassed.

Ian Grant · Sep 7, 2012

Thanks Prof_Pixel it's unusual to hve such honesty from ex Kodak employees on this forum.

Ian

lxdude · Sep 7, 2012

Geez, Ian. He just quoted their Facebook post.

Ian Grant · Sep 7, 2012

lxdude said:
Geez, Ian. He just quoted their Facebook post.

That may be the case but others add layers of unfounded nothingness.

Ian

Sirius Glass · Sep 7, 2012

DREW WILEY said:
That was indeed a Jackass remark. The films Kodak currently supplies are simply superb. Maybe a favorite for one person or another has been discontinued due to relative lack of demand or other
logistical issues; but the sheer quality and versatility of what they are still currently offering is unsurpassed.

* 2

Benoît99 · Sep 7, 2012

Whatever happened to plain talk? This is what I understand from the OP:

1. Kodak's movie and still film is all made in the same factory, which Kodak is not selling.

2. Kodak is selling its consumer and professional still film marketing and distribution business.

3. Kodak "expects" the buyer of the film business buyer to conclude a contract with Kodak under which Kodak will manufacture film for the buyer, who will market and distribute it.

Is my understanding correct? What happens if the buyer decides to find another film manufacturer?

Sirius Glass · Sep 7, 2012

It ain't over until the fat lady signs.

lxdude · Sep 7, 2012

Sirius Glass said:
It ain't over until the fat lady signs.

Which is handy if you're deaf...

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2012

Benoît99 said:
Whatever happened to plain talk? This is what I understand from the OP:

1. Kodak's movie and still film is all made in the same factory, which Kodak is not selling.

2. Kodak is selling its consumer and professional still film marketing and distribution business.

3. Kodak "expects" the buyer of the film business buyer to conclude a contract with Kodak under which Kodak will manufacture film for the buyer, who will market and distribute it.

Is my understanding correct? What happens if the buyer decides to find another film manufacturer?

Contract will probably be worded to preclude that.

Curt · Sep 7, 2012

"Whatever happened to plain talk?"

That is exactly what I thought. Plain English please without the obfuscation that is all too prevalent today.

obfuscate[ ob-fuh-skeyt, ob-fuhs-keyt ]Dead Link Removed

verb (used with object) ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing.

1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.

2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.

3. to darken.

ic-racer · Sep 7, 2012

It seems as if they want to wash their hands of all the packaging and distributing and marketing garbage and just concentrate on making the film product. This could be a good thing.

If I were a wealthy entrepreneur I'd buy the business, be the 'middle man' and sell the film to Fuji, Foma, Ilford, Adox, Freestyle etc. There would be no more KODAK BRAND film, but it will say "film manufactured in Rochester, USA by Kodak" or something like that and those guys can come up with their own names for the emulsions.

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2012

Making the film is what they do best. The rest is what they do very poorly. Could be a win/win to hand that off to someone who can do it better.

removed account4 · Sep 7, 2012

Ian Grant said:
Thanks Prof_Pixel it's unusual to hve such honesty from ex Kodak employees on this forum.

Ian

Ian Grant said:
That may be the case but others add layers of unfounded nothingness.

Ian

i couldn't agree with you more ian ...

john

pbromaghin · Sep 8, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Making the film is what they do best. The rest is what they do very poorly. Could be a win/win to hand that off to someone who can do it better.

Funny, but they used to be geniuses at branding and marketing. I remember, as a 9-year-old kid, seeing an ad during the Andy Williams show that made me feel guilty if I used anything but Kodak film to photograph my daughter's college graduation.

It's just a bunch of shitheads running the place now.

markbarendt · Sep 8, 2012

So essentially it sounds to me like Kodak wants to sell off their highly productive and very active film sales and marketing division.

Wow, my wife is a programmer, she could do the the web page work, if I work at it too and hit the big pro-photographer trade shows I could seemingly double Kodak's marketing efforts, sales should skyrocket.

WTF Kodak, wish I could sell something that doesn't exist for big bucks and keep the cash cow too.

Diapositivo · Sep 8, 2012

ic-racer said:
If I were a wealthy entrepreneur I'd buy the business, be the 'middle man' and sell the film to Fuji, Foma, Ilford, Adox, Freestyle etc. There would be no more KODAK BRAND film, but it will say "film manufactured in Rochester, USA by Kodak" or something like that and those guys can come up with their own names for the emulsions.

I think what Kodak is about is something including the brand, which in the film world is still quite an asset.

I think they are looking for somebody who buys the Kodak brand and cares about all the marketing and distribution both as Kodak Portra, Ektar etc. and, in addition to that, to whomever else wants to license the product and sell it under their own brand, i.e. firms like Agfaphoto, or distribution chains, shops etc. like Freestyle, and maybe people like Ilford or Adox who could leverage their distribution network but would not want embark in the big business of the Kodak brand.

They would keep the production, and therefore the quality, under control and so they would run no reputation risk in selling the Kodak brand for still film while maintaining full operation for the Kodak motion picture film.

RattyMouse · Sep 8, 2012

Diapositivo said:
I think what Kodak is about is something including the brand, which in the film world is still quite an asset.

I think they are looking for somebody who buys the Kodak brand and cares about all the marketing and distribution both as Kodak Portra, Ektar etc. and, in addition to that, to whomever else wants to license the product and sell it under their own brand, i.e. firms like Agfaphoto, or distribution chains, shops etc. like Freestyle, and maybe people like Ilford or Adox who could leverage their distribution network but would not want embark in the big business of the Kodak brand.

They would keep the production, and therefore the quality, under control and so they would run no reputation risk in selling the Kodak brand for still film while maintaining full operation for the Kodak motion picture film.

Who wants to buy into a business that has a single supplier? A supplier that is literally on death's door? Seems suicidal to me.

Steve Smith · Sep 8, 2012

RattyMouse said:
Who wants to buy into a business that has a single supplier? A supplier that is literally on death's door? Seems suicidal to me.

That's what I was wondering. In their present state, they cannot offer any guarantees for continuous supply of product.

Steve.

Diapositivo · Sep 8, 2012

That's what "Rollei" does with film which is produced by Agfa (that's not AgfaPhoto, but "real" film producer Agfa). Agfa makes the manufacturing, and "Rollei" conducts the "business", which is all operations beyond manufacturing.

On a smaller scale, that's what AgfaPhoto does. Fujifilm makes the film and AgfaPhoto operates the business.

On another and larger example, that's what Vivitar always did. They never manufactured anything. They only conducted the "business". Another example is Hama and there are many others.

The problem here is to find somebody who thinks film as a business can be operated profitably.

****

Kodak as a film manufacturer is not on death's door IF film remains profitable as it is at the moment.

Even if the company does not exit from Chapter 11 and goes into full-fledged bankruptcy procedures (Chapter 7) IF film production remains profitable and maintains a profitable "outlook" then the creditors will acquire the property of the entire assets of Kodak and will sell film production to somebody (the obvious assumption being that where there is a profit there is a buyer).

When a company goes bankrupt what goes lost is risk capital (shareholder's money). In the US case maybe other stakeholders lose money (employees having some health insurance or so).

Brand and manufacture, if profitable, can survive no problem. I can cite Cirio, Parmalat and Alitalia as recent cases in Italy (Alitalia being a bit more complicated).

"Bankruptcy" means that creditors take the barn and sell it (or its saleable parts) to recover their money. Doesn't mean that the barn is shut down.

IF film production is profitable and if it maintains a profitable "perspective" it is certain that it will survive even if Kodak does not emerge from Chapter 11.

Seen from a film consumer standpoint the problem is not whether Kodak exits Chapter 11 successfully (which is irrelevant). The problem is whether film production is profitable and if an investor thinks that it is going to remain profitable in the long run.

timparkin · Sep 8, 2012

RattyMouse said:
Who wants to buy into a business that has a single supplier? A supplier that is literally on death's door? Seems suicidal to me.

Every single McDonalds franchisee?

Photo Engineer · Sep 8, 2012

Well, I am going to be obscure and just say that there are rumors going around about changes at Fuji. If true they are profound!

PE

timparkin · Sep 8, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
Well, I am going to be obscure and just say that there are rumors going around about changes at Fuji. If true they are profound!

PE

If they aren't the rumours about getting completely rid of E6 then pray tell...

Tim

p.s. or is it this one?

http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/fuji-to-cease-motion-picture-film-manufacturing-by-end-of-the-year/

markbarendt · Sep 8, 2012

timparkin said:
Every single McDonalds franchisee?

Actually McD's has many suppliers but a common gathering and distribution system. There's a lot more than one ranch providing them Kanga.. oops, horse.. oops again, oh yeah beef, that's what I meant.

My guess is that since Kodak isn't selling the production of film they are also not selling the trademark for or the formula and instructions on how to make Tri-X or Portra or ...

That puts Kodak in the position of being the only "ranch" capable of supplying the "beef".

No thanks, I'll pass on that bit of wishful business dreaming.

But if Kodak sells all the formulas, rights to manufacture, trademarks, etc... and the new company can say hire Ilford to make Tri-X and Fujifilm to make Portra if they please, then we're back closer to reality.

Kodak clarification

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency