KODAK: DID YOU MAKE THE WRONG MOVE A DOZEN YEARS AGO?

wblynch said:

why are there so many film haters in a film lover's website?

Click to expand...

Just film-loving realists without much time for self-delusion.

wblynch said:

why are there so many film haters in a film lover's website?

Click to expand...

hi bill

i love film, and my eyeglasses aren't rose colored.

Aristophanes said:

The worry is not net profits nor market share; it's gross revenues.

Roll film production is a large-scale, capital intensive, industrial process requiring a certain economy-of-scale and retained technical skills. While you may think the hobby industry is large enough, the reality is a few emulsion factories may require millions of customers to merely keep the supply chain going. Those millions may not be there.

The production of film scales up well, but not down. Right now legacy MPI cinema sales are what keeps the revenues afloat and the film still photo industry viable. Both are in decline and no one is sure where the market bottom is. So if Kodak enters bankruptcy, its film production could outright halt, forever, because no one will buy into a declining market and the skilled people necessary will bolt before the restructuring is finished. This could literally make Kodak film production worth nothing. Kodak may hit bottom before the real market demand does. It's a scary but very real scenario. More likely is film production will be put on life support,perhaps with more product cuts. It is un known what is or is not profitable. It may be everything but roll film is not profitable and is eliminated. The days of sentiment to small markets may be over with new, ruthless, vulture, ownership. No one knows.

Click to expand...

Good points.

Studios who produce movies are not going to get stuck out in left field. They're going to port over to digital as fast as possible and Kodak may be out of movie film production when they start losing money on associated film production costs unless their willing to suffer losses for awhile in order to downsize. My question would be their presence in some way in digital movie production, software or hardware related. I have read tho that 16mm is still pretty big so they might continue that along with still film production at some size, but choices I feel would have to be smaller.
Their 2010 Consolidated Statement of Operations puts their income from licensing and royalties at 904M. Their loss overall was 687M. You can read all this online.
Their 2010 statement mentioned:

The Company’s digital growth strategy is centered around exploiting our competitive advantage at the intersection of materials
science and digital imaging science. The Company has leading market positions in large markets including digital printing plates,
scanners, digital still and video cameras, and kiosks. In addition, the Company has been introducing differentiated value propositions
in new growth markets that are in need of transformation. The Company’s four growth initiatives are: consumer inkjet, (WHY?) within CDG,
and commercial inkjet, workflow software and services, and packaging solutions within GCG.
While these four growth initiatives have largely been in an investment mode, revenue in these product lines grew 18% for the full
year.

Overall it's much more complex their our simple discussions of film and their going down the tubes. I suspect someone could write a book on it and it could be a college course eventually, whether for the good or bad. Fascinating really for some of us.

With every Colour film your parents, and your grand parents bought you ended up with 36 photographic prints, 34 of which are still in a shoe box somewhere.

36 prints is 0.5574 m2 of colour paper..... 1 m2 of film is enough to make 17.58 36 exposure films m2.

We just do not print in volume anymore in the consumer market. Digital made that absolutely inevitable.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :

For one thing you need to differentiate completely different coating lines based upon polyester base
stock (sheet and 35mm) vs thin acetate (typical of 120), for another, the fact that any allegedly
catastropic shift of the movie industry to pure digital seems like a pipe dream of its techie promoters.
There's high risk in that, and filmmakers often have the financial clout to choose their media for creative
impact. If they like the look of a particular film, that's what they'll use. Besides, there's a vast movie
industry outside of Hollywood that still heavily relies on film. The potential collapse of traditional film
due to the die-off or layoff of skilled technicians is a whole different matter and more ominous. But it
hardly makes sense, now that Kodak has a new homerun selection of color neg films and even TMax's that it would all go straight to the chopping block. Bankruptcies aren't always a bad thing for product
quality and availability. Sometimes the cobwebs do need a good shaking out. But if everyone is so damn
pessimistic, what on earth are you even doing with a film camera in the first place? You just learn some
new tricks and move on, Just like we've all had to do many times before as one favorite film or paper
disapperared and we had to replace it with another. If you don't like the newer film, you can just toss
it on the recycle pile along with all the computer towers, monitors, and other costly hi-tech devices that already went obsolete long before your film did.

DREW WILEY said:

... But if everyone is so damn pessimistic, what on earth are you even doing with a film camera in the first place?
... If you don't like the newer film, you can just toss it on the recycle pile along with all the computer towers, monitors, and other costly hi-tech devices that already went obsolete long before your film did.

Click to expand...

Thanks Drew. Well put.

Here is Kodak's strategic mistake in a very few words: A dozen years ago they should have created a whole new company with a whole new name for their digital foray.

If the new company soared they could rejoice and enjoy the success. If it failed they could cast it aside with no damage to their traditional imaging business.

Call it risk aversion, risk mitigation, whatever you like but they should have isolated the crown jewels in a separate safe.

But we all know the MBA mentality is to leverage that almighty Brand Name.

If you were on the Board of Directors 12 years ago and thought it reasonably likely that the revenue from film and related products was going to be reduced to 10 percent or less of its former glory in the next dozen years, what would you have done?

Remember that your legal obligation is to maintain and enhance shareholder value, and that a huge number of people (many of them Kodak employees, both retired and current) were depending on that shareholder value.

No doubt those of us here on APUG would have preferred that Kodak had taken the steps to support and enhance and modernize their film/analogue lines, so that the business that had been in place 12 years ago became 1/10 of its former size, but remained vibrant and innovative and accessible while supplying product at favourable prices that also earned Kodak good profits.

If Kodak had done just that (and only that) we might be happy, but the company would still have failed its shareholders massively, because those shareholders would have been left with shares that were only worth 1/10 of what they were formerly worth.

Because of a technical sea-change of massive proportions, Kodak's wonderful, regular and valuable revenue streams were inevitably going to decrease massively. Kodak's Board had to, by law, attempt to change their business to try to replace their previous source of profit with business that could also provide similar profit.

It is fair to argue that Kodak would have been wise to enhance their traditional products, so as to be left with a much smaller film/analogue division capable of supplying good profits, even if they were much smaller then previous profits, while still building other lines of business that have greater chance of growth in the future. It may be that the costs associated with that approach (given the nature of Kodak's equipment, procedures and long term obligations) would inevitably doom that to failure - or maybe not? And Perez and his cohorts may indeed have been right - if Kodak remained identified with film than their new businesses may have been hampered - or maybe not?

The answers to those questions are extremely difficult, and the knowledge needed to obtain those answers is not available to anyone here.

Obviously the "10 percent" numbers I've referred to earlier in this post are simplifications/guesses/approximations. But I hope that the general meaning is useful.

wblynch said:

Here is Kodak's strategic mistake in a very few words: A dozen years ago they should have created a whole new company with a whole new name for their digital foray.

If the new company soared they could rejoice and enjoy the success. If it failed they could cast it aside with no damage to their traditional imaging business.

Call it risk aversion, risk mitigation, whatever you like but they should have isolated the crown jewels in a separate safe.

But we all know the MBA mentality is to leverage that almighty Brand Name.

Click to expand...

FYI: it's 2011. Hindsight's 20/20--or less in some cases.

Do you have an MBA? Know anyone with an MBA? Been harmed by an MBA?

Just asking given the size of the chip on your shoulder concerning MBAs. What's the point?

DREW WILEY said:

For one thing you need to differentiate completely different coating lines based upon polyester base
stock (sheet and 35mm) vs thin acetate (typical of 120), for another, the fact that any allegedly
catastropic shift of the movie industry to pure digital seems like a pipe dream of its techie promoters.
There's high risk in that, and filmmakers often have the financial clout to choose their media for creative
impact. If they like the look of a particular film, that's what they'll use. Besides, there's a vast movie
industry outside of Hollywood that still heavily relies on film. The potential collapse of traditional film
due to the die-off or layoff of skilled technicians is a whole different matter and more ominous. But it
hardly makes sense, now that Kodak has a new homerun selection of color neg films and even TMax's that it would all go straight to the chopping block. Bankruptcies aren't always a bad thing for product
quality and availability. Sometimes the cobwebs do need a good shaking out. But if everyone is so damn
pessimistic, what on earth are you even doing with a film camera in the first place? You just learn some
new tricks and move on, Just like we've all had to do many times before as one favorite film or paper
disapperared and we had to replace it with another. If you don't like the newer film, you can just toss
it on the recycle pile along with all the computer towers, monitors, and other costly hi-tech devices that already went obsolete long before your film did.

Click to expand...

Except if there's no one to buy it in sufficient quantities. By definition it is them obsolete from a market perspective. The Queen still has a carriage. It's a bit dramatic and ironic to opine about high-tech obsolescence given how we are communicating right now.

I like the process and aesthetic if shooting film. Digital is far too precise and clinical, sterile even. Film gives an imperfection that can surprise, and a look that is an aesthetic fingerprint. Digital requires Photoshop.

My point is that film requires a new marketing slant that carefully steers away from the lost battle vs. digital. I shoot plenty of digital. I like the way film makes me slow down. Is Kodak listening? No.

A bunch if high-profile directors will not get MPI cameras manufactured again. The creative types are easily replaced. I worked in the industry for years. If a venture capital firm doesn't rescue Kodak, then the film industry will move to digital over prima donna directors and cinematographers. They eat their own.

What I find fascinating (and sadly morbid) is that an entire language of vernacular art and it's medium could go south only because of industrial scale. Small demand and huge nostalgia just don't cut it. The ability to scale down such an industry is, frankly, a flaw in capitalism.

Heck, even all the old Technicolor cameras and special dyes - millions of bucks worth - have all been
purchased and are held in secure storage, just in case some big-budget Bollywood film wants that look.
I don't know where Kodak will end up any more than anyone else here. But blaming digital for the demise
of color film is like all the doomsayers that said the invention of photography in the first place was the
doom of artists paint brushes and pigments. Where there's a will, there's a way... But as far as MBA's
go: our company has hired them, but their first job is to sweep the floors, then they eventually get to
stock shelves, then after a few years might get an entry level sales opportunity, then ten years later
an opening in purchasing (maybe) ... by then their degree and intellect starts becoming an asset rather than a liability.

Question to all of you: Was digital technology something that people simply migrated to? Or were they trained to?

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Question to all of you: Was digital technology something that people simply migrated to? Or were they trained to?

Click to expand...

Definitely part of a larger conspiracy. Yup. Gotta be.

This thread's gone down the rabbit hole into utter fantasy where little corresponds to current reality.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Question to all of you: Was digital technology something that people simply migrated to? Or were they trained to?

Click to expand...

Trained to and then migrated to, but it was almost natural, I think. Remember the first cell phones? It was like carrying a small suitcase, yet the idea of making a phone call and not be attached to a wire, had people all excited. Digital photography: seeing your pictures immediately and on your computer screens as soon as you got home. Quality was irrelevant for the masses. Hey, would APUG even exist if it wasn't for digital photography? I guess it's like looking at a glass half full

CGW said:

FYI: it's 2011. Hindsight's 20/20--or less in some cases.

Do you have an MBA? Know anyone with an MBA? Been harmed by an MBA?

Just asking given the size of the chip on your shoulder concerning MBAs. What's the point?

Click to expand...

Yes. By the way, when Toyota decided to take a chance on hybrid technology they did so by introducing a totally different car line and named it Prius.

They are now expanding the line to 4 models and in the near future Prius will be an entire different brand.

They also did this with Scion as an entry into a different demographic market.

This was intentional to differentiate these lines from the traditional Toyota vehicles as well as mitigate risk if anything went wrong. In the case of Prius, fortune has smiled. In the case of Scion... the jury is still out.

Hindsight is useful for foresight. If one has the wisdom to apply it.

With well over 100 years in business, surviving 2 world wars and a Great Depression, Kodak had plenty of hindsight to leverage. (plus the wonderful tool of observation - watching other's mistakes)

I know MBA mentality. I know what they teach in Business School. It's all the same and very robotic. There is not much imagination or innovation, people rely on spreadsheets and calculations. Statistics and demographics. No one steps "outside the box" even when talking about "stepping outside the box". That's why they "Focus Group" everything to death. That's also why a few non-traditional stars appear and kick everyone's ass every decade or so. Formulas don't predict chaotic input.

CGW said:

Definitely part of a larger conspiracy. Yup. Gotta be

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was exactly the type of response I was hoping I'd get.

MaximusM3 said:

Trained to and then migrated to, but it was almost natural, I think. Remember the first cell phones? It was like carrying a small suitcase, yet the idea of making a phone call and not be attached to a wire, had people all excited. Digital photography: seeing your pictures immediately and on your computer screens as soon as you got home. Quality was irrelevant for the masses. Hey, would APUG even exist if it wasn't for digital photography? I guess it's like looking at a glass half full

Click to expand...

I do remember the first mobile phone I ever saw. It was locked to a car, had a huge antenna, an actual round dial to make the call and a Bakelite receiver. Who knew what would come...?

I'm counting on teenage rebellion. If the parents are all addicted to geeky cellphone cameras and every cool electronic gadget that gets shoved in front of their face, the next generation will want to move into
a log cabin in the woods devoid of electricity, start dressing like wild Indians, and will start hand-coating their photographic plates. The 60's all over again.

DREW WILEY said:

I'm counting on teenage rebellion. If the parents are all addicted to geeky cellphone cameras and every cool electronic gadget that gets shoved in front of their face, the next generation will want to move into
a log cabin in the woods devoid of electricity, start dressing like wild Indians, and will start hand-coating their photographic plates. The 60's all over again.

Click to expand...

Funny.

wblynch said:

Yes. By the way, when Toyota decided to take a chance on hybrid technology they did so by introducing a totally different car line and named it Prius.

They are now expanding the line to 4 models and in the near future Prius will be an entire different brand.

They also did this with Scion as an entry into a different demographic market.

This was intentional to differentiate these lines from the traditional Toyota vehicles as well as mitigate risk if anything went wrong. In the case of Prius, fortune has smiled. In the case of Scion... the jury is still out.

Hindsight is useful for foresight. If one has the wisdom to apply it.



With well over 100 years in business, surviving 2 world wars and a Great Depression, Kodak had plenty of hindsight to leverage. (plus the wonderful tool of observation - watching other's mistakes)

I know MBA mentality. I know what they teach in Business School. It's all the same and very robotic. There is not much imagination or innovation, people rely on spreadsheets and calculations. Statistics and demographics. No one steps "outside the box" even when talking about "stepping outside the box". That's why they "Focus Group" everything to death. That's also why a few non-traditional stars appear and kick everyone's ass every decade or so. Formulas don't predict chaotic input.

Click to expand...

Have you been to B-school, have a business degree, tried to get one?

i know plenty of mba's who aren't as you describe ..
that is a broad brush stroke ...

There's nothing wrong with being an MBA per se, any more than there is being a docter or lawyer straight out of school. But would you hire one, or let one operate on you? That's why apprenticeship or
mentorship programs are so valuable. Work your way through grad school and learn some practical ropes
at the same time, get your foot in the door with real world experience and get ahead of the herd of competition. Then go to work for a coporation founded by someone who never got through the third
grade.

A quick search after reading another thread here shows 35mm and 65mm movie film cameras still being produced for production. I'll amend my previous statement about the possibility of a demise of movie film to digital in short order as I see now that the medium is supported and will probably have already been discussed and guaranteed by parties involved. This in the least should ensure some sort of film production. Will 20 to 30 years down the road make a difference? Probably, as the young ones growing up in a digital age will be more inclined to use what they know.

DREW WILEY said:

There's nothing wrong with being an MBA per se, any more than there is being a docter or lawyer straight out of school. But would you hire one, or let one operate on you? That's why apprenticeship or
mentorship programs are so valuable. Work your way through grad school and learn some practical ropes
at the same time, get your foot in the door with real world experience and get ahead of the herd of competition. Then go to work for a coporation founded by someone who never got through the third
grade.

Click to expand...

But as far as MBA's
go: our company has hired them, but their first job is to sweep the floors, then they eventually get to
stock shelves, then after a few years might get an entry level sales opportunity, then ten years later
an opening in purchasing (maybe) ... by then their degree and intellect starts becoming an asset rather than a liability.

If BS was music, you'd be a brass band. Give it a rest.

okay enough

CGW said:

But as far as MBA's
go: our company has hired them, but their first job is to sweep the floors, then they eventually get to
stock shelves, then after a few years might get an entry level sales opportunity, then ten years later
an opening in purchasing (maybe) ... by then their degree and intellect starts becoming an asset rather than a liability.

If BS was music, you'd be a brass band. Give it a rest.

Click to expand...

Being someone that does have a MBA from Stern/NYU I have been on both sides of discussions of passion versus dollars...

The dollar wins. There is no way that anyone that had control over the way the money would come and go out of the hands of the controllers would ever allow them taking one step in a direction that would cost anyone a dollar.

Large corporation have figured out that if they want to test the waters with something then they put it out as a sub-product under a smaller label and see how it goes in the target market. If it takes off and goes on course with their projections, then it may become its own label. Look at Nike and the Jordan sneakers. You will no longer find a nike logo anywhere upon them. Simply a jumpman and a 23. They are still owned by the mother company, but they have their own market base. So they can stand on there own and give the wearers a sense of individuality, without having the direct mental link to the old company that started the product.

Kodak has messed up in its way of doing business, but there is far more behind this then that. People moved on to use other products that they felt were better at the time. They left behind the connection to the old company that sold the old products, namely Kodak. Kodak stood for photography for many many years. Then they changed, as most companies had to, to survive. People no longer used the film that was their staple and big seller. Smaller firms came up and started taking big chunks out of the market. As technology moved faster and further ahead the large companies had to make up their minds where to put the money they would devote to advances in the field. No one could have foreseen the exploding advances made in digital photography. Kodak needed to try and hold their ground in an ever changing landscape. They did not do so well.

Without people buying the film in bulk, or having it processed through kodak facilities and the US legal crap thrown at Kodak over the free processing to sooth the other big companies... it was certain that time would show the cracks in the aging company. The Kodak of today is nothing but a shell of what it was in its prime.

Kodak is not alone in its death, everyone who walked over to ilford, or fuji or whatever other film they now shoot helped nail the coffin.

Film is not going anywhere, just suck it up and find some other film to shoot. We all know that one of the other big film companies are going step in and buy the Kodak name anyway. Hell its worth more for the yellow and black packaging then it is as a working company. A merger would be the smartest thing for the film industry. It would place a larger number of desired products into the basket of one manufacturer, creating more production in the smaller number of needed plants. Increasing the need for that manufacturer to maintain solid levels of stock. Also that would drive more money into development and might actually spawn some new technology in the reintroduction of processes and films that have fallen by the way side for lack of funding for that department.

Yes the company would be a name for namesake and there would be a ton of layoffs and closings. Yes an era would end, but there would be small solace in knowing that some small part of it would live on. This is where big business makes sense. Saving a dying brand, simply because it can not save itself.

What would it matter if Kodak dies anyway? The stories about how they turned their backs on the Pros and walked away from the people that supported them are all over the place. Seems they did not care then, so why are so many people caring now?

Photography is about capturing the moment. Holding onto a brief glimpse of the world according to how you see it through the view finder of whatever it is you hold in your hand. Its not about having a Horseman 8x10 with a 2 grand lens on the most expensive tripod in the world while shooting the only film that you think is the right film to capture the mood. Or at least I don't think so.

God bless the kids with the toy cameras and the 120 film with no idea what an f-stop is. I am glad they are wearing plaid and buying farms with their hipster girlfriends and figuring things out as they go. Maybe its the 20 somethings that will save the last few pieces of what we were too careless to pay attention to.