Kodak Exits

[Jedidiah Smith]

Just on the chance that a Kodak rep might read this, I will throw in a couple pennies' worth.

1. I love Kodak film - color and B&W. Always have. Sure, I've used lots of other brands, and been enamoured with Fuji Velvia at times, but when I go back and look at my prints, sometimes from years ago...the ones printed from Kodak film have a slightly different color balance that I love. The same is true with B&W; sometimes I think I like Fuji Acros 100 or similar films better because of the small grain...but when I go back and look through my B&W prints, I am always drawn to the Plus-X 125 in D76 for the tonality.

2. Marketing: Kodak - you have some things right. Your films are wonderful, chemistry is top notch, and color paper has gotten loads better - the metallic stuff has no equal. You just need to market directly to the consumer now. This is a changing world - use the Internet to your advantage. For example, on your website, don't make people hunt to find the PRO section! You have a direct link to "consumer products" - why not one for "PRO" products? Put a DIRECT radio button link on the front page for the PRO section. At the very least, it will make professional photographers "feel" that they mean something to you. Little things like that can go a long way in this business. It is all "perception" because at the end of the day, most of the products are so close in quality, that people buy on perception and brand-loyalty, not spec sheets.

3. Your Future: You CAN be BOTH an analog and digital company, and excel! It's like the saying, "make new friends, but keep the old...one is silver and the other's gold". You must make new "digital friends" to enhance your business - but remember that analog users are like the "gold" friends. University photography courses are filled to capacity! They are using B&W analog film and darkroom equipment, and the advanced ones are using color darkroom equipment with some digital. You have the chance to impact the future of all of them!
Many thousands of people love the look of a true film print and will pay more for it; as your own recent study showed, film is not dead - far from it. Many professionals use film together with digital to get their end results.
Just because digital may be cheaper in some ways and sharper in some ways, does not mean it is "better".
Hope that helps. We do love you and your products. I grew up with a complete Kodak darkroom in high-school. It can stay that way (except for the paper now) if YOU let it.
Jed

 

[gr82bart]

Think about that.

Well said Ron.

Regards, Art.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have a simple question, Why is it not possible in this day and age for Kodak not to be able to make Black & White Paper?
John Sexton started a thread a few days ago about how Kodak was going to host at Jacobs Center a discussion on the future of Black and White Photography.
The child in me suddenly rose with great hopes.. Wow they are listening, Ecatalure is coming back, Elite in three surfaces, I cannot contain myself in hopes of great papers being available.

Is it just me , In this day and age, why could this company not have the resources to keep one measely small line going to produce some beautiful paper. I find this to be very perplexing and though I do not want to jump on Kodak kick them , I am extremely dissapointed in their lack of interest in keeping this product line going.
I have been using Kodak products from day one , but it is becoming very difficult to get them and I see the day where I will never use a Kodak product unless its a sensor or something like that is related to some DSlr. Sad Times.
Has the management of this great company changed so much?

 

[roteague]

I have no problem with Kodak, nor any animosity towards it as a company. I don't use their products very often, simply because I prefer Fuji products (Velvia).

I think that it would be good to see Kodak reintroduce some of their excellent B&W products that were discontinued.

 

[Uncle Bill]

Kodak has a couple of issues from an outside observer and I stress that.

First off Kodak has a hierarchal largely technical corporate culture not used to engaging in two way conversations with their customers like we have with Ilford with Simon Galley and Fotoimpex with Mirko. Of course the differing scale of the businesses presents different challenges. Even then Kodak must have a couple of people in corporate communications and in the marketing team responsible for the film group keeping an eye on this and other film based forums.

The second challenge is messaging, Kodak is going to digital what? They failed with cameras, there is no margin at all in it and there is the film division though shrinking is very profitable and probably will be for some time to come. So the next big area is printers ink and paper.

As other posters noted, why can't Kodak be an Digital and Film company. Harmon does it nicely with Ilford Film, chemicals, traditional paper AND ink jet papers. Something like, "We are your Photographic Solution" and not mention what technology created it. Hyping digital is so early 21st century, we know it's here already. I would also revamp the website which is great for product information for easier navigation so you can actually find things.

Actually open call to the powers that be at Kodak, hire me for your Marketing Communications, I can do a better job than the people already there.

 

[dsullivan]

This whole thread is based on an incorrect article and an incorrect premise!

Think about that.

PE

I've thought about it and compared it to the Kodak Press Release. The Kodak Press release is incorrect? The only thing that sets them apart is the slight hyperbolic headline and byline, the rest of the article is pretty much a cut and paste of the press release and and some extra information on Olympic sponsorship.

Link to Press Release from the Kodak website:

Kodak Press Release

I don't take issue with the fact the premise is wrong, reading the initial post I just shrugged my shoulders and thought "ah well", what I dislike what is frankly the abuse, not from the "Kodak Haters" but from people who claim Apug members are deliberately anti-Kodak and takes any opportunity to bash Kodak.

David.

 

[Photo Engineer]

David;

The Kodak press release says nothing about abandoning film! It says that it will no longer be a sponsor of the Olympics. The article referenced in the OP reads entirely differently, and the tenor of many comments have gone in that direction as well.

As for the rest, read some of the posts here on APUG. I think that many will agree that things are not even handed. Some very respected APUG members have posted comments that agree with mine.

Bob;

As you may remember, I had a chance to speak to Antonio Perez face-to-face about B&W paper. He said it was not selling, and Kodak whas "hemmoraging out of the product line". His words (the spelling is mine ).

He also said that he had personally answered many e-mails from distraught customers, but the volume was so great that he had to turn it over to an associate due to the press of business. He continued by saying that he could understand the distress "out there" from the tenor of the notes he did get a chance to read but that there was nothing that could be done to save the product line.

I have other information that would only support his comments, but I feel that that information is better left unsaid. I can say only that it does not reflect badly on Kodak or its management.

So, the sales of Polycontrast IV and all other Kodak papers were extremely poor. So poor that they were losing money. AFAIK, this is not so for the Endura color paper line.

PE

 

[copake_ham]

In shrinking markets, companies have to seek profitable niches. It seems apparent the Kodak was no longer competitive in B&W paper and was losing money at it. Kodak's "exit" from that product line undoubtedly "helped" Ilford as it benefited by remaining active in that niche. The Ilford's recent acquisition of Kentmere indicates that it is now consolidating its position in the niche and confirms the wisdom of Kodak's decision to exit it.

 

[roteague]

In another thread, Bob Carnie wrote a bit about niche players, and got me to thinking. I don't know the inner workings of Kodak, but I can't help but think that they could continue producing from a technical/resources point of view, on a smaller scale, and even make a profit at it, but their corporate structure probably wouldn't allow it.

 

[gminerich]

Hi:

You may want to check out this link to Kodak 2006 annual report. You may want to read the Film Products Group section in the CEO's letter on page 6.

This is a quote from the CEO's letter, "As a result we are creating a sustainable business model for customers who use film and paper."

It doesn't seem like the Kodak plan is to leave film and paper in the near future.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/annualReport06/index.jhtml?pq-path=8992

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hi Ron

I guess I envision the next 25 years quite differently from some, I have been extremely fortunate at this stage in my career to be able to bridge two worlds with black and white paper output methods. One being what we all do here on APUG which is enlarger printing with the red safelights on with music blending in the day, and two this new upstart paper from Harmon Technology that uses of all things lasers to produed the image.
Over the last few years I have made a few thousand images using this new technology and I will say right now that if these new fangled enlargers are not in the majority of Universitys /collages world wide within 5 years, I will eat my shorts.
I think that we are in for a bit of a resurgance of our craft, with a twist. The tools will change but the basic emulsions and their characteristics will not change. I have toned enough of these prints to know that the are in fact the real deal and are very compelling.
I give all credit to the 6 amigos at Harmon for acknowleging this niche market, without them I would not be able to do what I do , and I am shocked at the lack of vision on Kodaks management team.
I would not be suprised that you see them change their tune and start making emulsions again for fibre paper that will work with the up and coming students of today. Stranger things have happened and you don't have to be a rocket scientest to see this great opportunity.
If not , Kodak has sadly fallen short of their great, great heritage.
Changing ones direction, adapting to the new environment is one thing, totally disgarding a line is quite the other.
This thread brings up another sore point for me , and that is Jobo , not making parts anymore. WTF I bought into their koolaid and purchased many thousands of dollars of their product, you would think they would support it.
Maybe this is a growing trend.
BTW this new paper I am talking about does work under the enlarger, David asked this question about a year back and I refrained from answering at the time .
I really hope the powers that be in Rochester catch a wiff of the magic of photograpy and get back in the game.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Kodak strives for excellence and makes some of the finest large sensors for digital, but hardly anyone knows how much technology out there comes from Kodak in the digital world... ... ...

I saw that Kodak was not a 'digital' or 'computer software' company at heart, and this was the source of some of these problems. .. ... ..

There are many many painful stories I could tell you about Kodak's startup attempts in this area, and how pained they felt internally. It is no wonder that they hired Perez. Among other things, what engineeer would want to work in Rochester. They could be in Texas or Calif. Perez has been able to reverse that trend. We kept losing key digital people. Now, many of them are promoted internally from analog areas and retrained as needed.

Bashing Kodak and anything leading to decreasing sales will leave future developments (another pun?) to Fuji and Ilford. I am fully aware that these companies are very high calibre, but is the withdrawal of Kodak what you want? Truly?

Kodak has pioneered many major film and paper improvements through the years including the latest that you are now using, 2e senstization. This required years and millions of dollars in investment starting nearly 20 years ago and continuing to the present. The huge film sales during that time was what funded the R&D.

If we lose Kodak, I think that for the most part, we will then see digital take over motion picture. Fuji products will not be a major contributor to filming in the US or probably Bollywood. I know that Fuji sells camera and print films, but their sales are miniscule beside Kodak's mopic film sales. Without these sales, color will go downhill in terms of R&D. Ilford does not make it and Agfa is pretty much frozen. I doubt if Fuji will have the ability to budget big changes. They have nothing like 2e sensitization and unless they license it from Kodak, they will have to do the R&D themselves on an alternative.

I buy Ilford and Kodak products. All color film is Kodak and 1/2 of my B&W film is Ilford. I use Ilford and Kentmere paper. I'm trying to support my favorites. And, I would not knock any one of those 3, nor would I knock any of the others unless there is a quality issue raised here that I might shed light on.

PE

Dear Ron,

As you know, I have a lot of respect for you, but I can't agree that simply criticizing Kodak for their foolish marketing moves is "bashing" them or making them "withdraw" from making film. On the contrary, it has to do with giving them a good kick in the seat so they'll finally get their act together (at least, that's my intention)!

My comments had specifically to do with this thread ... but serve as an example of other areas where Kodak missed the boat. To repeat, Kodak could always post here if they wanted to set rumors straight. Yet, —in spite of the strong possibility that they read this forum— notice that they still haven't reacted. "Sitting on the sidelines" is apparently one of their marketing strategies! No bash. Just fact. I guess APUGers are apparently only seen as being "complainers", rather than prospective customers. With that of kind attitude, Ron, no wonder there is a certain lack of respect from the serious-amateur/pro- consumer base. Don't forget that many of us feel that we've been absolutely pissed-upon at times —and over the years— by the aptly named yellow giant.

On another point, I sincerely agree with you that Kodak is a great company with a commitment to excellence. But that is missing the point. One mark of greatness is the ability to adapt. I'm not talking about technology, but something more basic. More important: thinking. Not depth or quality of thinking, but width. For example, our country is frought with "east coast versus west coast" thinking. The blue suits vs the hippies. Total stupidity. Perhaps Kodak should have worked with Apple for the Atlanta Olympics? (did they?) Speaking of Apple, look what happens when a company dares to ..dare? If EK had loosened their ties a little bit more during the film-to-digital transition period, they might have been able to think-up a hybrid camera which incorporated both technologies, allowing film and digital pictures to be taken in the same camera. (I designed —but never patented— such a camera at the appearance of the first Kodak DSLR, but I'd guess that Yamaki of Sigma has probably designed and patented a version of this. If not, I guess I'm letting the cat out of the bag . . . hope the final mfr. cuts me in!).

Lastly, despite their excellent website and 800 telephone number (which, by the way, is not toll-free from overseas), as far as the prosumer/serious-amateur/professional goes, they need to increase proactive[/I] personal contact, not rely on the user to contact them. (This second way, I call "French marketing" ( ) Perhaps you remember the yellow-coated tech reps who used to visit stores, studios and universities? Probably, you're rolling your eyes and thinking, "too expensive and too world-wide to do today". If so, I'll finish this long post by illustrating some of the "wide thinking" I mentioned earlier . .

In the internet and skype age, Kodak could easily and economically "visit" thousands of studios and users —face-to-face— by webcam*. They could even demonstrate products personally, or solve individual technical problems .. much more quickly than by phone. The tech rep should of course be wearing a yellow T-shirt rather than a sports-coat! George Eastman built Kodak by emphasizing personal contact with each-and-every customer. He might be spinning in his grave if he knew that the company has now reduced this core building block.


Friendly regards,

Christopher

PS*if they're already doing this, I'm not aware of it

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Lastly, despite their excellent website and 800 telephone number (which, by the way, is not toll-free from overseas), as far as the prosumer/serious-amateur/professional goes, they need to increase proactive personal contact, not rely on the user to contact them. (This second way, I call "French marketing" ( ) Remember the yellow-coated tech reps who used to visit stores, studios and universities? Probably, you're rolling your eyes and thinking, "too expensive and too world-wide to do today". If so, I'm finish by illustrating some of the "wide thinking" I mentioned earlier . .

The late John Pytlak from Kodak was doing this on the small-gauge cine forums until recently. It would be good if someone from the still film side were around as well.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Christopher;

I agree with you, but I also see the other side. There is a negative spin to most all Kodak comments. Kodak must talk to customers in these days of declining sales and changing markets, but we APUG members must not keep bashing them for going digital AND remaining in analog. See the CEOs comments on another thread here. Kodak fully supports film! And, consider the recent Kodak survey with results published here.

So, the bottom line is that there is 'truth' on both sides of this story.

The only Kodak video, was the joke on youtube recently by Kodak spoofing themselves on their digital move. I don't remember the URL.

PE

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Christopher;
I agree with you, but I also see the other side. ... but we APUG members must not keep bashing them for going digital AND remaining in analog. See the CEOs comments on another thread here. Kodak fully supports film! And, consider the recent Kodak survey with results published here.
PE

Hi Ron —

I think that you and I are talking about two different things (therefore we're like-minded on your above post)! To be clear(er): I have no criticism of Kodak for going digital. My dig at them is simply that they don't post in this forum! I believe that this is a serious marketing error. Cheap to do. Captive readership (cum-customer!) hungry for their input. Scale is heavily tipped to the 'benefit' side.

My past moanings —like many others here— have had to do with EK product discontinuations. Other than that, I understand that a business has to do whatever is necessary to survive (although I believe that every single option should be exhausted before considering lay-offs). If someday soon digital photography can serve to bolster the continuation of traditional photography —as has been the contrary so far— I especially won't be complaining about it in the future!

Best,

Christopher

. . . . . . . .

 

[thebanana]

My dig at them is simply that they don't post in this forum! I believe that this is a serious marketing error. Cheap to do. Captive readership (cum-customer!) hungry for their input.

Right on. I'm a small potatoes hobbyist living in the middle of nowhere, who happened to take in the first APUG Conference. There I met Simon Galley from Harmon/Ilford in person, and have exchanged emails with him on one or two occasions since then relating to their products. Compare that to phoning a 1-800 number which may or may not be answered by someone in a call center and the choice to use Ilford products is a no-brainer for me. However, if Kodak were to take even a remote interest in providing a similar connection at the upcoming conference in Ft. Collins next year...maybe I'd use more of their products. It's all about how you connect with your customer.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, I said it earlier, imagine that you are a Kodak exec, and are struggling to reinvent the company, layoffs loom, your advertizing budget is directed mostly to digital to help this move, and you get home after a day of this and all of the heartache of shutting down some more buildings, and log onto APUG and get nothing but more fireworks directed at you here! Remember that this was a $20B industry that shrank to $2B in about 10 years or so.

And, if you try to do or say something, you are misquoted by the press.

After all, I am an APUG member, have been both a professional and amateur photographer and been in Kodak middle management. So, I think I can see all sides. And, since I am retired and have no real investment in Kodak but sentiment, I can see all sides fairly.

Now, lets step back and look.

Kodak:

1. gave away a lot of film to APUG members recently.
2. did a survey to see what balance of pros used film vs digital.
3. redesigned Portra films.
4. redesigned B&W films including removing UV from sheet films.
5. has agreed to pack ULF in specialty sizes.

Kodak did NOT

1. Post publicly on APUG.
2. make the 24,000 speed film.
3. do everything everyone wanted.
4. become an APUG member, sponsor or attend any of the conferences.

Good and bad? Yes, certainly, but how many of you saying "it is all about how you connect with your customer" or something like that got some of the free Portra?

I salute Ilford and Simon for their proactive support, but where is Fuji or any other photo company here? What are they doing to interact with customers? After all, this involves many companies other than Kodak.

What about all of the complaints about defective products?

1. None AFAIK from Kodak.

2. One from Fuji. No answer but a comment that some new Fuji E6 films cannot be processed in the same chemicals as Kodak films due to stain.

2. One or two from Ilford with instant response from Simon.
(and I would excuse them due to the rapid and sudden expansion of their workload due to the exit of Kodak from the paper business)

3. All of the others with no answer, no excuse and in many cases no refund or fix and yet I see mentioned here those same companies as being among your favorites due to low price.

And finally, this thread goes on and on and on when the original OP was a misquote.

I have read and reread each and every post today and am unhappy to see the way the people react in some cases, but I'm heartened to see the other supportive responses and the two threads started encouraging Kodak.

BTW, simple criticism will not make Kodak withdraw from making film, but reading many customers saying the equivalent of - 'they don't post here so I won't buy their products' would make me wonder what is going on.

Kodak went from about 120,000 people world wide to about 40,000 IIRC now. With that loss has been a lot of seasoned veterans. Now the new reduced staff must reorganize and rebalance priorities. I would give them some breathing room in view of the positive things I listed above. They are truly listening. They just are too busy to answer verbally, so they have done it in actions.

PE

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

PE, well said. I for one will continue to purchase Kodak film and chemistry...and Ilford/Kentmere paper.
With that encouragement toward any Kodak person who reads this thread, I also encourage the company to state something simple like the following in a press release soon:
"We will continue to produce our quality film and related analog products until we are unable to do so profitably. We will also endevour to expand our digital products to keep pace with the current competition in the photographic market place".
We all know that's really what they are saying...but it's so ambiguous in their press release mumbo-jumbo that it's easy for some to take what they say the wrong way.
Most photographers enjoy using Kodak products. Say it simple. Mean what you say. And we will stay.
Jed

 

[gr82bart]

Well said Ron again. Every time I read how much better some APUGers think they can manage aspects of Kodak's business, I just laugh myself silly.

Oiy.

Regards, Art.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well said Ron again. Every time I read how much better some APUGers think they can manage aspects of Kodak's business, I just laugh myself silly.

Oiy.

Regards, Art.

Well, they take notice when they get a $10K special order for sheet film (Scott DiSabato, the pro film rep, mentioned this specifically at PMA). It's something we need to do more often.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well, they take notice when they get a $10K special order for sheet film (Scott DiSabato, the pro film rep, mentioned this specifically at PMA). It's something we need to do more often.

Well put David, but also almost certainly small fry compared to the total amount of Kodak film and other materials bought by APUG members.

Ron (PE) gave us an example, in another thread, "I think with over 22,000 members, APUG has some clout. If every member bought one roll of Kodak film at $2.00, that would be $44,000 in sales. If they did that every month it would be over $400,000 in sales!"

The actual figure must be very much higher, quite a number of APUG members spend significantly more than Ron's hypothetical $24 per year on Kodak materials, while it's impossible to hazard an guess APUG members must contribute millions of dollars to Kodaks sales worldwide.

Ian

 

[johnnywalker]

I think it would take a brave soul from Kodak to show up here. I can just see the posts: "Why weren't you here earlier", "You've missed the boat", "I want this paper", "I want this film", "when are you going to make 13 by 19 film for my camera", "your prices are too high", etc. etc.

Boy, I'm on a roll tonight. Sorry Murray

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I spend over $2000 a year on Kodak film.

 

[haris]

In former Yugoslavia up to beginning of 1990ies Kodak was ONLY serious choice. Amateurs used ORWO, EFKE, Agfa and Kodak, but pros used only Kodak and much less Agfa. Fuji, Ilford, and others weren't even on the map. Reasons were different, but one was that Kodak had official importer, and in communist country Yugoslavia was then, only by government approved importers could import. No chance that any individual person import anything. And there were no private companies. Then fall of communism came, war, and at middle of 1990es situation changed. People started private companies, individuals started to import (buy from abroad) for themselves, but Kodak still was first choice. I was then at beginning of my photography life, and started working with color first. Then me, my amateur friends and professionals I talked to started to notice changes in quality between sam models of Kodak films. For example my Kodak Gold was different from my frieds Kodak Gold, even if developed same time in same laboratory. But, his was manufactured in USA or somewhere at the West and mine was manufactured in Hungary or somewhere at the East. At the end, differencies were so big that we all, amateurs and professionals, swiched to Fuji for colour work. With b/w situation was slghtly different, as less and less people used b/w, everyone had to care for him/herself, and with digital comming, today I am only film shooter in my tows as I know. And since Ilford for me is much cheaper to find than Kodak, I started with Ilford almost 10 years ago, and today I am loyal to Ilford.

What I want to tell, Kodak's "falling" here in former Yugoslavia started years before they stopped to make Azo or other b/w papers, Kodachrome, 25 ASA films...

So, this is nothing personal against Kodak, atleast here Kodak was allways No1 choice, and they failed to keep that place. Today, I don't know anyone who even mention Kodak here. Amateurs who still use colour films, for them Kodak Gold 200 ASA film cost about Euro more than 200 ASA Fuji Superia, so...

What a irony. If communism is still here, today Kodak would be better in this part of the globe...

 

[DanielOB]

What I dislike with Kodak (the Plunger Company Inc.) is that they used to make product artist used and also promoted artists too. Now they still make the same things, just in the smaller amount which is fine to be respected in the same manner as in past, but to survive they make also, in parallel, the most stupid things ever investigated in human’s history and promoting stupidity as Picasso shown on his cock picture, stupidity pushed to the very end blaming whole things they did in the past. So which company they are now. I think it is not very complimentary today to say “I work in Kodak”. The same kind of “people” before Fashion Era came, used to seat and look at the in mouse hole for hours thinking nothing. Now they just got the “screen”. But for one peering at internet sh*** for hours and the rest part of the day in front of TV it is fine (and always was).