Kodak Film - branded Kodak Alaris

[MattKing]

I was in the local grocery store today and, out of curiosity, looked at the labeling for the small selection of Kodak film there.

For the first time in my experience, there was reference to Kodak Alaris, rather than Eastman Kodak or one of the international subsidiaries of Eastman Kodak.

It was Kodak Ultra Max 400, with a "develop before" date of March 2017.

The older film and single use cameras on the display still had Eastman Kodak references.

In addition to Kodak Alaris references, there were also references to various other international Kodak related entities - Brazil, China, etc., etc.

As has always been the case in that store, the film is not cheap.

 

[David Lindquist]

I got a new box of 4X5 T Max 400 in April, "expires" 4/2017. (They don't say "develop by" or "expiration date", just "04/2017"). I wondered if it would say "Kodak Alaris" on it, but it doesn't. It's labeled: "Kodak
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, New York"
David

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Undoubtedly, this relates to stock turnover of the packaging materials, including labels for sheet film boxes. Simon Galley has mentioned a number of times that the cost of packaging is a significant factor when HARMAN decides whether or not to offer new special-order-program sizes. It seems unlikely Alaris would instruct Eastman Kodak (and pay it) to dispose of old packaging materials on hand simply because they didn't say "Kodak Alaris."

Use 'em up, then move on. I wouldn't speculate on what "blame allocation" ought be made between slow sales and large existing stocks of packaging. We'll never know.

 

[wy2l]

It seems unlikely Alaris would instruct Eastman Kodak (and pay it) to dispose of old packaging materials on hand simply because they didn't say "Kodak Alaris."

I disagree, on two factors: Companies factor in costs to change trademarks/logos as normal overhead expenses, and just put the old stuff in a dumpster. Knowing Kodak's history, I count on Kodak to make the worst possible financial decisions. It's genetic, they can't help it. They can always go bankrupt again.

 

[AgX]

Undoubtedly, this relates to stock turnover of the packaging materials, including labels for sheet film boxes. Simon Galley has mentioned a number of times that the cost of packaging is a significant factor when HARMAN decides whether or not to offer new special-order-program sizes. It seems unlikely Alaris would instruct Eastman Kodak (and pay it) to dispose of old packaging materials on hand simply because they didn't say "Kodak Alaris."

It depends on what inscription we are talking about.

The designation of a manufacturer (whether that may be the manufactuer in the physical sense or not) has legal implications.

Any claims thus would have to be directed to Eastman Kodak, who then would have to state/prove that the very batch already was marketed by Kodak Alaris.

 

[RattyMouse]

I disagree, on two factors: Companies factor in costs to change trademarks/logos as normal overhead expenses, and just put the old stuff in a dumpster. Knowing Kodak's history, I count on Kodak to make the worst possible financial decisions. It's genetic, they can't help it. They can always go bankrupt again.

 

[RattyMouse]

I was in the local grocery store today and, out of curiosity, looked at the labeling for the small selection of Kodak film there.

For the first time in my experience, there was reference to Kodak Alaris, rather than Eastman Kodak or one of the international subsidiaries of Eastman Kodak.

It was Kodak Ultra Max 400, with a "develop before" date of March 2017.

The older film and single use cameras on the display still had Eastman Kodak references.

In addition to Kodak Alaris references, there were also references to various other international Kodak related entities - Brazil, China, etc., etc.

As has always been the case in that store, the film is not cheap.

Pics or it didnt happen.

oliceman::devil:

 

[MattKing]

Pics or it didnt happen.

oliceman::devil:

I tried, but the camera in my cel phone must be too advanced for me, because the blurred result I got wasn't going to tell the story to anyone!

There is at least 4 languages on that part of the package, and the font is tiny!

 

[Ektagraphic]

I have started to see an Alaris reference on the products as well. Who distributes the film for Kodak Alaris?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Who distributes the film for Kodak Alaris?

Kodak Alaris is the distributor. With respect to film, that and marketing are Alaris' only functions.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Alaris is the distributor. With respect to film, that and marketing are Alaris' only functions.

That is the problem Sal.

Kodak Alaris sells only to distributors - not directly to retailers.

Just like Eastman Kodak did, before the bankruptcy.

 

[Xmas]

Kodak Alaris is the distributor. With respect to film, that and marketing are Alaris' only functions.

For 'marketing' read 'milking'

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Kodak Alaris sells only to distributors - not directly to retailers.

Just like Eastman Kodak did, before the bankruptcy.

A bit of quick on-line research turns up nothing on that score. Would you let us know how, in North America for example, a retail store goes about placing an order for standard, i.e. not the special sheet film sizes that Canham consolidates, Kodak Alaris-branded still film? What "sub-distributor(s)" does the retailer contact?

If Alaris operates the way you describe, it's no wonder its still film prices have soared lately. As a "distributor" that doesn't distribute, it would represent an extra layer of absolutely no added value between Bldg. 38 and the consumer.

 

[railwayman3]

It depends on what inscription we are talking about.

The designation of a manufacturer (whether that may be the manufactuer in the physical sense or not) has legal implications.

Any claims thus would have to be directed to Eastman Kodak, who then would have to state/prove that the very batch already was marketed by Kodak Alaris.

I believe that, in the UK at least, a claim for a faulty product is legally between the customer and the retailer, not the manufacturer.

So, if I buy a faulty Kodak film direct from, for example, Amazon, my claim is against Amazon. Amazon would then have a claim against Kodak or the distributor/wholesaler who supplied the faulty film to them if it didn't come direct from Kodak.

 

[MattKing]

A bit of quick on-line research turns up nothing on that score. Would you let us know how, in North America for example, a retail store goes about placing an order for standard, i.e. not the special sheet film sizes that Canham consolidates, Kodak Alaris-branded still film? What "sub-distributor(s)" does the retailer contact?

If Alaris operates the way you describe, it's no wonder its still film prices have soared lately. As a "distributor" that doesn't distribute, it would represent an extra layer of absolutely no added value between Bldg. 38 and the consumer.

Sal:

Alaris just took over the wholesale marketing process that Eastman Kodak used to perform as part of their marketing department.

In many cases, from the same premises, and using the same people - only a small percentage of which were Eastman Kodak personnel.

You need to remember that, to a great extent, Eastman Kodak only did business in the United States. In most of the rest of the world, anyone selling Kodak products used to deal with their own local "Kodak" - Kodak Canada, Kodak South Africa, Kodak India, Kodak Limited in the UK, etc., etc. Those individual, independent entities were owned by Eastman Kodak, but they did their own business and had their own facilities and employees. They also did their own distribution - retailers could buy directly from them.

Then, when the market started to shrink, all the Kodaks (including Eastman Kodak) decided to get out of the distribution business. They radically reduced their marketing staff and sold most of their warehousing and distribution facilities. Third party distributors contracted with them to do that work instead.

Here is a link to a press release from 2003 that talks about one such distributor - "International Supplies": http://wwwca.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20030727-01.shtml

In essence, Kodak adopted the same approach that most of its competitors used. Ilford doesn't do its own distribution in most of the world, nor does Fuji (I doubt Foma and Impossible do either).

In the United States, Ilford is distributed through Wynit Inc., who are based in New York.

In Canada, Ilford is distributed through Amplis Foto Inc., who are based in Ontario.

I don't know who my retailer contacts are dealing with for Kodak distribution.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Alaris just took over the wholesale marketing process that Eastman Kodak used to perform as part of their marketing department.

In many cases, from the same premises, and using the same people - only a small percentage of which were Eastman Kodak personnel...

That begs the questions: what is "wholesale marketing?" And, other than talking up its digital products on social media, what "marketing" of any kind does Alaris do with respect to film? Whatever the answer to that second question, how does it differ from what Eastman Kodak used to (not?) do that could possibly justify another layer of retail-price-increasing profit in the chain from Bldg. 38 to ultimate film users?

...Here is a link to a press release from 2003 that talks about one such distributor - "International Supplies": http://wwwca.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20030727-01.shtml

In essence, Kodak adopted the same approach that most of its competitors used. Ilford doesn't do its own distribution in most of the world, nor does Fuji (I doubt Foma and Impossible do either).

In the United States, Ilford is distributed through Wynit Inc., who are based in New York..

That 12-year-old press release refers to "small dealers," which implies large dealers such as B&H could still order directly from Eastman Kodak. Unless that too has changed, Alaris does act as a distributor to large accounts. If Eastman Kodak subsequently discontinued servicing even large dealers directly, and Alaris follows suit, again the question arises: what does Alaris do to add value? Why would Eastman Kodak supply still film to Alaris when it could just as easily sell to another distributor? Unless, as a way of discharging its obligation to the UK pension fund, it entered into an exclusive supply agreement so Alaris could "skim" from all still film sales for the duration of that cow's milk production. Yeah, seems like that could be a significant contributor the skyrocketing prices.

...In the United States, Ilford is distributed through Wynit Inc., who are based in New York...

Yes, the chain is HARMAN (Mobberley) to Wynit to whichever dealer I purchase Ilford products from to me. There's no "Alaris-like" layer in there anywhere.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Overlooking the matter of international trade for the moment, distributors came about because transportation used to be slow and expensive. You better have a distributor in Atlanta, one in Denver, etc. etc. (I can even remember when there were shipping charges "West of the Rockies." Unless you shipped from the Left Coast, then it was the opposite.) So, a distributor would buy $X worth of product to keep on hand, the manufacturer would agree to not sell product directly and would do, if appropriate, media marketing. The distributor would hire salesmen to hustle the business and be a personal contact for the manufacturer. I was involved with a bit of this decades ago in irrigation and water valve products.

But now, with Fedex and drones on the way, geography doesn't matter as much as it once did. And swimming upstream, Amazon is opening more and more distribution centers, but those aren't exactly distributors.

Does a Wynit automatically cause a higher price than if Ilford owned their own center? I suspect so, but I'd be surprised if the margin was above 10%. An Adorama or Freestyle would leverage their buying power to the tiniest possible amount in order for Ilford/Wynit to compete with Foma/Kodak/Etc.

But does Kodak Alaris need a distributor? If they are one anyway? I've not sensed they have much to do with R&D or manufacturing, so for them to be have yet another intermediary doesn't make sense.

Meanwhile Kodak cine products, which I don't think Alaris is involved in, are available to anyone in the US directly. From a $40 roll 100 foot roll of 16mm Tri-X to, "Hi, this is Steven........I need a few hundred thousand feet.....overnight it? That'd be great!"

 

[Prof_Pixel]

With limited film offerings, it's probably a lot cheaper to sell film through a network of existing distributers than it would be for Kodak Alaris to try and reestablish the kind of sales force the old Kodak had.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Alaris is a colour photographic paper manufacturer that also markets film made for them by a company with a manufacturing facility for film.

They have elected not to create from scratch their own distribution network, but instead continue with the existing set-up of independent distributors, which was what Eastman Kodak was using prior to the bankruptcy.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Kodak Alaris is a colour photographic paper manufacturer that also markets film made for them by a company with a manufacturing facility for film.

They have elected not to create from scratch their own distribution network, but instead continue with the existing set-up of independent distributors, which was what Eastman Kodak was using prior to the bankruptcy.

Matt, are they directly controlling the manufacturing of the paper? Their factory, engineers? And the C-41 chemicals?

 

[AgX]

They bought the complete RA-4 department/production.

C-41 chemicals production had been outsourced by Kodak before their deal with Kodak Alaris.


Amongst other things Alaris bought the complete consumer-photo related part of Kodak, except for their resting film making facilities as Kodak still uses that for their cine films. But Kodak is toll-manufacturing still films for Alaris.

We discussed who actually decides on this toll-manufacturing. And it seems things are going just on as in Kodak times. The boxes bearing their Kodak imprint for so long is a further indicator that Alaris is not really interested in that still film business.

 

[Xmas]

They bought the complete RA-4 department/production.

C-41 chemicals production had been outsourced by Kodak before their deal with Kodak Alaris.

alaris accepted the Eastman Kodak factory at Harrow London UK as a going concern in part payment for a debt.

Alas Harrow has not coated film for more than a decade and staff long gone.

 

[MattKing]

alaris accepted the Eastman Kodak factory at Harrow London UK as a going concern in part payment for a debt.

Alas Harrow has not coated film for more than a decade and staff long gone.

They also took over the leasehold interests in a plant in Colorado and, if I understand it, one or more facilities in China.

They received the marketing rights for the chemistry - these are probably more important than we realize, because they go well with the colour paper.

They also paid something like $600 million into the bankruptcy.

 

[Xmas]

They also paid something like $600 million into the bankruptcy.

Did they?
They were one of the chapter 11 creditors...
They did not exist as a corporate entity before EK ran out of money...

 

[MattKing]

Did they?
They were one of the chapter 11 creditors...
They did not exist as a corporate entity before EK ran out of money...

I stand corrected. Kodak Limited was the wholly owned UK subsidiary of Eastman Kodak. Kodak Alaris is a legal entity incorporated by and wholly owned by the pension plan for the Kodak Limited employees. It was created for the sole purpose of carrying on the business that resulted from the bankruptcy settlement. It was the pension plan that paid the $600 million.

The pension plan for the Kodak Limited employees had and has substantial reserves - just not sufficient reserves to fulfill the legal requirements of the UK pension legislation - which was the legislation that gave that plan a sort of super priority in the bankruptcy.

The assets that were transferred to that pension plan must have been of a greater value than the amount required to settle the super priority claim. Thus the payment (which I'm sure helped encourage agreement of the other creditors).

It is clear to me that very few people here on APUG really appreciate how important and valuable the colour photographic paper part of Kodak was, and how important and valuable the the colour photographic paper part of Kodak Alaris is.

I think I'm going to pull out and look again at the three sets of colour prints I picked up last week from my lab - all on Kodak Endura paper.

Hope this helps.

PS The UK pension plan had been regularly and "fully" funded in the past by Kodak Limited but, like many other such funds, the funding was based on assumptions that had appeared correct at the time of funding, but turned out later to be too optimistic.

The situation was somewhat similar for the Kodak Canada retirees. Like Kodak Limited and all the other subsidiaries, Kodak Canada was not directly affected by the bankruptcy, and the pension plan was substantially but not completely funded. Happily, the most recent independent government evaluations of that fund indicate that the performance of its investments have moved it into a small surplus position.