Kodak licences its brand name

[AgX]

Eastman Kodak has announced to licence their brand name "Kodak" for "certain consumer products, including digital cameras, pocket video cameras, and portable projectors".

Licensee is JK Imaging, Ltd.

Exactly 2 years ago a company named JA Capital Imaging Corporation was sublicenced by AgfaPhoto Holding the use of the brand name "AgfaPhoto".
JK Imaging and JA Capital Group share the same CEO.

http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_and_JK_Imaging_Announce_Brand_Licensing_Agreement_for_Consumer_Digital_Products.htm

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Interesting news. Thanks for posting. It seems that both parties have everything to gain. Hopefully JK Imaging is a well run company that utilizes the brand intelligently.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, let's hope for intelligent use!

 

[AgX]

The CEO of the forenamed companies, Joe Atick, is also CEO of Jaacx Distributors:

http://www.jaacx.com/


If you look at their AgfaPhoto page you'll see a part of the AgfaPhoto digital camera range, that they distribute to South-America. That company seems to be a sole distributor.

 

[pstake]

This seems to address only their digital offerings. JK Imaging will market using the Kodak brand on products it manufactures. Hopefully they don't destroy the brand but even if they do, it won't affect film or chemistry —or will it?

In other words, this doesn't imply anything about the future of Kodak film or chemistry, correct?

 

[AgX]

This is only about rebranding (of things made by some other manufacturer).
It is not about anything Kodak manufactures.

 

[MattKing]

I do like the fact that they have a logo on the linked page that says "Kodak Licensed Product" rather than just "Kodak".

See here: Dead Link Removed

 

[ic-racer]

Eastman Kodak has announced to licence their brand name "Kodak" for "certain consumer products, including digital cameras, pocket video cameras, and portable projectors".

Licensee is JK Imaging, Ltd.

Exactly 2 years ago a company named JA Capital Imaging Corporation was sublicenced by AgfaPhoto Holding the use of the brand name "AgfaPhoto".
JK Imaging and JA Capital Group share the same CEO.

http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_and_JK_Imaging_Announce_Brand_Licensing_Agreement_for_Consumer_Digital_Products.htm

Does this have anything to do with Kodak film?

 

[MattKing]

Does this have anything to do with Kodak film?

It may have something to do with Kodak coming out of bankruptcy. And it might serve as a template of sorts for what may happen with Kodak film distribution.

 

[BrianShaw]

It may have something to do with Kodak coming out of bankruptcy. And it might serve as a template of sorts for what may happen with Kodak film distribution.

correct, but as I read it it has nothing to do DIRECTLY with kodak film

 

[AgX]

correct, but as I read it it has nothing to do DIRECTLY with kodak film

I never said so. A lot of of postings here about the Eastman Company are not film related.

Wherever you go in the world—no matter how remote the
location—you are apt to see the Kodak trademark. It is one of the
world’s most famous and trusted brands, and is Kodak’s most
valuable asset.

Kodak 2007


As far as I know the Kodak tradename has not been licenced so far (aside of products that were not photography related but served Kodak as advertising tool) so that would be at least interesting news for the industry minded.

 

[Marc B.]

There is nothing new here.
Basically, just rehashing old news...announced 09 FEB last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/business/kodak-says-it-will-stop-making-digital-cameras.html?_r=0

 

[BrianShaw]

I never said so. A lot of of postings here about the Eastman Company are not film related.

That's correct. You never said so. Nor did anyone else say so. What's more... the comment I made was about something someone else said in response to a question about the impact on Kodak film. I was completing a thought that was made by MattKing... making specific something that was implied (perhaps even so clearly implied that my addendum was unnecessary). Why are you being so defensive? I'm confused.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

There is nothing new here.
Basically, just rehashing old news...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/bu...eras.html?_r=0

Not true, The actual licensing agreement mentioned by AgX was only announced in the Rochester paper yesterday. So it IS current news.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I wish the best luck to Kodak , I have 9 rolls waiting for the lab but lab quality and prices really upset the home finance and me. Whatever photographers publish red skies with Fuji , at normal photographs , Fuji never reached to Kodak quality.

 

[benjiboy]

This is just what's called in the trade "label engineering".

 

[mgb74]

At best, licensing your valuable brand is a last ditch effort to stave off the wolves. More likely, it's just a landing on a spiral staircase that is "down only". Worst case, it's a recognition that nothing of value is left except the memories of what once was (i.e. "Polaroid").

It's the ultimate triumph of marketing and image over engineering and innovation. I think for Kodak, it's a necessary evil. But not a good sign.

 

[wblynch]

Does this mean I will be able to buy Kodak Christmas Lights once again?

JK (just kidding) Imaging, indeed!

 

[RattyMouse]

At best, licensing your valuable brand is a last ditch effort to stave off the wolves. More likely, it's just a landing on a spiral staircase that is "down only". Worst case, it's a recognition that nothing of value is left except the memories of what once was (i.e. "Polaroid").

It's the ultimate triumph of marketing and image over engineering and innovation. I think for Kodak, it's a necessary evil. But not a good sign.

Very very true.

 

[MDR]

I thought this 2006 Kodak ads fit the topic quiet well "just when you thought it was dead. Funny advertisement unfortunately for Kodak batteries but still funny. http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/2006/10/kodak.html

 

[benjiboy]

I thought this 2006 Kodak ads fit the topic quiet well "just when you thought it was dead. Funny advertisement unfortunately for Kodak batteries but still funny. http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/2006/10/kodak.html

I have some Kodak batteries at the moment, the're made in China

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Hope the Kodak name doesn't end up like Hello Kitty You'll find everything Hello Kitty. From sox to red wine. ugh..

 

[MDR]

Hope the Kodak name doesn't end up like Hello Kitty You'll find everything Hello Kitty. From sox to red wine. ugh..

I would love for Kodak to make the kind of money the Hello Kitty franchise does.
Maybe Kodak should change their CI from the great yellow father to the pink kitty. Pink film boxes, pink disposable cams. Pink sure has more market appeal than yellow and Kodak shouldn't forget to put a photo of a kitty with pink dress on the film box. Think Pink think Kodak. Their disposable cameras could meow instead of click. Change watch the birdie to watch the kitty meowwwww.

Dominik

 

[AgX]

As far as I know the Kodak tradename has not been licenced so far (aside of products that were not photography related but served Kodak as advertising tool) so that would be at least interesting news for the industry minded.

I was in the belief that so far all Kodak branded products (with the exceptions above) were sold by Kodak (nonwitstanding that products may not be manufactured by Kodak themselves but manufactured by others for Kodak).


Had there been any Kodak branded products so far that do not fall in to the categories above??