Kodak Posts Q1 loss of $246M; 14% decline in film revenues

nickrapak · May 1, 2011

From WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110428-718091.html

The Rochester, N.Y., company, once a titan of consumer photography that made the "Kodak moment" a household phrase, has struggled in recent years as it recasts itself as a digital imaging powerhouse. Kodak said revenue from its film business fell 14% to $367 million, hurt by increased raw material costs as the price of silver and aluminum has skyrocketed in recent months.

The ever-rising silver price does not bode well for EK. I am afraid that once silver hits a tipping point, you will see wholesale discontinuations or price increases by all of the big 3, especially EK and Fuji.

Jeff Kubach · May 1, 2011

Just buy more Kodak film and other stuff!

Jeff

M.A.Longmore · May 1, 2011

Jeff Kubach said:
Just buy more Kodak film and other stuff!

Jeff

.
Maybe, They should advertise more Kodak Film, and other stuff !

Or promote analog photography on Facebook, and Twitter, and YouTube.
And at Kodak.Com, it's somewhat difficult to find film on their site ...

Ron
.

Sirius Glass · May 1, 2011

Buy more film. If you do not do that now, you may not be able to do it later.

Steve

removed account4 · May 1, 2011

M.A.Longmore said:
.
Maybe, They should advertise more Kodak Film, and other stuff !

Or promote analog photography on Facebook, and Twitter, and YouTube.
And at Kodak.Com, it's somewhat difficult to find film on their site ...

Ron
.

i have been saying this for years ...
they haven't advertised an analog product
to the general public in more than a decade ..
and the ceo announces that film photography
is dead ... and they wonder why sales are down ??

these announcements about the decline of big-yellow are depressing

Sirius Glass · May 1, 2011

Because regardless of the money spent, film ads do not change the sales numbers. That is why Kodak stopped sponsoring the Olympics.

Steve

sepiareverb · May 1, 2011

Buy it while you can, the big yellow submarine is going down for good.

Photo Engineer · May 1, 2011

I've posted Kodak film ads here on APUG that I copied from Rangefinder magazine just a few years back. I did this in response to just the same sort of thread. They were advertising in the face of a severely declining market, twice the current decline. These last 3 years, 2008, 9 and 10 were difficult due to the economy and due to the motion picture industry that we discussed to death in another thread.

Yes, Kodak is doing poorly. So is Fuji and for the same reasons plus some problems with supply as you may remember in yet another thread.

Analog sales are doing very poorly world wide and there probably will be no turning around the big two. Ilford and some of the smaller companies will probably make it, but the answer is to buy Kodak film if you want to have good negative color films to shoot. And, all of the B&W products we love as well.

PE

TimmyMac · May 1, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
Because regardless of the money spent, film ads do not change the sales numbers. That is why Kodak stopped sponsoring the Olympics.

Steve

Nontraditional advertising avenues have a lot of potential, I think, to improve film sales.

Sirius Glass · May 1, 2011

TimmyMac said:
Nontraditional advertising avenues have a lot of potential, I think, to improve film sales.

Please feel free to invest in those advertising avenues. I hope that they work.

Steve

removed account4 · May 1, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
Because regardless of the money spent, film ads do not change the sales numbers. That is why Kodak stopped sponsoring the Olympics.

Steve

at least the general public would realize they can still get film
instead of being told by know-it-alls at camera stores that film is no longer available.

Athiril · May 3, 2011

A 14% drop in revenue vs a much larger rise in costs should equal more sales volume then previously.

vpwphoto · May 3, 2011

it's about money..

M.A.Longmore said:
.

And at Kodak.Com, it's somewhat difficult to find film on their site ...

.

I tried to e-mail Kodak via their web site years ago, and the only place I could find an e-mail address was "investor relations".

vpwphoto · May 3, 2011

Oh no must buy PE's emulsion book soon....

Poisson Du Jour · May 3, 2011

Nobody would seriously consider Kodak to be anywhere near the big, very successful player it once was; it is sinking further and further with each passing year into a quagmire — an almost spent force. Digital changed everything, tipping the world on its ear and making every wannabe photographer a pro if he has a digital do-it-all in his hands. Other marques took off, but not Kodak. Reading through EOS magazines from 1992, Kodak was behind the DCS digital capture cameras of that era (such as EOS), but obviously never caught up with others with more cash, zeal and research nous.

vpwphoto · May 3, 2011

Slightly off subject but reply to last post. I used to buy all of my film and now digital gear at our local camera shop, because I liked the shop and the next nearest one where I could buy pro-film was 80 miles away.

I am sad now they sell "instant studio" light and background kits, and rent $3000 dslr and dslr lenses to the weekend part-time pro wedding, and portrait shooters that don't collect sales tax, but are happy to write everything off on the 1040 c and d forms.

The world is a cut throat mess.

Photo Engineer · May 3, 2011

vpwphoto said:
Oh no must buy PE's emulsion book soon....

Well, the DVDs are done and ready for review by my friends (they will be honest with me) and the book is nearing completion.

PE

Tim Gray · May 4, 2011

vpwphoto said:
The world is a cut throat mess.

word

Diapositivo · May 4, 2011

Athiril said:
A 14% drop in revenue vs a much larger rise in costs should equal more sales volume then previously.

I would like if it were like this, but unfortunately it is not.

Revenue is just price * volume sold. If prices had fallen more than 14%, and revenue slipped "only" 14%, that would have meant a volume increase.

profit is related to costs, revenue is not.

We don't have the profit picture, the revenue picture is certainly gloomy.

My opinion is that things might change dramatically when the crises ends. We are in the worst world economic crises of the last 80 years or so. Film at the moment is quite a discretionary spending. Photography, also professional photography, is bound to suffer in times of crises.

I hope Kodak and the others have financial breath long enough to arrive at the end of the tunnel. I would bet on a resurgence of film after that.

Fabrizio

kraker · May 4, 2011

nickrapak said:
From WSJ:

(...) Kodak said revenue from its film business fell 14% to $367 million, hurt by increased raw material costs as the price of silver and aluminum has skyrocketed in recent months.

Silver, that's clear, check. Question: Aluminum? (Or, as I would spell it: Aluminium?)
As a raw material for film? What, where, how?

segedi · May 4, 2011

Kraker - I'm guessing it's used in packaging;canisters.

kraker · May 4, 2011

segedi said:
Kraker - I'm guessing it's used in packaging;canisters.

Yes, that's the only thing I could think of...

Simon R Galley · May 4, 2011

I think Aluminium is mentioned as it is a base for sensitised printing plates ( graphics )
CTP Computer To Plate technology.

Film cassettes are steel.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

segedi · May 5, 2011

Simon - thanks for info. And for continuing to support film!

postalman · May 5, 2011

Just remember folks, the price of silver has dropped a whopping 27% in less than 4 days. EK isn't failing due to silver prices.

Kodak Posts Q1 loss of $246M; 14% decline in film revenues

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency