More on Kodak

djklmnop said:

You know what's funny? Fuji is somewhat similar to Kodak, in terms of production. They make films, digital cameras, but not paper nor chemicals. Either way, I never hear them complaining. Like Kodak, Fuji's digital <snip>

Click to expand...

Errr... Who makes Crystal Archive paper then?

they make ra, c41 and e6 chems as well. Fuji may or may not be having the same problems as kodak or may be better prepared. I don't hear Kodak whining, I do think they have made some really bad choices though. I hope they make it through and I really hope they sell off the film segment of their business rather than scrap it.

There's another aspect of Kodak that I think lots for folks here are either missing, or don't want to see. I don't know actual production numbers, so I'll use theoretical ones. Kodak is/was setup for large production. All their machinery for making paper / film / etc. is designed to make large runs of it. Another company that's setup to make much smaller runs can make smaller runs much more economically than Kodak can. The film market IS getting smaller, and (for the masses) digital IS taking over. That's a fact, like it or not (and I don't like it any more than anyone else here does). So on to my theoretical numbers...

If Kodak is setup to produce 100,000 sheets of photographic paper a month, but is now only selling 10,000 sheets a month, they can't compete with a smaller company that's setup to make 15,000 sheets a month, and is making 10,000 sheets per month. Considering that paper is a dated material, it's not like they can make a 10 year supply, then mothball their production line for 10 years!

The bottom line is that we don't know the inside numbers, and I think it's harsh to judge what a company does without knowing the inside info. Having said that, it's completely possible that knowing the numbers, the choices Kodak is making would make complete sense. It's also possible that knowing the numbers, their moves might only make sense to a Harvard Business School graduate/moron, what some on one computer related mailing list I subscribe to call 'suits'. Personally I'm more inclined to believe the second explanation, but the fact is I just don't know.

As for using Kodak products, I'm going to use whatever I can get, be it Kodak, or otherwise, I'm not going to go out of my way to stock up on Kodak, and I'm not going to go out of my way to avoid Kodak.

-Mike

MattKing said:

Okay, I've bit my tongue as long as I can hold out, but I have to reply now.

First, for those of you who don't know, I might be referred to as a Kodak "brat". My father worked for Kodak Canada for 36 years, retiring in 1984 when I was 28. Indirectly, I was fed, clothed, housed and educated with Kodak $ and Kodak knowledge for all of my formative years.
[...]
This is a long, round-about way of saying to those who who have nothing good to say about Kodak, that you might wish to moderate your opinion somewhat.

Click to expand...

I have used the Kodak Company history under Mister Eastman as the sterling example of how a private company can excel in terms of product development, care of the employees (hugely generous), and public works. I won't stop doing that.

But that was then, and this is now and the contrast of 'then' to 'now' is serving so far as a good historical example of what can happen under the new American capitalist ethic of the public company.

I pray Kodak does not do what so many companies have - abandon pensions, screw the retired and employees. The fact that they can legally do this, and that they DO this points to something truly gone wrong.

I hope that Kodak continues to honor it's commitment to employees.

MattKing said:

It is also in particular a request to jjstafford - please change your avatar - it is really irritating to be presented time and time again with the image of someone urinating over a symbol of something that has value for thousands of people, and has particular value to those of us who rightly feel a strong feeling of loyalty to an organization which has personnally benefitted us greatly. I know that if my father saw it, it would make him sick, and considering the thousands of photographers of all types that he helped in his years of work, that seems incredibly unfair.

Click to expand...

If we were all to be given a special privilege to be guaranteed our individual distates would not be offended, freedom of expression would be dead.

Sean has already taken it upon himself to remove my Avatar. He has already censored it on your behalf. I hope you are happy. Perhaps you can post a list of your other sensitivities are so that we don't offend you again.

Kodak's vanishing IP and my needs

What I find very bothersome is that I have a look based on XTOL 1:2 and TMY which work very well for me. I can run other films, but XTOL-like formulations are covered by patent. It seems that KODAK's exit from this arena will leave people with no strictly legal alternative. If I want protection for my images, shouldn't I be completely circumspect about KODAK's intellectual property? What is the answer? Basically, it seems if we insist on taking the moral high road, KODAK's departure will deprive us of significant tools.

Bottom Line

I’m just guessing here, but aren't Kodak digital camera's made in China while most of their film is made in the US. I have to think US labor and health care costs play into these job cuts. Why continue to produce a product that has expensive labor force when you can "make the transition" to another product with a cheap labor cost and no health care. I bet they would be moving a lot of film making jobs overseas anyway, if they didn't see it as a dead end. The same thing is happening or has happened to other US industries all over the country. These other companies though, still keep making their traditional product so it doesn't become big news. It all about making the bottom line look good for Wall Street.

jmailand said:

[...] Why continue to produce a product that has expensive labor force when you can "make the transition" to another product with a cheap labor cost and no health care. [....] It all about making the bottom line look good for Wall Street.

Click to expand...

That's so obvious and ordinary an observation that I have to ask what your point really is. So what is it?

Ever heard of NAFTA. They were probably going to lose their jobs anyway. I didn't realize this post was for mental giants only. I'll just keep my ordinary opinions to my self.

I'm guessing that most if not all of Kodak's digital products are manufactured overseas. What will they make here in the states?

wildbill said:

I'm guessing that most if not all of Kodak's digital products are manufactured overseas. What will they make here in the states?

Click to expand...

They hope money!

jmailand said:

Ever heard of NAFTA. They were probably going to lose their jobs anyway. I didn't realize this post was for mental giants only. I'll just keep my ordinary opinions to my self.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that. It's just that we read all the time about the well-known tactics of the runaway public company. NAFA is a good take on the issue. We should know more about. Thanks. Please don't be put off. Sometimes I'm just a butthead.

Kodak

djklmnop said:

You know what's funny? Fuji is somewhat similar to Kodak, in terms of production. They make films, digital cameras, but not paper nor chemicals. Either way, I never hear them complaining. Like Kodak, Fuji's digital offerings isn't in high demand as Canon or Nikon's SLRS. I don't hear Fuji complaining about profit losses.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but Kodak needs to learn how to sell their products again. Otherwise, in the near future, the news headline will be, "Kodak ran out of things to blame for their profit losses."

Click to expand...

Hi, all. I just wanted to make a comment here about Fuji. Since I've been living in Japan for a couple of years now and always buying photo supplies, I find that Fuji is the dominant seller in the Japanese market still going strong today.

But it's not so much that Fuji does good sales on items like photo paper because it's a shrinking market and Agfa and Ilford are still as popular, I believe, but with better accessibility and okay pricing within the Japanese market, it seems Fuji has competed and blocked many foreign brands from getting in hands of photo users( I mean, those who are eager to make their own prints) for over the years.

The market here was split 9:1 between Fuji and Kodak years ago, and that was in the news in the U.S. back then because it was, and still is almost a giant monopoly business that some capitalists hate. Indeed, everything you know of, from film, chemicals, to even enlargers, and enlarger lenses, you can subsititute with Fuji brand, which is kind of amazing.

For instance, I use a Fuji brand enlarger, high-end, that is an OEM product of LPL, and Fuji VC filters that are almost identical to that of Iford, and I don't see much difference in quality in printing with other brands. Or at least the difference is not something that is so visible if you do it in your own way.

I don't know if Kodak pull out and Fuji fills the gap in the U.S. market, but it'll be just another challenge for anyone who cares about it. When I was living in the U.S, years ago, I was very happy with using Tri-X, HP5, Omega D2, old Nikkor, Agfa MC FB paper, and Dektol. Now I'm in Japan, using unfamilar brand items and trying not to lose the quality in my final prints. There's a bit of adjustment to do, which takes time, but I'm getting better results.

I shoot with Neopan 400 now, which is sold at almost half the price of Tri-X or HP5 here. Although Neopan is not totally my liking, I think I made a good switch because the prices on foreign products only seem to go up.

I never use Fuji paper because it doesn't offer much choice for VC papers, and Agfa is still my choice for the last five years consistently despite its recent bankrupt and other sad news. But anything that is for professionals use will be around, I'm sure, since the U.S. has been a huge photo market with a lot of analog users. Just don't get too picky on brand names. If not, you just have to buy a large quantity and save them to last. I don't mean to sound harsh, though.

firecracker said:

Hi, all. I just wanted to make a comment here about Fuji. Since I've been living in Japan for a couple of years now and always buying photo supplies, I find that Fuji is the dominant seller in the Japanese market still going strong today.

*** Deletions ***

The market here was split 9:1 between Fuji and Kodak years ago, and that was in the news in the U.S. back then because it was, and still is almost a giant monopoly business that some capitalists hate. Indeed, everything you know of, from film, chemicals, to even enlargers, and enlarger lenses, you can subsititute with Fuji brand, which is kind of amazing.

*** Deletions ***

Click to expand...

One reason for Fuji stuff being so cheap in Japan is that Japan aggressively protects their companies. First off, many Japanese companies get government help via cheap loans, etc. and secondly like many other countries other than the US, Japan puts a heavy tax on incoming products which makes their domestic products that much cheaper!

This is not to say that Fuji products are bad, or cheaper (quality wise, not price) than others, I'm just saying that just because they're cheap (pricewise) in Japan doesn't mean they'll be cheaper when exported.

I have used some Fuji film, and it doesn't seem like bad stuff, but I haven't used enough to really be able to compare it.

-Mike

MikeS said:

One reason for Fuji stuff being so cheap in Japan is that Japan aggressively protects their companies. First off, many Japanese companies get government help via cheap loans, etc. and secondly like many other countries other than the US, Japan puts a heavy tax on incoming products which makes their domestic products that much cheaper!
...

Click to expand...

What makes you think the US is any different? Believe me, some foreign products are taxed very heavily coming in to the US.

Let me toss something into the pot.... My first "Law" of Business:

"The more the help is paid- the more successful the company will be."

Not really original. I can name sources - incerdibly successful examples of those who reached the same conclusion.

Don't believe it? Great! - Only give me ONE example were this has proved to be false. I been looking (and challenging), for a while now, and so far, have not found ONE!!

Ed Sukach said:

Let me toss something into the pot.... My first "Law" of Business:

"The more the help is paid- the more successful the company will be."

Not really original. I can name sources - incerdibly successful examples of those who reached the same conclusion.

Don't believe it? Great! - Only give me ONE example were this has proved to be false. I been looking (and challenging), for a while now, and so far, have not found ONE!!

Click to expand...

I’m with you again, Ed. I have made great effort to get employees at the service organization where I volunteer higher wages. After much determined “lobbying” I was successful and now we have the highest paid staff of any organization in the area. The organization went from $1M to $2M (yearly flow) in one year. New clients apply daily. There are so many, we have to screen then carefully and accept those with the greatest need(s) first. It breaks my and everyone else’s hearts to have to turn away potential clients, especially those with big bucks, but that is the way of progress. We have several new homes and are planning expansion of the center.

Some board members argued that there was not sufficient funds in the budget for the increased salaries. True, but my argument was that we must pay to obtain the best staff (dedicated and motivated) to deal with developmentally challenged individuals. My outlook was, pay the help and then find the funding. It works!

Dr Bob, Proper pay is half of the battle the other half is having a 'great place to work.'

I suspect you have both managed well.

Ed Sukach said:

Let me toss something into the pot.... My first "Law" of Business:

"The more the help is paid- the more successful the company will be."

Not really original. I can name sources - incerdibly successful examples of those who reached the same conclusion.

Don't believe it? Great! - Only give me ONE example were this has proved to be false. I been looking (and challenging), for a while now, and so far, have not found ONE!!

Click to expand...

Sorry to take advantage of your wide-open challenge, but I can point to any number of incompetent, lazy, nonproductive hugely ovepaid tenured professors.

Hmm. Well, I don't think I'd consider most universities as "businesses".

However, I can name one hugely successful business (in terms of lots of points of presentce, huge numbers of employees, and out-"competing" others in their markets) that gets that way by underpaying their employees to the point some qualify for state assistance while working full time (not to mention fostering unemployment by driving competitors out of their markets): Walmart.

Measure success by dollars, in almost any form (gross revenue, share price, dividends), they're one of the great success stories of the last fifty years, and one of the finest examples of what's wrong with measuring success only in dollars. Their success, however, is that of a parasite: they suck the blood out of their host communities in order to grow fat. One wonders what they'll do when they've killed the host...

Wall Mart?

Just FYI, slide film sales overall has taken the biggest hit of all due to digital. Slide sales are down by a huge margin compared to negative film sales. Fuji has invested more heavily in slide films than Kodak, and has therefore borne the brunt of this decline, having posted some huge losses (unremarked here in this forum interestingly enough).

Fuji has stopped production of a number of products which were highly regarded in the market but which were dropped for the same reason Kodak dropped them. No sales. Again, due to digital and again unremarked here in this forum. (If you are going to throw stones at Kodak, please take note of Fuji's actions as well and perhaps layoffs and problems at Agfa, Ilford, Ferrania and the now almost vanished Konica.)

In Japan (Inc) as some people say, the government subsidizes some industries heavily and supports them through financical difficulties. Many times, they impose heavy trade restrictions on competitors to support ailing Japanese business.

In addition, they have pursued a heavy investment in photographic education in both conventional and digital at various Japanese universities. In Japan, many photographic engineers go on to teach their trade at a school, and much R&D is done with many scientists at the school doing original and innovative work.

Here in the US, try to find a job teaching photographic science! I laugh.

In addition, compared to the Japanese companies, Kodak was never known for being stingy with pay and benefits. They are quite generous and have been from the beginning. Kodak US is one of the largest non-union companies today, and it is largely due to their benevolent policy towards employees. This extends to layoffs in which they give very generous separation packages, including hefty bonuses for retraining in a new field of choice. Few companies match the Kodak model in that regard.

Lastly, doing business in NY State is a real hardship. Taxes are the highest in the US and getting good people to move to Rochester is a real pain. Digital imaging scientists prefer sunny California to gloomy cold damp Rochester with high taxes and high expenses. No wonder EK has moved some things to other areas.

But lastly, coating of film and paper is still done in Rochester and Colorado notwithstanding what others say. The machines still run. Maybe not as fast or as long, but they are still cranking out film and paper (color only now). Photochemicals are still produced in large quantities at Kodak Park, and full freight cars of bulk chemicals are shunted into the plant daily with empties leaving. Trucks full of products leave the Park every day.

I see Kodak doing 'strange' things every day, but lets be real, it is being done by other photo companies as well, and they are dropping off the radar completely or going bankrupt. Oh, BTW, Polariod, having won the lawsuit over Kodak is now advertizing that they have spare coating time. You can get them to custom coat photographic products for you. They are also in dire straits. Why not go there and get them to make you your favorite film or paper.

PE

jjstafford said:

Sorry to take advantage of your wide-open challenge, but I can point to any number of incompetent, lazy, nonproductive hugely ovepaid tenured professors.

Click to expand...

I don't - and WILL not deny their existence ... but I am talking about the COMPANY. Given the proper talent - and that includes LEADERSHIP, the overpaid slackers will not exist. They may still be there - but they will not be slackers.
I seriously doubt - from experience - that anyone WANTS to be a slacker.

Consider Henry Ford (I am not defending his political views) when he decided to pay his Sweepers the outrageous wage of $5 per week. He was crucified by the general business community for such a stupid decision ... yet ... Ford Motor Company grew by leaps and bounds during that era.

The real originator of that idea was Andrew Carnegie - when he wrote, "I have seen thousands of businesses fail - I have yet to see ONE fail because they paid the help too much!".

Investigating the history of Businesses, the moment of death occurs when top management decides to reduce Labor costs, through layoffs, reduction or elimination of benefits, and an overall reduction in pay. I submit that that is the CAUSE - not effect - of the company's final demise.

I worked for Polaroid once (not directly). It went from a WONDERFUL place to work to a sweatshop... and the great slide downward began.

I think KODAK is on the same path.

Subsidy

Ed Sukach said:

Investigating the history of Businesses, the moment of death occurs when top management decides to reduce Labor costs, through layoffs, reduction or elimination of benefits, and an overall reduction in pay. I submit that that is the CAUSE - not effect - of the company's final demise.

Click to expand...

Someone pointed out about the government subsidies on Fuji and other companies earlier, and I wonder if applying for subsidies is the key answer to save Kodak and the existing analog photo market or not. I'm totally being sarcastic here, though.

Because things like trade restrictions and government subsidy programs are everywhere, then where can we find better answers that are something justifiable at the core of a free market concept? Personally I'm opposed to the idea that any government interferes any market, but at the same time all the workers' rights have to be well practiced and respected.

When you look at other industries such as the agricultural industry in the U.S., they have been protected by their government for ages, and they are hardly making any progress to go without any financial aid. So, what do you think will be the solutions for saving the analog photo suppliers? I don't mean to offend or insult anyone here. I'm just simply hoping this will bring interesting discussions and more useful sources of information.

Kodak made money from ongoing operations for the quarter reported. It was not as high as Wall Street expected, so even without the one-time charges that swung them to a quarterly loss, it is certain the stock still would have suffered.

Ed Sukach: I completely agree. I worked for Xerox for a few years, and the pay scale I enjoyed was very nice. For the most part, it made for a good team of professionals in my group, and we did very good work. Then the hard times came and Xerox brass started making some bad moves. While Anne Mulcahey claims the company has "turned around", I'm not buying it.

PE: Very well written, thank you for your insight, obviously based on first hand experience. Depending on the prevailing winds, I can often smell the output from Kodak Park.

Earl

Ed Sukach said:

The real originator of that idea was Andrew Carnegie - when he wrote, "I have seen thousands of businesses fail - I have yet to see ONE fail because they paid the help too much!".

Click to expand...

That's an interesting statement from one of the original union busters, who went so far as to bring in armed guards who actually shot striking steel mill workers (with guns, not cameras) who had only wanted better wages for their grueling and very hazardous job. Carnegie won, as I recall -- that time -- and held onto his ability to control the price of everything that went into the steel, from the mine to the end user.

What I suspect he meant was that what you pay the help isn't what will sink or float the company. I've worked in places that were descending into the pit even as I was earning $16/hr to answer the phone, and I've worked in places that were doing very, very well while I was barely earning a living wage for a job that required a lot of skill, knowledge, and willingness to deal with considerable physical risk. The pay of employees is a drop in the bucket of a healthy business, and most sick businesses wouldn't be helped if the employees worked for free -- you can't keep good help by underpaying them, but you can't keep good workers in a failing shop just by writing bigger checks.