More Rochester news about Kodak

[Ian David]

Are you a new moderator, Steve?

Actually, I've been wondering that too...
I think Steve may be the new Hasselblad-sponsored moderator.
Or maybe he is just keeping his post count up...

Ian

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Harry , Thank you ,

It is sad to learn that. I think I must fit a 120 back to my polaroid and tone the positives with palladium. Or buy Fuji and use its cassette for paper negatives but I dont know how to match lowest 75 ASA selection to paper. Any advise is welcome.

Umut

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Statistically , If I write 50 years more , I will hit the PEs record By the way Ian , you are only 12 post for copper jubilee.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Considering my OP, IDK where Perez is going to be in a years time and that might make all the difference in the world wrt where Kodak will be.

But then we don't know where the Impossible Project is going to be either and that is even in the face of their "campaign". After all, the product was pretty bad and unless they offer something better, discerning photographers will finally "catch on".

All true. But it obfuscates the original premise.

TIP is making money - albeit on a much different scale than Kodak - because they are willing to market their film products in a predominantly digital photographic world, thus creating new demand for an analog product category that was previously extinct.

Without their marketing there would be no demand. With their marketing they have been able to not only create demand, but successfully fill that demand with admittedly (even by TIP) inferior products. They are doing this because their goal is to be in the film business. And selling film services that goal.

The quality of their products, while arguably a concern for those here who might consider using them, is apparently not a concern for TIP's target demographic. Hence a projected quadrupling of their sales volume. There's a reason TIP is not an APUG sponsor.

But the quality of those products is not the real issue. Their method of successfully marketing and selling those products is the issue. And I believe the lesson to be drawn is the same one we've heard over and over here before in these discussions.

TIP has shown, in that Jurassic Park sense, just how effective marketing film can be in today's digitally photographic world. And Kodak's films - the ones that remain - are of astoundingly high quality compared to TIP's current offerings.

So if Kodak is truly serious about continuing their film business in the long-term, why won't they market their film products? And if they won't market their film products, what does that, by inference, say about their long-term intentions for film? And, by extension, their desire to be in the film business at all?

[Note to Steve: The above are offered as rhetorical questions only, intended solely to provide some food for thought for those reading along. No APUG members were injured in the posing of those questions.]

Ken

 

[IloveTLRs]

I would not like to see a hostile takeover of Kodak, unless that takeover is by APUG users.

Judging by previous threads about Kodak and the wrath and acrimony therein, I think a takeover by APUG users would nosedive the company into the ground

 

[Photo Engineer]

From my POV, both Steve and Ken have valid observations. We don't know where Kodak stock is going and we don't know where TIP is going either. But, from a purely analog POV, the TIP product is not worthy of any other existing analog film company IMHO. There is no excuse. If I had the time and energy, I could probably hand coat a product better than theirs in my DR! I have hand coated conventional products way better than any of theirs.

To go on in this vein, much of Kodak's original integral and peel apart products looked as bad or worse, but they were never sold. They were scrapped! To me, it is the equivalent of a drug company trying an experimental drug on people knowing that there are going to be defects!

Yeah, sure, there are those who have convinced themselves that this is "art", but look at some of the art today!

PE

 

[IloveTLRs]

Who buys Polaroid now ? Old followers or young fellows ?

I would say younger people, mostly. Flickr has lots of Polaroid users, and instant film users in general.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But, from a purely analog POV, the TIP product is not worthy of any other existing analog film company IMHO.

But again, and with respect, the issue is not one of product quality. The issue is how to sell more product, regardless of its quality. And in this regard, Kodak could benefit enormously by looking at how TIP successfully does that.

(If, of course, Kodak's long-term intention is to continue selling film...)

Ken

 

[removed account4]

But again, and with respect, the issue is not one of product quality. The issue is how to sell more product, regardless of its quality. And in this regard, Kodak could benefit enormously by looking at how TIP successfully does that.

(If, of course, Kodak's long-term intention is to continue selling film...)

Ken

ken

the elephant standing in the room is that they don't indent on selling film much longer.
i am surprised that they have continued to do r+d to improve and make more excellent products as they have done,
seeing they don't bother to advertise any of them.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

ken

the elephant standing in the room is that they don't indent on selling film much longer.
i am surprised that they have continued to do r+d to improve and make more excellent products as they have done,
seeing they don't bother to advertise any of them.

I know, John.

This has been the inferred point of most of my Kodak-related posts for a long time. But it's not something that can be safely mentioned around here as one's explicit point of view. The sharks will devour you. This point of view must be implicitly - and subtly - made.

Mr. Perez has already told us exactly where he's going. And he's going there at the behest of Kodak's board of directors. And there is no turning back...

Ken

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

US Goverment always cares about the feasible companies , if I am not wrong. Last decision will not be the consumers or Kodak but the State. Improvement on electronics , ccds , softwares more important for the arm products. Everyone learned what can it be learned from emulsions , film chemistry field.

I think real problem is to smooth the fall from the eyes like GMC.

I read somewhere saying dont produce anything you can buy from the others. Fuji will be happy to fill the color market and they will close the business may be 10 years later also.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Mr. Perez has already told us exactly where he's going. And he's going there at the behest of Kodak's board of directors. And there is no turning back...

Exactly, Perez said he would use analog as a cash cow to build digitally related businesses. That is what he did. I was working at Kodak then and we strongly objected. [Like they listened to us!] Yes, he has made some progress in digital, but IMNSHO too much was wasted in the stink-jet printers, as an example. So while film et al was being drained of its life blood by the digital vampires, less could have been drained and used instead for analog development. Now that effort which could have helped analog has been lost and it may be too late to recover from the Perez fiascoes.

Steve

 

[Tim Gray]

seeing they don't bother to advertise any of them.

Have you guys not noticed the (very successful in my mind) viral marketing for Portra 400 and Ektar 100? Those films were placed with reviewers on the internet who gave these two products rave reviews which drummed up a lot of interest. At least that's my impression reading threads on other forums - people who never spoke highly of Portra 400NC/VC *love* the new 400, and Ektar seems to be very very popular with a lot of folk.

Maybe Kodak isn't advertising in photo magazines anymore, but really, who even reads them nowadays? I do think they could increase their marketing, but just because they didn't have a commercial in the Superbowl doesn't mean they aren't marketing it at all.

Several years ago, when the -2 versions of Portra came out, anyone who was interesting in trying them just had to send a request to Kodak and they received a nice tube in the mail with 4 rolls of film to try out.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they aren't advertising these films at all. How do you guys think they should be spending their advertising money? It's easy to say, 'They don't advertise.' How DO you advertise film nowadays?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Exactly, Perez said he would use analog as a cash cow to build digitally related businesses. That is what he did. I was working at Kodak then and we strongly objected. [Like they listened to us!] Yes, he has made some progress in digital, but IMNSHO too much was wasted in the stink-jet printers, as an example. So while film et al was being drained of its life blood by the digital vampires, less could have been drained and used instead for analog development. Now that effort which could have helped analog has been lost and it may be too late to recover from the Perez fiascoes.

Steve,

I take you at your word regarding your ignored internal objections, and agree completely with the rest. Kodak was a magnificent company. A world leading example of the best in innovation and engineering. Their remaining film product lines are so good it almost hurts.

You have no idea how much I would have liked to see Kodak emerge from the digital revolution as the world leader in overall imaging, both digital- and film-based. The former in the majority for speed and convenience, the latter in the minority for the ultimate in quality. And both effectively marketed that way.

But this was not the "vision" to be. It was all digital, or nothing at all. And more and more the financial press seems to be anticipating the latter.

I could have accepted film product line rationalization down to a much smaller set of offerings, IF Kodak would have committed to those remaining film offerings for the long-term. But at this late stage Kodak won't - and can't - do that.

It's not the fear of losing more Kodak film types in the long term that puts me off. It's the fear of losing ALL Kodak film types in the short term that forced me to switch to another manufacturer.

And that's when I learned there is indeed life after Kodak.

Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Have you guys not noticed the (very successful in my mind) viral marketing for Portra 400 and Ektar 100? Those films were placed with reviewers on the internet who gave these two products rave reviews which drummed up a lot of interest.

[...]

How do you guys think they should be spending their advertising money? It's easy to say, 'They don't advertise.' How DO you advertise film nowadays?

As I said earlier, I think Kodak's film marketing people would do well to observe The Impossible Project marketing model. Not to target the same demographic. But instead maybe to adapt some of the techniques to targeting Kodak's different demographic.*

For me personally, I think it's interesting that I haven't seen much of anything related to Portra or Ektar online. But I have read a great deal about TIP.

One of their best techniques is to establish a "partnership" with individual customers, making them feel as if both the customer and TIP have embarked on some great adventure together by experimenting with TIP instant films. And that it's just you and TIP together against the world. Everyone else out there really has no clue how cool the two of us really are.

Corny? You bet. But it seems to sell a lot of product for TIP. Would it work for Kodak? Probably not. Could it be adapted in some way for Kodak to use? Probably so. As could many of the other techniques.

Heck, TIP even snookered me into subscribing to their online newsletter (i.e., sales pitch tool). And it's just harmlessly goofy enough that I keep reading it.

Hmm...



Ken

* Yet again, only IF they really want to continue selling film in the long-term.

 

[Tim Gray]

Ken, I don't know what forums you frequent, but if it's only APUG, then I'm not surprised you haven't seen good things about Portra. This forum is pretty negative towards Kodak in general, either of the sort of active criticism "I don't like Kodak, they dissed me in the past" or of the disinterested "Kodak doesn't care about film".

Other forums have been pretty positive towards Ektar over the past couple years. I've read a number of times people stating Ektar is the best thing Kodak has come out with in years and/or it's the only Kodak film they like.

With respect to Portra 400, it's gotten a lot of talk on film groups on flickr, Rangefinder Forum, photo.net, and l-camera-forum. Most of those sites cite the tests done by Jonathan Canlas, Twin Lens Life, and Figital Revolution, all of whom had access to the film pre-release and and posted their reviews the day Kodak announced the film. The public perception in some of those groups is that this film is almost magic and enables pushing to speeds never before attained, with thread titles like, 'Portra 400 - Changed the game for colour neg film'. Though it's a great film, I actually view some of this as a bit over the top.

On top of this, regular schmoes like athiril and me have finally gotten our hands on the film and done a couple tests which only add to word of mouth marketing. Tests run by regular users that I've seen include exposure latitude tests, comparisons to 400NC/VC, pushing tests, and even a 3 way casual comparison between a Canon 5DII, Portra 400 rated at 1600, TMY rated and 1600, and TMZ rated at 3200. Some of those discussions went on for hundreds of posts.

I think Kodak IS engaging in this kind of marketing to a certain small extant. They are most definitely a bit more standoffish that TIP or Ilford, but I'm of the opinion they actually are engaged in some viral marketing. It's only here on APUG where it doesn't seem to penetrate because every time the work 'Kodak' is mentioned, people like to go all negative. And even if a meaningful discussion does occur, it usually degenerates into a pissing match because some mentions the word 'scan' or decides to argue about magenta.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I think Magenta was my favorite character in "Rocky Horror Picture Show".
I think Kodak is blowing a really great chance to stimulate the film market. There are So Many new photographers, and they almost all say when they see my film camera "is that a Film Camera?! I really want to shoot film". I think an ideal marketing message would be along the lines of "Now Try The Good Stuff", and with TMX, Portra and Tri-X it is.

 

[MartinP]

With the removal of the shop by shop infrastructure for 'ordinary' users of film it cannot be brought back to mass use. The costs to recreate it would be too high. The infamous chicken-or-egg situation comes in to play too of course.

Is it the case in the US as well that the only legal purpose of a limited company is to maximise return for share-holders ? Kodak, or any company, must produce toilet-seats if that is chosen by the board as the way ahead because it is expected to give the highest return on capital. It doesn't mean it's the right or competent decision over time, but that doesn't matter. Unfortunately for colour film users.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dan Carp and George Fischer, the predecessors to Antonio Perez stated often and loud that their goal was to make Kodak the worlds premium imaging company. (their words)

When Perez was hired, he was asked to change that mantra to "digital imaging company". He did not choose that, he was told that and that is his mandate. The BOD saw some sort of handwriting on the wall for analog and directed him to go the way he is. They appear to be approving his actions.

At HP, Perez was VP of the printing division and oversaw the HP digital direction in that market. Is it any wonder that he has gone the way he has? No. In fact, he has stated, in my hearing, that that was a major factor in his hiring by the BOD as they believed that was the best way to save Kodak.

His strategy after that was logical. And it appears that the BOD was happy until now. See my OP. People are waking up.

PE

 

[lns]

...I think Kodak IS engaging in this kind of marketing to a certain small extant. They are most definitely a bit more standoffish that TIP or Ilford, but I'm of the opinion they actually are engaged in some viral marketing.....

I agree totally with your point that "marketing" does not mean only traditional "advertising." Kodak obviously is marketing its films, and has been in the past. For example, the giveaway of the prior version of Portra, the annual rebates for purchasers of professional film, and the seeding of the new Portra to reviewers.

I just want to say that this isn't really "viral marketing" in a negative way, like so-called stealth marketing. It's just regular marketing and promotion, adapted to a new age.

Film companies have always provided free samples of their products to magazines for use and review. Also in the past to newspaper photographers, heavy commercial users and other influential photographers who might like the film and later pay to use large quantities. And to photo store employees who would recommend it to their customers.

Now, with commercial photographers primarily digital, and magazines on their way out, the internet is a better and cheaper way to reach film customers. Just as you might take out a google ad, rather than an ad in a paper magazine, you would now provide your product for use and review to bloggers. That's the exact same practice, but using the media of the internet rather than print.

It is the same for many consumer products. Review copies of books go to bloggers now. Car companies, kitchenware companies, audio equipment companies, you name it -- they all provide their products for use and review by internet bloggers.

I personally have posted several times how much I like the new Portra 400. I bought it at retail and paid to develop it, and I posted on APUG because I sure hope people learn about this good film and buy it. And I do think it's better than the prior Portras, though I agree with you that it's not better to a life-changing degree.

I have no connection to Kodak, other than being a satisfied customer. I certainly would never buy the stock. Similarly, users post positive things every day about Kodak products. What developer should I use, someone asks, and I might say, try X-Tol. (Same for wonderful Fuji and Ilford products.)

I was alerted to the new Portra by Kodak's promotion, and I probably read a review or two by those bloggers you cite. That's the point of marketing and promotion. I won't discount that some of those bloggers, who unlike me might have gotten free film, might, like me, sincerely love film and love Kodak and want to trumpet positive things about a great new Kodak film. They might have tried it because of marketing, but they are positive about it because it's really good.

-Laura

 

[Tim Gray]

Laura - agree with you 100%.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's not the fear of losing more Kodak film types in the long term that puts me off. It's the fear of losing ALL Kodak film types in the short term that forced me to switch to another manufacturer.

This bears repeating:

It's not the fear of losing more Kodak film types in the long term that puts me off. It's the fear of losing ALL Kodak film types in the short term that forced me to switch to another manufacturer.

 

[Tim Gray]

I think it's apparently obvious that Kodak is in bad, bad shape. If and when they go away, I'll switch. Until then, I'll continue using the Kodak products that I like.

 

[DanielStone]

I'm buying as much Tri-X in 35mm as I can shove in the freezer, just in case...

 

[lonelyboy]

Support! Get Antonio Perez out of Kodak office...he is completely useless!