New Kodak Ad

RichSBV wrote above: "What they did in the past was essentially a different company. It's gone now. It could be reborn, but I wouldn't hold my breath..."

I disagree. Kodak is doing today what it has done since its inception in the 1800s. The products are different, but the corporate philosophy is the same.

I begin by refereing you to two books on business: "Good to Great" and "Built to Last". Both books are excellent, and I recommend them to all, even if you have only a passing interest in business. The underlying principals apply to anyone who wants to do the best work possible--or in my case, to produce the best photographs possible.

The books examine a number of great corporations and examine the common elements which made them great. Kodak was not one of the companies.

One of the key concepts is for a business to follow its core philosophy. The books tack companies that have followed their cores--some for well over a hundred years.

Last week I was reading a history of photography, and it dawned on me what Kodak's core philosophy has been since at least the introduction of the Kodak Brownie: "Photography should be a democratic process, open to all, and as easy for the masses to pursue as possible." After all, the motto for the
brownie was "You press the button, we do the rest."

Kodak almost single-handedly created the consumer photography market and it has been the core of its business for over a hundred years. Yes, it has supported fine are photography, but mainly as a way to increase awareness of its products among the masses, not out of some burning desire to promote photography as Art. Remember, photography as Art wasn't even an issue when Kodak was formed.

Kodak's actions today seem to be in line with their core. The masses are moving to digital. Kodak want's to provide photographic supplies to the multitudes. So, Kodak moves to digital.

Allen... Pulling that one single line out of context makes it seem we dissagree, but it was taken out of context and I don't see how we dissagree??? The conversation, or reply to a post was about kodak's contribution to photography and who owes who what. Has nothing to do with coporate philosophy or direction. And it is still true that the company that founded photography as we know it, and supported that end, is now gone. None of those people are still in charge, most of them not even living. It's a different company...

I feel that I have gone though all of the stage of grief.

1st denial: Kodak will stay as long as they make a profit, they have a historical obligation, its all just rumors.

2nd bargaining: Kodak will move its analog production units to Asia, they will spin off the analog division.

3rd anger: To h## with Kodak who needs them anyway, they cant do this to me, I have been a loyal Kodak user for 40 years (along with Dupont, Defender, GAF, Agfa, and Illford.)

4th depression: What will I do without TriX, Microdol X or HC 110.

5th working though:Better find alternatives.

. Kodak is doing today what it has done since its inception in the 1800s. The products are different, but the corporate philosophy is the same.

Click to expand...

You have really nailed it... Kodak was always a consumer business... right from the beginning. However, the market changed. Somebody made a comment that film was the only part of Kodak that was making a profit... That comment is very misleading.... Kodak's Consumer Business is the area of their business that drives profitability, but that business is in decline. The Professional Products division (i.e. the part of the company that sells Our stuff) has never been a revenue driver for Kodak; In fact, Professional revenues are just under 15% of Sales and at very low margins because the old products are so expensive to make... That's why they shut down the old line that made TRI-X and Plus-X... It's always been the consumer business that's kept Kodak afloat.... Because they were slow to go digital, their financial strength was completely compromised. The bottom line is that consumers don't want film. They want digital, and there is not enough of folks like us to keep Kodak going. That's why all of these old analog products become expensive to make and that's why Kodak is getting out of the business. The fact that they haven't done it immediately is, to some extent, demonstrative of their loyalty. So guys let's understand business and get the facts straight... As someone said, there will be life after Kodak. But, if there are products that they still have that meets your needs, I would suggest that you place a bulk order. In my case I purchased more than 200 rolls of the old tri-x. I am probably going to buy a case of HC110... I will enjoy using those products long after they are discontinued.

Dear Rich,

I am not sure we disagree substantially. I very much dislike Kodak's moves away from B&W paper and it's move toward digital.

But, I think we may have a different understanding of what is fundamental to a company. Or, put another way, when does a company change?

If we concentrate on products, then clearly Kodak is a different company today than it was 10, 30, 50 or 100 years ago. Eastman started the company producing dry plate glass negs. It then moved onto roll film and processing the film. It led the way on the introduction of color products. Arguably, Kodak became a "different" company with each move.

If you were saying that Kodak was a film company, now it is not and it never will be again, then we agree.

But, my discussion was pointed not to products, but to the end goal of those products--the "core", or main philosophy of the company. I believe Kodak's main early core was to make photography democratic, i.e. so that everyone could own a camera and take pictures as easily as possible. I see Kodak's recent moves to digital in line with that core value. To me, that is the essence of Kodak. What it has done from the beginning, and what it has done with most major changes in its history. To that extent, Kodak is the same company, or at least it is pursuing the same "core" that it started with.

This discussion reminds me of the question, "Am I the same person I was at age 20?" No, of course not. I am 30 years older and (hopefully) wiser. If I focus on the outward changes, I am quite different. But, I still hold most of the basic values I held at age 20. In my "essence", I am more mature, but I am still the same person.

Allen... We can all hope we're wiser. There are many times I wonder though? Although, when I was younger, I knew that I knew and never wondered.....

Anyway... I think we're actually having two seperate discussions. Yes, I meant the products and the people driving them. Some of the products remain, but not the research or driving force...

And yes, the basic philosophy has come back after many years of wavering and failed business ventures. But I see this as yet another major mistake. Going back to "You push the button and we do the rest". In the digi market, there is very little kodak can offer the common user after the button is pushed, and that's historically where they made much of their money. They REsold film, plus the chemicals and papers for the printing services. They even sold the services for those who wanted pure kodak along with the equipment. With the digi, there's nothing after the button. Far too much competition. Would I buy kodak paper when the company that sold me my printer recommends their own paper, and it's cheaper? Would I send a memory card to kodak for them to print when I can do it myself or drop it off at wallmart? How many digi users even bother printing any more?

Unless they plan on investing billions into a new communications company to support mobiles and digi transfers, their philosophy breaks down pretty quick...

But here, we (okay, me) are second guessing the corporate decisions that we have little information about...

I know how badly they screwed up in the medical field. I read the financial reports of the film based _profits_. And my comment was NOT misleading. They had a film division, a digital division, a medical division, etc. The film division was the only one at the company to make a profit at the time. How misleading can that be???

Over the past 10 or even 20 years, kodak has made quite a reputation at making disasterous business dealings. I don't wish them any hard luck. I would love to see the logo last several more lifetimes as it at least recalls fond memories. And we can not know what they are actually planning until after it's done, as they're also known for changing their minds mid-stream... I wish them luck. If I had to buy a digi product, I would rather it be a kodak than a fuji, but that's just me...

Now, at least I know I'm older ;-)

raucousimages said:

I just saw kodak's new tv ad, their new slogan: KEEP IT DIGITAL, KEEP IT KODAK.

Is this the end of Kodak film too? Go ILFORD.

Click to expand...

Perhaps another slogan could read as:
Keep it Analogue, keep it Ilford, the future in Black & White.

Now here's a digital slogan I can almost live with:

"Where digital photos become film-quality prints."

http://www.myphotopipe.com/

RichSBV said:

And my comment was NOT misleading. They had a film division, a digital division, a medical division, etc. The film division was the only one at the company to make a profit at the time. How misleading can that be???)

Click to expand...

Your unintentional misleading point is that Kodak was profitable selling film and they had a film division and they some how screwed up in selling film... Go pull the recent annual reports and go back to 1998... it's all on Kodak's website under investor information.... Kodak hasn't had a film division in almost a decade. They are organized by business unit and not by product line... In their current set up film is in the Digital and film imaging systems unit... go back a few reports, it was split between consumer and Professional.

I agree that Kodak was, in fact, profitable selling film. However, although film sales were profitable, the sales volumn was decreasing dramatically. Moreover, professional film sales made up <=15% of total film sales volumn. Consequently, consumer film sales was the piece of the business that was eroding the most. Professional sales (to guys like us) couldn't begin to offset the deficit. Digital further eroded film sales to consumers. So, Kodak was forced to go digital... plain and simple.

Now, many have spoken of Fujitsu. I was in hi-tech sales for 32 years and Fujitsu is one of the largest manufacturers of communications transmission products in the world. Hence, they did not have as much of a dependency on photographic products as Kodak... ergo, Fujitsu is a stronger company overall because of this business diversification. Kodak finally realizes that if they are going to continue to exist, they are going to have to diversify into other areas because, as stated in this thread, digital doesn't have a sufficient back end revenue stream to offset the losses in film... I just want to leave emotion out and get the facts straight....

esanford said:

Your unintentional misleading point is that Kodak was profitable selling film and they had a film division and they some how screwed up in selling film... Go pull the recent annual reports and go back to 1998... it's all on Kodak's website under investor information.... Kodak hasn't had a film division in almost a decade. They are organized by business unit and not by product line... In their current set up film is in the Digital and film imaging systems unit... go back a few reports, it was split between consumer and Professional.

Click to expand...

Where did I say they screwed up?? Doesn't make any difference. You call the divisions what you want. I'll call them what kodak reported a year or two ago.
Their "reports" change more than opinions as do their profit earnings. The FACT of the matter is that one or two years ago, their only (insert any appropraite name of division you'd like) that produces film and papera was the ONLY (insert any appropraite name of division you'd like) that made a profit. I really don't care what the supposed 'reports' say on their web site this week. It will be different next week anyway. I was here and lived through it. My memory isn't that bad yet and not much you can say will change my memory...

esanford said:

I agree that Kodak was, in fact, profitable selling film.

Click to expand...

So where's the problem. kodak was profitable selling film. Exactly what I said. But somehow you're disagreeing... Is this photo.net???

I'm beggining to see a real incentive in joing discussions around here...

And actually back to the topic...

I finally saw the ad tonight. My personal feeling is that it's very misleading, geared to younger people and leaves me with the impression that the world's most famous photographs going back 100 years were all taken with a cell phone... If I was 17 and didn't know better, I'd be running for the nearest verizon store, without a thought about kodak...

So where's the problem. kodak was profitable selling film. Exactly what I said. But somehow you're disagreeing... Is this photo.net???

I'm beggining to see a real incentive in joing discussions around here...

Click to expand...

Rich,

Don't let them get ya, this is far from Photo.net, although sometimes, things do get a bit heated..I enjoy your informed posts, and like I said, don't let them get ya....all in a days posting! LOL

Dave

RichSBV said:

Where did I say they screwed up?? Doesn't make any difference. You call the divisions what you want. I'll call them what kodak reported a year or two ago.
Their "reports" change more than opinions as do their profit earnings. The FACT of the matter is that one or two years ago, their only (insert any appropraite name of division you'd like) that produces film and papera was the ONLY (insert any appropraite name of division you'd like) that made a profit. I really don't care what the supposed 'reports' say on their web site this week. It will be different next week anyway. I was here and lived through it. My memory isn't that bad yet and not much you can say will change my memory...



So where's the problem. kodak was profitable selling film. Exactly what I said. But somehow you're disagreeing... Is this photo.net???

I'm beggining to see a real incentive in joing discussions around here...

Click to expand...

My goodness why are you so angry! I am not trying to offend you here. Just one subtle difference:

Here is the point: yes film was profitable; the big problem however is that volumn was falling so fast year over year that Kodak was on a trajectory to cease to exist as a company. That's it... Please stay calm.... Here are the " sales" (although film is not broken out from 2001 to 2004 (since you said to go back a couple of years; if you go back to 1998 the drop-off is worse. 2001hotography Sales: $9.4B (net earnings: $535M or less than 10% return) 2002: Sales: $9.0B (net earnings: $550M) 2003: Sales: $9.2B-didgital is in this number though (net earnings: 347M... a huge drop in profitability). By contrast, for the same 3 years Health Imaging averaged $1B in sales with an average net earnings of 300M or an average 30% return... Film, photography, paper even with digital looked horrible on a rate of return standpoint... this is why Kodaks stockholers pressured them to change... that simple ... stay peaceful!

Satinsnow said:

Rich,

Don't let them get ya, this is far from Photo.net, although sometimes, things do get a bit heated..I enjoy your informed posts, and like I said, don't let them get ya....all in a days posting! LOL

Dave

Click to expand...

Thanks Dave... We have good days & bad days. I'm working on a lot of bad days waiting for a dental appointment. Seems emergencies don't mean what they used to. It's okay though. I can still function for at least 2 or 3 hours a day....

Fundamentally at issue, I think, is that Kodak's focus on digital is a questionable decision at best. There's always the decision between being a big fish in a small pond, or vice versa. Kodak has demonstrated, over the long term, an ability to produce some very good analog products. They have also traditionally been the leader in that market. With the move to digital photography, they aren't really in the photography business. They're in the electronics business. That is something they have no experience with, and they certainly aren't leaders in it.

Regarding film, in truth for the point and shoot market, digital is far superior. In that market, the users of photography have no interest in art. They want images that are reasonable representations of what they photographed. Nothing more. For that usage, digital is better. As users of film, we are in fact benefactors of this change. The cost of film equipment is dropping(not long ago I purchased an enlarger on ebay for $10!), and the analog photography community is becoming cemented. APUG is a sign of this development. As an art, analog photography can only improve and grow from here. The point and shoot photographer is digital.

Kodak copiers were acknowledged as the best in the field when they manufactured them. They were all electronic with sophisticated microprocessor controlled operations all designed internally by Kodak electronic engineers. Kodak color printers were electronic with sophisticated sensors. All Kodak manufacturing is designed and built in-house and is computer operated from emulsion making to coating to slitting and chopping.

They have a very sophisticated chip making facility and a large software development division in-house. They have been making their own sensors and making electronic imaging parts for decades.

So, even though we are all Kosh, I would have to disagree with you and say Kodak is an electronics company, at least sufficiently so to surpass Fuji and some others.

PE

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away!