Quote from the Rochester D&C

[Photo Engineer]

"Antonio M. Perez likes to tell people that one of his main ambitions as chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak Co. is to wake up on Jan 1, 2008 at the helm of a 'Digital' company"

It goes on, but there it is in all of its glory.

The article shows that film imagine supplies 33% of Kodaks revenue through 9 months of 2006. The health imaging unit just sold supplied 19%. Full 2006 results are due January 31.

There you are. Right up to date.

Oh, I'm told that Kodachrome has its 75th anniversary in 2010.

PE

 

[jovo]

"Antonio M. Perez likes to tell people that one of his main ambitions as chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak Co. is to wake up on Jan 1, 2008 at the helm of a 'Digital' company"

And I suppose he will at that unless the majority of stockholders offer him a digit of their own! It will be interesting to hear the tale told by the final '06 financial report, and will stockholders be impressed by improvement of digital sales (if there is improvement), or will they assess only the bottom line.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Antonio M. Perez likes to tell people that one of his main ambitions as chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak Co. is to wake up on Jan 1, 2008 at the helm of a 'Digital' company"

PE

Dear PE,

Why am I not surprised by this, even though I am horrified? Any other CEO who took such a cavalier attitude to the source of OVER HALF of the revenues of the company he was hired to run would be the subject of a Mafia contract, never mind dismissal.

Given the man's talent for ruining Kodak, he may well succeed in his ambition. But I wonder if Kodak will still be in business on January 2nd?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lopaka]

Well, now that Kodak has sold off chemistry production (made under license with Kodak's name, but not by Kodak itself) all he has to do is off load the film and paper coating plants the same way and he's there. Whether this is the right strategy for EK I cannot say. But Perez has an irritating way of publicizing it. I like and use certain Kodak traditional products and will continue to do so as long as they are available. It is difficult at best managing a giant company under conditions of extreme rapid technical change and EK has correctly identified their strength lying in mass marketing. Or in other words, they are unwilling to change the corporate beauracracy to allow managing smaller lines of business cost effectively. Managing the shrinking segments requires real insight. Until the board of directors gets their heads out of their rears, Kodak will continue to shrink in size with or without film.

Bob

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Buy on the rumour, sell on the news . . . the stock market is more about psycology than reality. In other words, perception is the idea. If it seems that a company is growing, then partially that will be down to the emphasis on products and services that are growth industries, or perceived as growth industries. Kodak was literally a small player in the commercial printing and graphic arts supply business, then they bought Creo and a few other companies, and suddenly they are the largest player in the industry. This is also where many of their current charges originate. SEC reports are quite long, and need to be read in the context of past reports, though the variations of how divisions are grouped and reported can also influence the perception of any company. Articles written based upon SEC reports, or quotes, or sound bites, will always fail to give the big picture reality behind any company.

So Kodak want to loose the public perception of being a film company, much like IBM worked hard at getting away from the public perception of being a computer company. When revenues from film are only 1/3 of total revenues, it seems to me they have achieved that, though changing public perception is slower. This is an era in which the propoganda of oft-repeated terms eventually drives perception; again that buy on the rumour, sell on the news idea. So when statements are made about Kodak being a digital company, this is much like so many companies only a few years ago adding dot com to their names to emphasize they were hip to technology . . . driving public perception.

In reality, when you look at how fast the GCG division of Kodak is growing, mainly fueled by purchasing other companies, then such claims as Mr. Perez makes are not in error. Whether the constant push of terminology will push public perception is too early to tell. Recall that some people still used the term IBM compatible long after software boxes did not use those words. Commercial printing and graphic arts supplies are not sexy, but they can generate lots of revenues and profits.

Personally I think Kodak would have a better run of altering perception if they pushed that they are an imaging company. This is much closer to reality, and can eventually avoid that dot com mentality. Eventually the term digital will be as meaningless in business as dot com is today, and the future is coming up fast.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[Jerevan]

Probably, Kodak will deflate into just a brand name only, with digital products produced in China but with a Kodak sticker. It's still interesting that so much of the bottom line is carried by film products. And that it is ignored and has to go, because it's not "hot stuff", i.e digital. However, I still think Tri-X is a damn fine film. And I still buy it.

 

[r-s]

In related news, the French Ministry of Agriculture, inspired by this bold move, decreed that beginning immediately, they shall begin a crash program to pull up the trees, plow up the orchards, slaughter the pigs, and abandon the "old tech" truffle trade. In place of the truffles, they will be planting soybeans. French Agriculture Minister Pierre P. Pierremont said, "They are the wave of the future! Everyone is growing them! Our vision is to be an all-soybean agronomic nation by January 2008!"

 

[Photo Engineer]

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. N'est ce pas?

Or better still and more relevant.

On ne peut pas placer toute les oufs dans la meme pannier? (spelling, gender and accents sadly lacking or in error - sorry - no French dictionary either.)

PE

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil
Il ne faut pas mettre tous ses oeufs dans le même panier

 

[Photo Engineer]

The spelling in mine is my own, but the sayings are from Mike Lamisse from Chalon. Sorry MHV. At one time, he was director of Research there.

But then another friend, Patrice, told me of the big difference between Quebecois French and Parisian French. Personally, IDK, as it has been over 40 years since I studied it, but I did get on well enough in France.

Dacor?

PE

 

[removed account4]

Probably, Kodak will deflate into just a brand name only, with digital products produced in China but with a Kodak sticker. It's still interesting that so much of the bottom line is carried by film products. And that it is ignored and has to go, because it's not "hot stuff", i.e digital. However, I still think Tri-X is a damn fine film. And I still buy it.

exactly

kodak by name only.
too bad they couldn't have outsourced all their film / paper to
forte ... and given everyone a boost before they fell off the horse ...

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

No te preoccupado, Ron, any language has its quirks. The big difference between the two is first at the phonetic level. Québécois french has kept more vowel distinctions than modern France french (e.g. the difference between short and long vowels). The day-to-day vocabulary is somewhat different, like it is the case between UK and USA english. Finally, each language has its impenetrable idiomatic and slangy expressions that are the delight and worry of tourists.

There is a standard of international French, and every little peculiarities can be dissolved into it when necessary. It's modelled a bit too much on France's for my taste, but oh well.

 

[kjsphoto]

Who really cares. Kodak died over 5 years ago. Why does everyone think that Kodak is the only company and that since Kodak is getting rid of film so is everyone else.

Look around you have Foma, Kentmere, Fuji, Ilford, Efke, Slavich, New Chinese Paper and Film that has been getting decent reviews. I am really getting tired of this Kodak stuff. I will be glad when Kodak is dead once and for all. The world of photography people is bigger than Kodak....

Kodak screwed themselves years ago so as far as I am concerned they are a dead company in terms of film anyway.

If Kodak does go away for good that will make it better for the other companies that care about traditional products. Kodak is the Yellow sore thumb that needs to leave once and for all and go after their digital market which they will never obtain especially trying to compete against Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Fuji. They are on the way out.....

No offense to anyone but get over it. Kodak is a dead company and you can blame it on the management...

 

[mikebarger]

Kevin, your probably not buying Kodak stock then?

Mike

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Kodak is one of two film companies still manufacturing transparency (reversal) film, Kodak is one of only about three companies still manufacturing color negative film. While it is true that b/w materials have several current vendors, the fate of color materials is much precarious.

 

[Photo Engineer]

No te preoccupado, Ron, any language has its quirks. The big difference between the two is first at the phonetic level. Québécois french has kept more vowel distinctions than modern France french (e.g. the difference between short and long vowels). The day-to-day vocabulary is somewhat different, like it is the case between UK and USA english. Finally, each language has its impenetrable idiomatic and slangy expressions that are the delight and worry of tourists.

There is a standard of international French, and every little peculiarities can be dissolved into it when necessary. It's modelled a bit too much on France's for my taste, but oh well.

My French friends say that Quebecois sounds to them like medieval English must to us English speakers.

PE

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

My French friends say that Quebecois sounds to them like medieval English must to us English speakers.

PE

True. The French Revolution and subsequent linguistic change did not happen in Québec, and the region was relatively isolated from other french-speaking communities for a long time, because in part of the English conquest, and the low profile of the general populace.

Nowadays, Parisian people will most likely say that we sound like a regional hillbilly from Poitou or Normandy. Or just that we sound retarded. Truly enough, I've watched an old Jean Renoir movie, Boudu Sauvé des Eaux, and the main character is a tramp whose language shares words that still have currency in the Québec popular tongue. Not that the movie implied in any sense that the tramp was from here, but I'm just pointing the fact that we sound "regional" (and most of the people here come from the regions of France. My own ancestors are all from Normandy I've heard).

Anyhoo... Back to the main topic, I've suggested in your other thread that getting a Simon-like daemon from Fuji and Kodak interested in APUG would be a great step forward. What do you think of the possibility to make it happen with Kodak people? They seem to be the ones under the most pressure from both sales and management to reduce film; Fuji has at least done a few small steps, but Perez's quote is just criminal.

I think that in general, well-targeted web forums like this one are a readymade focus group for a company looking to probe its audience. This is probably the first time in history that chatter, rumours, and trifling observations that create the zeitgeist are recorded, and data mining APUG would yield much more interesting knowledge about a certain segment of the consumer world than surveys or top-down analyses.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Michael;

Kodak has not learned the power of these forums to a certain extent. They o sponsor a contest on Photo Net. I cannot get any interest generated at EK probably due to the lack of film people, and the small, overworked staff in many areas, as they try to cut costs.

I agree with you though. They are not ignoring us on purpose, it is a huge workload that is 'burning them out' at the Park and at Kodak Office.

I wish them well, and in spite of every error they have made, I wish them success and hold nothing against them.

Many of my relatives are from Chalon sur Marne and Suippe.

PE

 

[PKM-25]

Oh, I'm told that Kodachrome has its 75th anniversary in 2010.

To nix it before then would be a really bad PR move. I talk to the director of marketing and technical support for Kodachrome almost weekly. We have our *conservative* estimates on Kodachrome and our generous ones.

If Kodak nixes Kodachrome in 2010, that would mean I have about 4-5 years to shoot this project, that would be awesome!!!

I have about 700 24 exposure rolls that I got in bulk for .75¢ a roll. I want to try to set up a program on the site in which photographers of all ages and walks of life write in, get a free roll of the 24 exposure and shoot it for the project.

Well see.......

 

[c6h6o3]

While it is true that b/w materials have several current vendors, the fate of color materials is much precarious.

Nevertheless, I think Kodak's black and white films are by far the best available. I'll use them as long as I can get them.

 

[Paul.]

Who really cares. Kodak died over 5 years ago. Why does everyone think that Kodak is the only company and that since Kodak is getting rid of film so is everyone else.

Look around you have Foma, Kentmere, Fuji, Ilford, Efke, Slavich, New Chinese Paper and Film that has been getting decent reviews. I am really getting tired of this Kodak stuff. I will be glad when Kodak is dead once and for all. The world of photography people is bigger than Kodak....

Kodak screwed themselves years ago so as far as I am concerned they are a dead company in terms of film anyway.

If Kodak does go away for good that will make it better for the other companies that care about traditional products. Kodak is the Yellow sore thumb that needs to leave once and for all and go after their digital market which they will never obtain especially trying to compete against Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Fuji. They are on the way out.....

No offense to anyone but get over it. Kodak is a dead company and you can blame it on the management...

Afraid I have to concure with the sentiment here expressed. It is a pity to see any supplier leave the market but when they do, support those who are still in it.
Possibly it is more of a problem for you in the states than here in the UK. There was and still is plenty of alternatives to Kodak products here, personaly I seldom used Kodak products prefering Fuji, Ilford,Fotospeed, Kentmere and Tetanal, there are of course others.
Look at the sponsors of this forum, they are showing a comitment to our hobbie, they deseve our support, Kodak is not amoungst them.
The suits at Kodak have made there minds up and no matter how we lament the loss of their products we will not change their minds. We have to live with it and move on.
Regards Paul.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

I use Fuji and Ilford because I like their products more, but the point made about the limited manufacturers of colour film is one I'd never thought about. Black and White is more of a basic product, but to lose a large supplier of colour materials, including all their knowledge on it's production, will be a big hit. As long as Fuji remains committed I'll be happy - and in light of less competition, they probably will.
I don't see this as a smart business move by Kodak though, they're basically getting rid of everyone who's known and supported them in favor of a largely indifferent digital crowd. Kodak just isn't known for their cameras in recent years.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, color is part of the equation. Most everyone on APUG seems to be B&W centered, but color is important and is paying for both Kodak and Fuji to stay in B&W.

If Kodak leaves color film production behind, that will mean that there is little market left and where does that leave Fuji. Fuji's production is still less than Kodak's and even with all of the griping out there, Kodak has a larger market share regarding color film.

That will leave only the Chinese manufacturers of color film, most likely. They are using older Kodak formulas.

PE

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I use Fuji and Ilford because I like their products more, but the point made about the limited manufacturers of colour film is one I'd never thought about. Black and White is more of a basic product, but to lose a large supplier of colour materials, including all their knowledge on it's production, will be a big hit. As long as Fuji remains committed I'll be happy - and in light of less competition, they probably will.
I don't see this as a smart business move by Kodak though, they're basically getting rid of everyone who's known and supported them in favor of a largely indifferent digital crowd. Kodak just isn't known for their cameras in recent years.

I want to clear one item up please. Kodak has NOT stopped making color film stocks. They still make them in both reversal (E-6), color negative (C-41) and still offer Kodachrome 64. In an earlier post, I was just drawing attention to the very limited number of manufacturers of color film stocks.

 

[lightranger]

Who really cares. Kodak died over 5 years ago. Why does everyone think that Kodak is the only company and that since Kodak is getting rid of film so is everyone else.

Look around you have Foma, Kentmere, Fuji, Ilford, Efke, Slavich, New Chinese Paper and Film that has been getting decent reviews. I am really getting tired of this Kodak stuff. I will be glad when Kodak is dead once and for all. The world of photography people is bigger than Kodak....

Kodak screwed themselves years ago so as far as I am concerned they are a dead company in terms of film anyway.

If Kodak does go away for good that will make it better for the other companies that care about traditional products. Kodak is the Yellow sore thumb that needs to leave once and for all and go after their digital market which they will never obtain especially trying to compete against Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Fuji. They are on the way out.....

No offense to anyone but get over it. Kodak is a dead company and you can blame it on the management...

WOW! WHAT AN ATTITUDE YOU HAVE. I am certainly not happy with Kodak either, but I think you trash a lot of dedicated people who put many years of hard work into research into traditional photography. If Kodak didn't do it, none of us would have enjoyed the films and products we have used for many years. Everyone who followed after Kodak were just using or stealing Kodak's existing technology. And when it comes to quality control, nobody can even come close to Kodak. Yeah, I wish they would dedicate products for us fine arts black and white photographers. If they would bring out a good fiber based paper along with their existing film and chemistry would be a dream come true, but I am not holding my breath.