Short/past date Kodak film stock in Australia

[Arctic amateur]

Is Kodak Australia an independent entity from Eastman Kodak?

 

[Stephen Frizza]

Those were the days Kodak's sales reps were know as TSRs - technical sales representatives - and really WERE technical. I think that changed in the 1990s IIRC. They became simply 'order takers'.

Ah the days pre 2005! they did used to be good....its changed.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Stephen,

This is curiosity , how many film labs remained in Australia , how many rolls of film being sold this year , is there a statistics for that ?
In Turkey , I have no idea.

Umut

I can only vouch for Adelaide, there's 3 commercial labs that i know of:
Kodak Express do C41, for B+W and E6 they post it to Atkins.
B+W are independent, they do B+W, C41, and E6.
Dead Link Removed claim to have the only Dip'n'Dunk, and the only Kodak Q-lab, in Adelaide, and they do up to 8x10s. They claim to be the best, they're certainly the most expensive.
Everywhere else around here that offers 'film processing' just post it to one of these three (mostly to Atkins).

I don't know about the other major cities, there's surely more labs in Sydney and Melbourne? We're only a small capital of maybe 1.5m people, Brisvegas/Perth are maybe 2m, Melbs 3-4m and Sydney 5-6m by now, so there's probably at least 10-20 labs spread amongst them.

 

[MattKing]

Let's be clear folks, this is the AU Kodak subsidiary who've done this. Let's make sure to not turn one incident (that is indeed unfortunate) into some massive reflection upon the whole. What value is there in dredging up old-stories-of-poor-service/quality/distribution/etc?

I sure hope that the OP contacted Kodak Global to ensure that this local subsidiary adheres with the QC standards that we all know are upheld elsewhere.....I mean Tri-X isn't the worlds best-selling-film-for-nothin?

Threads like this serve no value unless action is taken to ensure this issue is dealt with appropriately...


Proof AU is a subsidiary
http://print21.com.au/kodak-australia-dodges-bankruptcy-bullet/34589

It is more complex than that.

As far as I am aware, with the exception of commercial movie film, Kodak doesn't sell directly to any retailer or commercial photographer or processing laboratory.

Stephen's problem order wasn't actually filled by Kodak.

Kodak entirely dismantled its distribution network. Replacing that is a network of independent third party distributors who fulfill all wholesale and commercial orders. The distributors vary greatly in their quality and consistency.

The customer service responsibilities seem to be poorly distributed between Kodak employees and employees of Kodak's agents (the distributors).

This is Kodak's problem, and it is far more important than Stephen's problems with one or more problem orders - it is a systemic problem.

Kodak isn't the only one with the problem. Ilford (for example) is also forced to deal through a network of distributors. The difference though is:

1) Ilford has always had distributors in North America and other parts of the world. Kodak used to be its own distributor; and
2) Far fewer labs use Ilford materials than Kodak materials.

 

[zsas]

Hi Matt, seems that we are saying the same thing? I said the Kodak AU is its own entity (which you are saying is a network of further third parties). So if there is a QC issue in AU, and the OP received apology and resolution from Kodak AU, I advocated that the OP contact Kodak Global, instead of merely posting such issue on an Internet forum. All that does is cause come-out-of-the-wood-work discussions about how "Kodak wronged me too".....

I am saying OP contact Kodak AU (which was done to resolution), and contact Kodak Global re these issues in AU. Then and only then, should one get a cold shoulder, take-it-to-the-net.....

I think we agree this is an issue Kodak Global should be concerned with, regardless if there are 2,3,4 or 10,000 agents between the OP placing his order and the ultimate responsible party....

I really don't care if there are middle-layer folks in the process, Kodak AU and by extension Kodak Global put their name on the box and are ultimately the responsible parties...

Are you saying that since Kodak AU has many layers between them and the customer that they are somehow less responsible? They are responsible for the whole life cycle, regardless if they've more "middle layer" than say Kodak US has?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I don't know about old/expired film, but I can mention something odd I saw last week.
Michaels Cameras in Melbourne was unloading two large cardboard boxes of E100VS film into their shop floor fridge last Wednesday. I was examining a Holga and a Diana on the shelf next to the fridge and observed the guy cutting open the box. During lunch, I felt that it was odd to be seeing a film that I thought was discontinued (correct me if I'm wrong on this). These were two large boxes, all pro-packs being loaded in. It's either old/expired or new/uncirculated. I'll have a closer look when I return this week.

 

[MattKing]

Hi Matt, seems that we are saying the same thing? I said the Kodak AU is its own entity (which you are saying is a network of further third parties). So if there is a QC issue in AU, and the OP received apology and resolution from Kodak AU, I advocated that the OP contact Kodak Global, instead of merely posting such issue on an Internet forum. All that does is cause come-out-of-the-wood-work discussions about how "Kodak wronged me too".....

I am saying OP contact Kodak AU (which was done to resolution), and contact Kodak Global re these issues in AU. Then and only then, should one get a cold shoulder, take-it-to-the-net.....

I think we agree this is an issue Kodak Global should be concerned with, regardless if there are 2,3,4 or 10,000 agents between the OP placing his order and the ultimate responsible party....

I really don't care if there are middle-layer folks in the process, Kodak AU and by extension Kodak Global put their name on the box and are ultimately the responsible parties...

Are you saying that since Kodak AU has many layers between them and the customer that they are somehow less responsible? They are responsible for the whole life cycle, regardless if they've more "middle layer" than say Kodak US has?

Andy:

Each of the Kodak subsidiaries are independent. They happen to be owned by the bankrupt Eastman Kodak (and therefore must show somewhere as an asset on Eastman Kodak's balance sheet) but as independent entities they bear the brunt of problems in their supply chain, and enjoy the profits that might arise out of that supply chain.

The problem is that Stephen could not have bought that out-dated material from Kodak AU - only from a distributor. That distributor bought it from Kodak AU (or possibly another distributor). Strictly speaking, Kodak AU probably doesn't have any contractual relationship with Stephen's business, and so would not be legally responsible for the distributor's actions.

To approach it that way would however be disastrous for Kodak AU. So they made sure the situation was fixed, but the chain of supply means that problems like this are much more likely to occur.

 

[MattKing]

I don't know about old/expired film, but I can mention something odd I saw last week.
Michaels Cameras in Melbourne was unloading two large cardboard boxes of E100VS film into their shop floor fridge last Wednesday. I was examining a Holga and a Diana on the shelf next to the fridge and observed the guy cutting open the box. During lunch, I felt that it was odd to be seeing a film that I thought was discontinued (correct me if I'm wrong on this). These were two large boxes, all pro-packs being loaded in. It's either old/expired or new/uncirculated. I'll have a closer look when I return this week.

Gary:

As far as I can determine, the last batch of Kodak produced slide film hasn't yet been all sold.

I have Ektachrome 100G in 120 in my freezer that I purchased after the discontinuation was announced that has a 2014 "best before" date - I would expect that the film you saw has a date that is similar.

 

[zsas]

Hi Matt - I guess at the end of the day Kodak AU and Kodak Global are the bottom line, the customer doesn't need to know all that third party liability business. Though technically you are right, Kodak AU is like a franchisee and therefore if I go into a franchise restaurant and am treated poor, one should contact the owner of the restaurant and the franchisor....same thing here. The shell-game-supply-chain-third-party-arrangements, though I am sure you are correct re the lineage, comes of like you are trying to explain why this could happen, when it really is something not for us to explain but Kodak AU and Kodak Global to explain.....I really don't understand why all this lineage matters. It's their deal (AU/Global) to resolve and explain and not the Internet's....

I think at the end of the day, we prob both agree Kodak AU and Kodak Global deserve a call/letter....

 

[MattKing]

Andy:

The distribution chain problems are critical, and the customer does need to worry about it. That is what should be in any letter to Kodak AU.

Eastman Kodak probably aren't even allowed to do business directly in Australia - they would have to refer the matter to Kodak AU.

The prices and level of service are being determined by the distributors - not by Kodak AU. Eastman Kodak has even less to say in the matter, and in any event are in bankruptcy.

From other posts here on APUG, it is clear that users of Kodak and other materials in Australia are paying exorbitant prices - they often can buy at a significant discount if they are willing to pay retail prices elsewhere and incur the shipping and import costs.

Even users of Ilford materials are having difficulties with distribution. Ilford customers in the UK can apparently buy for less cost Ilford materials that are manufactured in the UK, shipped to North America, sold at retail in the US and then shipped back and imported to the UK by the end user than if they buy them from a UK source.

 

[Petzvalsum]

Related or not: Freestyle has short-dated TMX 100 (135 size), and B&H _had_ the same (135-36), latter now "discontinued". I've not seen everything, yet I'd not seen short-dated TMX before from major retailers.

(Disclosure: I love TMX-135)

 

[PKM-25]

To be fair upon calling Kodak they realizes this and are willing to exchanging the stock, but it does make me wonder whats going on.

But you decided to open an APUG can of worms anyway by posting a thread about it? Seems kind of a sensationalist move to me, can we please give Kodak a break for once?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

But you decided to open an APUG can of worms anyway by posting a thread about it? Seems kind of a sensationalist move to me, can we please give Kodak a break for once?

That's an interesting statement.

 

[lxdude]

I think it makes sense to change the title to ensure it does not mislead.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Title updated.

 

[PKM-25]

Title updated.

Thanks David, post away folks!

 

[Stephen Frizza]

I simply posted this thread as an update on inner workings in the local Australian industry, both myself and other sydney businesses were affected by the shipment of stocks from the distributor to to us being out of date before arrival. It was simply sharing of an event.

 

[MattKing]

Stephen:

I, for one appreciate your raising your concerns here, but while this may risk belabouring the point, I'd like to highlight the differences between two of your posts.

First, your initial post:

This month something interesting has been happening in Australia with certain Kodak Products....Kodak has been supplying local businesses with out of date stock.

Secondly, your most recent post:

I simply posted this thread as an update on inner workings in the local Australian industry, both myself and other sydney businesses were affected by the shipment of stocks from the distributor to to us being out of date before arrival. It was simply sharing of an event.

The emphasis was added by me.

So much of the dysfunction we observe in the photographic industry flows from problems with the distribution system. That is, of course a problem for the manufacturers, but it also is a problem for the retailers, labs, commercial end users and non-commercial end users.

The distributors seem to get off Scot free when complaints are shared. That should not be the case.

 

[eddie]

Matt- I don't think it matters to Stephen whether Kodak, or the distributor, is at fault. He has a business to run, and can't do so with dated materials. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably blame Kodak. Ultimately, they are responsible for their distribution network.

 

[PKM-25]

Matt- I don't think it matters to Stephen whether Kodak, or the distributor, is at fault. He has a business to run, and can't do so with dated materials. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably blame Kodak. Ultimately, they are responsible for their distribution network.

I have a business to run too. But when I have an issue with a product or a vendor, I take the appropriate measures to allow that company to make good on the situation before I would even imagine posting a thread on a site filled with hobby types that likely are far from having the right answer.

Web born complaints that stick around forever have caused a lot of good companies headaches because tons of people get to chime in with their opinions about the issues before the company even gets to fully rectify it. Simon Galley of Ilford is not only on this site to be a great spokesperson for the company, which he is. He is also on here to put fires out that people light without a care in the world regards to anyone but themselves.

The Internet, destroying common courtesy and decency one lousy thread at a time...

 

[eddie]

If you read his post, he says Kodak was going to rectify the situation. I do agree, having Simon here, to represent Ilford, probably means this wouldn't occur with their products. If only Kodak saw fit to do the same...
As for Stephen not having "a care in the world regards to anyone but themselves [himself]", I don't see where you come up with that statement. We have a lot of Aussie members to whom this information may be relevant. I doubt anything he's posted can do any more damage to Kodak than they've already self-inflicted.

 

[Stephen Frizza]

If you read his post, he says Kodak was going to rectify the situation. I do agree, having Simon here, to represent Ilford, probably means this wouldn't occur with their products. If only Kodak saw fit to do the same...
As for Stephen not having "a care in the world regards to anyone but themselves [himself]", I don't see where you come up with that statement. We have a lot of Aussie members to whom this information may be relevant. I doubt anything he's posted can do any more damage to Kodak than they've already self-inflicted.

Correct for example two of the products involved are the consumer Kodak 400 MAX and Kodak Gold 200 films. these films are stocked in local super markets, many ma and pa camera stores. People will notice these films scarce on the shelves. The reason is what I initially posed. And as I said the kodak distributor is taking appropriate action to get in date stock and re supply retailers with this stock. The distributor is also going to allow retailers to keep the out of date stocks at no charge. so expect some very cheap rolls to be out and about on the local market.

 

[Dr Croubie]

The distributor is also going to allow retailers to keep the out of date stocks at no charge. so expect some very cheap rolls to be out and about on the local market.

Now there's the good news for us, was it only Gold and Max, or was there any b/w or e6 in there?
Not so good news for the distributors and/or kodak or whoever is ultimately going to have to write-down a whole lot of stuff as a loss...

 

[PKM-25]

As for Stephen not having "a care in the world regards to anyone but themselves [himself]", I don't see where you come up with that statement. We have a lot of Aussie members to whom this information may be relevant. I doubt anything he's posted can do any more damage to Kodak than they've already self-inflicted.

No, that is not what I meant, obviously he cares. I'm just saying that this kind of thing happens far too much on the web and it does more damage than good. I need Kodak products that I have come to prefer to do my job, just like I have other tools or materials that I depend on to do my job. I have always done and always do my part to maintain great working relationships with those who provide me with both the services and products that I depend on.

I think avoiding posting things on the web at all costs only helps to foster these relationships, we protect each other's mutually beneficial interests. And perhaps you misunderstood the context in which I mentioned Simon Galley, clearly put, because of how nasty and damaging the Internet can be, he is as much a babysitter of the brand as he is a front man...this was never quite as nasty a problem pre-Internet. Period.

Whether or not a company's wrong decisions could be deemed as self inflicted or not should be an invitation to pour gasoline on them and throw a match in, why add to it?....unless one gets more enjoyment living a virtual life rather than a real one...

 

[eddie]

I think you're overestimating the damage Stephen's post caused Kodak.
I do have a question, though. Do you think 20-25 years ago Kodak would have allowed a distributor to deliver expired goods? I remember a few times, visiting my local camera store, when a Kodak rep was checking expiration dates on products. If an item was even close to past-date, he pulled it.
Distributors have written agreements with the companies they represent. I've no doubt the distributor responsible for this has a contractual agreement to supply fresh goods or, at the very least, not to supply dated goods as new.
I was raised on Kodak. I find their difficulties as painful as most here. But, the ultimate responsibility when you open a yellow box is theirs. They need to do a better job policing their distributors.