Some Good News.... Kodak sees resurgence of film

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak produces or has invented most of the high level digital sensors now available. Not much profit margin though!

PE

 

[michaelbsc]

I thought they produced the sensor in the new digital Leica.

But that doesn't carry a Kodak brand. The branding is just as important as the product to keep revenue flowing.

 

[clayne]

But that doesn't carry a Kodak brand. The branding is just as important as the product to keep revenue flowing.

I disagree. Branding is marketing.

 

[michaelbsc]

But that doesn't carry a Kodak brand. The branding is just as important as the product to keep revenue flowing.

I disagree. Branding is marketing.

Ok, from a purely utilitarian standpoint you are correct. And some of the largest, most successful corporations in the world are the nameless, faceless OEM shops in Asia.

But that only works if the marketers have a brand for your OEM products. Kodak is on the wrong end of the pipeline for that strategy.

 

[Q.G.]

When people come knocking on your door, wanting to buy your sensors, you don't need to spend time nor money on branding or marketing.

 

[clayne]

It's not just Asian companies, Michael. Plenty of suppliers both market and sell straight to other companies without marketing.

Marketing is based on consumers. Commercial entities don't usually bother with that. They send out a spec and collect bids.

Even competing commercial entities can end up supplying and selling to each other.

Theres Joe Public and then there's actual industry.

 

[Donmck]

When is a $43M 3Q loss good enough news to break a stock out to the upside?

When it's Kodak


The bad news---Traditional Film and photo finishing sector down big time again.

The good news--Secret deal with digi camera mfg'er(in order for Kodak to continue to make film,they have to survive as a company.)

RESULTS: Eastman Kodak Co. posted a third-quarter loss of $43 million, or 16 cents per share, compared with a loss of $111 million, or 41 cents a share, in the July-September period of 2009. Sales dipped 1 percent to $1.76 billion.

REASONS: The photography pioneer benefited particularly from a $210 million gain from a licensing agreement with an undisclosed digital-camera competitor. But its traditional film and photofinishing business took a tumble, with earnings from operations sliding from $47 million to $20 million

 

[B&Wpositive]

But its traditional film and photofinishing business took a tumble, with earnings from operations sliding from $47 million to $20 million

There is no way people like us are responsible for that much of a drop. It's clearly the motion picure end that is responsible.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have posted those details in another thread regarding the dip in analog sales.

I also learned recently that Kodak is sinking deeper and deeper into debt due to these losses.

PE

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

(in order for Kodak to continue to make film,they have to survive as a company.)

No...

In order for Kodak to continue to make film*, they would have to execute a strategic about-face and stop persuing their oft-stated goal of a complete transition away from film imaging technology and toward digital imaging technology.

"[Kodak] called me because in the past I had shown a lot of interest especially in the IP portfolio of the company when I was working for another company. And I was fascinated by the digital technology of this company for many years. I was fascinated as well by the fact that the company wasn't doing much with it... So I came here on the directive from the board to create a new company based on digital technologies..."

--Antonio Perez, President and CEO of Kodak, in an interview with Paul Ericson for the Rochester Business Journal, July 23, 2010.​

Kodak's current and future strategic direction cannot be stated with greater clarity - or by a more authoritative source - than that. We need only to listen to what he is telling us.

Ken

* In the long run, which is what film users really need right now. Not in the short run, which is what Kodak really needs right now.

[Edit: To those who still believe that if we just continue to purchase Kodak film products Kodak will happily continue to manufacture them for us - as we have so often been told in these forums - I would suggest reading the above referenced interview article in detail. I tried, but found it virtually impossible to draw that conclusion from any of what was said by Mr. Perez. To the contrary, he again repeatedly infers or outright states that in his vision Kodak is no longer a photographic film technology company. And he also tells you exactly what are Kodak's four new lines of products that he chose to bet the company's future on. None of them are film related in any way.]

 

[lxdude]

But that only works if the marketers have a brand for your OEM products. Kodak is on the wrong end of the pipeline for that strategy.

Not necessarily. Kodak has high name recognition. And OEM branding can work-for instance, "Intel Inside". Intel sells the general public on the idea of Intel products inside the computers they buy, but don't sell any products to the general public themselves.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak sensors are in a lot of cameras without the Kodak label appearing anywhere. Why is that? Stupid if you ask me!

PE

 

[Donmck]

No electronics (digital) Co. wants Kodaks' name on their products.Consumers would consider it a downgrade---old school tech.$600 iPhone that says "Kodak Inside"
My kids wouldn't touch it.

 

[michaelbsc]

No electronics (digital) Co. wants Kodaks' name on their products.Consumers would consider it a downgrade---old school tech.$600 iPhone that says "Kodak Inside"
My kids wouldn't touch it.

That's a Madison Avenue image problem. It can be fixed.

As Lee Iococca noted once about a vehicle that came from one of the Chrysler plants but was badged both as a Dodge and Mitsubishi, "We don't have a quality problem. It's the same car. We hdve an image problem because the Mitsubishi outsells the Chrysler 3 to 1."

Of course, we are how Chrysler handled it.

 

[Donmck]

Micheal--

maybe 15-20 years ago,when they had the money and control of the market----
but I don't see them ever becoming a"digital" co. that can compete with Samsung,Matsushita,Sony, etc.

Alot of people rag on the management, and maybe they have a point-----but name 5 large companies that have made the transition from analog to digital.How many typewriter companies are still in business?

My kids both have Lumix cameras that they never use.They use their iPhones
which are the new instamatic. Did you notice Kodak said thay are getting out of the low end digi cameras---a little late as usual.:whistling

 

[tomalophicon]

Alot of people rag on the management, and maybe they have a point-----but name 5 large companies that have made the transition from analog to digital.How many typewriter companies are still in business?

Sony, Nokia, IBM, Canon, Nikon, Ricoh..... The list could go on and on.

 

[Donmck]

They're mostly electronic co.'s --they were the transition---- the others don't do their own electronics

I'm talking about Kodak making the transition in 2010- not 1980

 

[Moopheus]

That's a Madison Avenue image problem. It can be fixed.

It's not entirely an image problem. It's not that people just perceive some Kodak consumer products as junk when they are actually equivalent to other products. It's that some Kodak consumer products are junk. A while ago I got to play with one of Kodak's consumer digital cameras, and it was terrible. The design was klunky and the provided software was bad. Not too surprising from the company that gave us 110 and disc.

Meanwhile, their professional films are state-of-the-art; they produce research-grade optical equipment, and sophisticated electronics. But none of that matters to someone looking for a cheap digicam.

 

[M.A.Longmore]

.
I'm Confused.

I just went through three " Photography " magazines.
I found no advertising for Kodak Film.

That's SoKodak !

Something Is Rotten In The State Of Rochester ...


Ron
.

 

[Q.G.]

We must keep our likes and dislikes about digital separate from what would be the better strategy in the current market.
Kodak's films are superb. Nothing wrong with them.
Digital photography is here in a big way, and it's here to stay. That's clear.
Will the dwindling film market (it is that) be able to keep making film possible? What we have seen so far (Agfa dropping out, Fuji and Kodak 'restructuring' their offerings. Almost no film consuming cameras being produced anymore) does not hold a lot of promise. So if the EK CEO says he is aiming for a completely digital future, it sends shivers up and down my spine, yet i can't help thinking that that is a very wise thing to do, 'businesswise'.

 

[Anon Ymous]

.
I'm Confused.

I just went through three " Photography " magazines.
I found no advertising for Kodak Film.

That's SoKodak !

Something Is Rotten In The State Of Rochester ...


Ron
.

Ron, an advertisement is a form of investment. When making an investment, you'd expect to get your investment back, plus some more, right? Now, let's have a look at these "photographic" magazines and their content. Film is usually something frowned upon, when you can have the latest and greatest D camera... IMHO, the environment is pretty hostile to put an advertisement there. The vast majority of the readers don't want to know anything about film either; they view it as something anachronistic. So, why should Kodak, or any other manufacturer, advertise their film in the magazines, if they can't expect to get their money back? Have you seen film from any manufacturer being advertised in photographic magazines?

 

[perkeleellinen]

Kodak advertises in Aperture magazine. A nice full page ad for Ektar in the latest edition.

 

[michaelbsc]

Kodak advertises in Aperture magazine. A nice full page ad for Ektar in the latest edition.

And to Anon's point, it's unlikely that anyone reading the "popular" digital magazines will buy any film at all.

Unless perhaps you advertise Ektar as the $5.00 25-Megapixle capture medium. Maybe then you'd get some traction.

 

[Anon Ymous]

And to Anon's point, it's unlikely that anyone reading the "popular" digital magazines will buy any film at all.

Unless perhaps you advertise Ektar as the $5.00 25-Megapixle capture medium. Maybe then you'd get some traction.

Exactly. The advertisement in Aperture on the other hand is (IMHO) a case of targeted, efficient advertising.

 

[MaximusM3]

Kodak was at PDN in NYC yesterday with a nice film booth and giving away rolls of Tri-X. LOTS of people and they were out of Tri-X by 1:00pm, whatever that means. New Portra 400 will be there today and many were asking/interested. Fun event.