The Polariodization of Kodak

[Ken Nadvornick]

A very good point that had escaped me...



Ken

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...The "Kodak" labelled product originally linked to is being licensed by Eastman Kodak, not Kodak Alaris.

So it may be that Kodak Alaris is as unhappy about this apparent dilution of the brand as some of us here are.

Kodak Alaris' possible unhappiness is as insignificant as the unhappiness of posters in this thread. Alaris got branding rights for the product lines it got, nothing more. It has no say in what Eastman Kodak does with branding rights for other products / product lines.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...maybe you are right, it won't accomplish anything but it will be $$ in their bank account to help with other film related efforts ( maybe?)...

Brand licensing income realized by Eastman Kodak will not, I'm afraid, be used for anything film related. In my opinion, Bldg. 38 is a "dead man walking."

...if alaris decides to oursource the film production and slap the kodak name on it, while it won't be the film we use today, it still will be film ... it is already being done with chemistry, isn't it ?...

Yes, it is. However, pre-packaged photo chemicals and film are very different animals.

...are the chemicals champion and others(?) make with kodak's name on them that much different than the chemicals that kodak made and sold themselves ?...

Even with something as simple as XTOL, Tetenal has made a change currently being discussed in another thread here. How much different? Still an open question in my mind. However, I've no doubt that any films coated by others (Alaris Harrow or elsewhere) and marketed as "Kodak" would bear only a passing resemblance to today's Kodak films.

 

[film_man]

I just don't understand in a world where Ilford can continue production and slowly grow while Ferrania gathers enough money to start production you have the likes of Kodak Alaris with the largest sales share in the still film market simply treating it as a byproduct and slowly killing it with no interest in maintaining production. It just beggars belief.

 

[RattyMouse]

Kodak Alaris' possible unhappiness is as insignificant as the unhappiness of posters in this thread. Alaris got branding rights for the product lines it got, nothing more. It has no say in what Eastman Kodak does with branding rights for other products / product lines.

I have never seen any film branded as Kodak Alaris. The most recent boxes of TMAX 400, bought this month had the name Eastman Kodak on it.

I don't see Alaris with any rights to film branding at all.

 

[film_man]

Kodak Alaris now owns the film and paper business. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), they make and sell the paper and have a supply agreement with the film production factory in the US to buy the base product from them and then sell it. I believe Kodak Alaris only sells the still film, the motion picture stuff is still sold from the US company.

The film is still branded Kodak/Eastman Kodak or whatever, they wouldn't change it however it is their product and they could very well do that. For example, it was well in their rights to stop selling Kodak BW400CN and all slide film, it is their product now.

 

[NJH]

I just don't understand in a world where Ilford can continue production and slowly grow while Ferrania gathers enough money to start production you have the likes of Kodak Alaris with the largest sales share in the still film market simply treating it as a byproduct and slowly killing it with no interest in maintaining production. It just beggars belief.

Cough, cough, Fujifilm. These companies were huge, the imaging part of Fuji is what 15% or so of the company. Within that analog photographic film for the likes of us i.e. not instax is probably another minor percentage, it could be less than a few % of the total Fujifilm company. In light of this its hardly surprising when they kill off films like Neopan 400 despite whatever they may claim about being a film company. This is the reality analog photography is a tiny niche these days, tiny niches are fine for small companies whether its Ilford or for example a small car company in Malvern who still likes to build cars using ash frames and hand beating panels. If one went to GM however and said no worries you can forget mass production as there is a nice niche market for ash framed cars you would get laughed at, I see all these suggestions around downsizing Kodak and Fuji for our narrow desires in the same light. It would be nice but it makes no commercial sense whatsoever.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I have never seen any film branded as Kodak Alaris. The most recent boxes of TMAX 400, bought this month had the name Eastman Kodak on it...

And the recent 120 pro pack of 100 TMAX I purchased also said Eastman Kodak on it. However, there have been posts here mentioning boxes of other film types that include Alaris identification. Perhaps both you and I are getting stock packaged or using packaging printed before the settlement. A commentary on how low actual TMAX sales volumes are?

...I don't see Alaris with any rights to film branding at all.

That's exactly what Alaris got: the right to sell film with the "Kodak" logo/name on it. Along with a duration-limited (term not revealed publicly) supply agreement with Eastman Kodak.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...That's exactly what Alaris got: the right to sell film with the "Kodak" logo/name on it...

See this page

http://www.kodakalaris.com/ek/US/en/NewCo_Home_Top/About_Us/Frequently_Asked_Questions.htm​

and scroll down near the end to read this section:

Does Kodak Alaris have a license to use the Kodak brand?​

 

[railwayman3]

I have a feeling that "trust" in a brand name must have something to do with it. If we consider most "big" brands, we have a measure of trust that we can rely on the quality of the brand, whether the product is made by the company or outsourced to another supplier. The case of Porsche cars above is an example....I personally would trust the brand, even if the car was made in Finland, as my impression would be that Porsche would directly supervise the manufacture and impose the same quality controls as a German model (not that I could ever afford a new Porsche!).

Not sure that the same applies to Kodak now....I have some Kodak brand AA batteries in front of me, "Made in China for and distributed by Strand Europe Ltd........trademark used under license from Kodak". The batteries may be fine, and I've no reason to doubt that Strand Europe is a good company, but it just doesn't give the comfortable feeling of "Made in USA by Eastman Kodak Company", or "Made in England by Kodak Ltd., London" ?

 

[Xmas]

Apparently Sony have contracted for five years of ECN!
So you could stop worrying other than Tx or Tmax400 following Plus-x

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...When Hollywood stops subsidizing Bldg. 38, and not a minute later, Eastman Kodak will cease production of film...

...In my opinion, Bldg. 38 is a "dead man walking."...

During the final week of July 2014 and first week of August 2014 there was a flurry of reports about how Hollywood studios, after turning down Eastman Kodak's "offer" to purchase Bldg. 38 and the film manufacturing business, had bowed to pressure from big-name directors and agreed to purchase Kodak film in future years whether it were to be needed or not.

I've just come across this mid-October article

http://www.studiodaily.com/2014/10/after-more-layoffs-kodaks-film-business-may-be-in-jeopardy/​

that claims only Disney (at that time) had actually executed such an agreement, which would leave the future of Kodak film once again uncertain, even in the short term. Google turns up nothing further, and the Kodak Motion Picture Film Facebook page won't load anything prior to last November, so I can't verify actual status. Does anyone know where this stands today or have a link to definitive information on the subject?

 

[RattyMouse]

During the final week of July 2014 and first week of August 2014 there was a flurry of reports about how Hollywood studios, after turning down Eastman Kodak's "offer" to purchase Bldg. 38 and the film manufacturing business, had bowed to pressure from big-name directors and agreed to purchase Kodak film in future years whether it were to be needed or not.

I've just come across this mid-October article

http://www.studiodaily.com/2014/10/after-more-layoffs-kodaks-film-business-may-be-in-jeopardy/​

that claims only Disney (at that time) had actually executed such an agreement, which would leave the future of Kodak film once again uncertain, even in the short term. Google turns up nothing further, and the Kodak Motion Picture Film Facebook page won't load anything prior to last November, so I can't verify actual status. Does anyone know where this stands today or have a link to definitive information on the subject?

I read similar reports, that after all the big hub hub about Hollywood saving Kodak, that most of the studios walked away from the deal leaving Kodak to supply film to only a single studio.

Ever since then there's been a complete moratorium on news.

This can't be good at all.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Does anyone know where this stands today or have a link to definitive information on the subject?

Official word issued today:

http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak...m_Agreements_with_Major_Hollywood_Studios.htm​

Good news to those who hope for continued availability of Rochester-manufactured Kodak still films. This newspaper article

http://www.democratandchronicle.com...ak-inks-film-supply-deals-hollywood/22890657/,​

also from today, notes Kodak's unwillingness to disclose durations of the agreements, but the term "years into the future" is used, so those who pay Alaris prices can count on at least two more years.

 

[Dr Croubie]

the term "years into the future" is used, so those who pay Alaris prices can count on at least two more years.

Good to see it's at least plural. Although, technically, you use a plural for decimals too, eg "0.5 years"