Would Kodak Sell Film Division?

[markbarendt]

Okay, first off, no I haven't got any real info here, but the following post from a different thread (along with all the other moaning about the loss of Kodak films here on APUG) got me thinking.

...When the highest levels of management at Kodak stated that the film side of their business could disappear tomorrow and they wouldn't care...

If Ken is right and this is true (and I don't really doubt it), Kodak would probably be happier than heck to sell the film division at a fair price.

All it would take to prove Kodak's Film Division can be better run and profitable (or not) is some (well, probably a lot of) cash and the willingness of a fair number of us "believers" to make a career change (switch from fairly dependable 9-5 work to high-risk 24/7 work).

So, any takers?

 

[Chazzy]

I think the title of this thread needs to be changed—it implies that the film division actually is for sale.

 

[Sean]

I changed the title so it doesn't set off panic stations..

 

[Ian Grant]

No, because it keeps the rest of Kodak afloat.

Would we all be better off if it was separate ? Without a doubt because the management would be more rational and committed to our needs.

Ian

 

[benjiboy]

I try not to worry about things that are beyond my control, whatever I feel about it, if it's going to happen I can't stop them.

 

[markbarendt]

Fair change on the title.

 

[Anon Ymous]

No, because it keeps the rest of Kodak afloat...

Motion picture films obviously help a lot and I'd like to know what part of the film division's profit comes from films used in photography. Probably not much... So, let's assume that it's the too large coating facilities that make things hard and Kodak is willing to sell the film division. If so, the buyer would have to invest money in new coating machines, right? Additionally, there would be costs involving transfering production of existing products in these new machines. Do you really think there's anybody out there willing to make that investment?

 

[benjiboy]

It strikes me that if Kodak's management become aware of this poll on a forum with nearly 39,000 film enthusiasts, and the inevitable outcome considering the questions asked, it will only add to the speed of film's demise.

 

[Steve Smith]

It strikes me that if Kodak's management become aware of this poll on a forum with nearly 39,000 film enthusiasts, and the inevitable outcome considering the questions asked, it will only add to the speed of film's demise.

It may add to the speed of the demise of Kodak's film production. This would put Ilford and Fujifilm in a stronger position though.


Steve.

 

[Ektagraphic]

If they decided to keep the current films exactly how they are and if anything brought old ones back I may use them.

 

[Anon Ymous]

It strikes me that if Kodak's management become aware of this poll on a forum with nearly 39,000 film enthusiasts, and the inevitable outcome considering the questions asked, it will only add to the speed of film's demise.

Kodak's management (and Ilford's, Fuji's, etc...) know a lot more about film's future than 39.000 speculators in this forum. Sorry, couldn't resist...

 

[Chazzy]

In this hypothetical scenario, if I were in charge of the now-independent film division, I would find some enthusiastic film photographers with knowledge of Internet and unconventional marketing and put them in charge of marketing. Hopefully one of the first things that they would do is to become a corporate sponsor of APUG and field questions from users the way that other sponsors do. HP Marketing fields questions on the large format forum and Photo.net; why not Kodak? (I wish that HP Marketing would be an APUG sponsor and participate here).

 

[trotkiller]

I try not to worry about things that are beyond my control, whatever I feel about it, if it's going to happen I can't stop them.

Very wise words

 

[removed account4]

10+ years ago this might have been a wise solution, but now
it is a bit late to cut off the healthy part from the dying ...

 

[benjiboy]

Kodak's management (and Ilford's, Fuji's, etc...) know a lot more about film's future than 39.000 speculators in this forum. Sorry, couldn't resist...

What I meant was Kodak films demise, if they knew so much about films future how did they allow themselves to get into to current situation ?

 

[eclarke]

They will dismantle it before selling it to lessen any competition to digital imaging. They did this with the remains of Ansco/GAF/ Anitech, bought it from international Paper and demolished the coating line and buildings...Evan Clarke

 

[Anon Ymous]

What I meant was Kodak films demise, if they knew so much about films future how did they allow themselves to get into to current situation ?

Given the insight of some knowledgeable members here, they failed to predict the rate of transition to digital. As a result, when they "rationalised" their coating facilities some years ago, they still used large machines. That means they're unable to produce small quantities of slow selling products. At the same time, Ilford had financial troubles and Agfa went the way of the dodo. So, it seems that many companies had trouble predicting the sweeping effect digital photography would have. So, is it really Kodak films demise? I don't think so, it's film's demise in general.

 

[Namir]

in my opinion this poll actually is not asking me, if I believe Kodak's film division could survive and prosper, or not, if it was sold, but rather asking me, how important Kodak films are to me, or how much I personally like Kodak films.
Among the choices given, I could not vote fore the option nr. 4, which seemes to be supposed to be the option closest to "No, I do not believe at all，that the Kodak film division could survive on its own".
I personally did not really use Kodak films the last two or three years (except some rolls elitechrome, as it is on stock at the local drugstore), and also do not shoot two films every week, but I still may believe that it could survive and prosper.
Not to speak of risking my wealth for my "faith" in the Kodak film division.
So there is no option for me, and I think I am far away from being an extrem case concerning this topic. Maybe there are people who (for what reason ever) do not like Kodak films, but still strongly believe, the Kodak film devision could succesfully go its own ways. (maybe because they have a certain knowledge about the film-market and the importance of the brand Kodak or whatever)
Therefore I would suggest:

- Change the title of the poll in: "Would you personally support the Kodak film division, if it was sold, if yes: how?" (that would be the easiest way)

or:

- Leave the title, summarize the first four options into a single one ("I strongly believe that it would survive and prosper, and I believe in this to such a degree, that I would share the risk or commit to buy a certain quantity of films"), and add several other options,
e.g.: - Yes, Kodak is a strong brand and Kodak films have an excellent position at the film-market;
- Yes, although the film market will shrink, Kodak films will make it
- cannot decide, as I actually do not really understand markets and how the work in general, not to mention the film market in particular (that would be my choice, objectively regarded this would be the choice for the most of us...)
- No, I do not believe it.



just my 2cts

Bernhard

 

[benjiboy]

Given the insight of some knowledgeable members here, they failed to predict the rate of transition to digital. As a result, when they "rationalised" their coating facilities some years ago, they still used large machines. That means they're unable to produce small quantities of slow selling products. At the same time, Ilford had financial troubles and Agfa went the way of the dodo. So, it seems that many companies had trouble predicting the sweeping effect digital photography would have. So, is it really Kodak films demise? I don't think so, it's film's demise in general.

I agree with you entirely, the same can be said for the camera manufacturers, I worked in photographic stores for more than twenty years, when I go into them now I recognize very little of what they sell.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The sorts of investors who could even consider something like buying Kodak's film division, like the ones who bought Polaroid, aren't likely to do it for the sake of preserving the Kodak legacy or traditional photography. Selling the film division under those conditions would be a disaster.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The property on which Kodak Park sits has a huge legacy of chemical usage and storage. It therefore inherits a huge EPA burden in cleanup charges that may be imposed during a sale.

Therefore, a sale of the property is just not economically feasible for anyone to undertake under those conditions. So, in addition to being a cash cow as it now exists, it becomes an anchor when sold to anyone. No one would buy it, and at present, no one is interested in buying it.

The huge drop in film sales has taken place about 3x in the last 10 years. These were unpredictable by any existing sales model. No company has truly "survived" the 30% dips in 1 quarter associated with these changes. Yes, 30% drops in sales have taken place about 3x, once in 2005 and twice during the current economic downturn. This applies to the entire analog photo industry.

Kodak has destroyed all of the smaller, slower machines at KP except those in research. I have never heard of them buying any GAF equipment at all, ever. Is there a reference?

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodak bought the GAF coating equipment when they took over Anitec from International Paper, but it came as part of the package rather than them specifically buying the coating lines to use themselves.

Ian

 

[eclarke]

Kodak bought the GAF coating equipment when they took over Anitec from International Paper, but it came as part of the package rather than them specifically buying the coating lines to use themselves.

Ian

Hi Ian,
Yes, they bought the whole company, razed the place and made a ceremony out of cutting up the big steel from the coating machine. The remains of the rollers were on display on Broome St. for a fair while. Ansco/GAF/Anitec was my brother in law's only job after graduation from RIT until IP closed the placed. I worked across the street for a long time and got to go in quite a bit, Danny was a director level employee and in charge of QC and Tech Services. I think Kodak would chop the stuff up!!..TTYL..Evan

 

[Photo Engineer]

Something is missing here.

GAF exited the consumer photo business in 1977. The coating equipment for that end of the production was demolished at that time. Anitec was part of Ilford and produced graphic arts materials until 1998 when it was bought by EK. IDK how much equipment was there, but the consumer product coating was not in business since 1977. The equipment was apparently demolished back then. There was a later destruction of the Anitec graphics arts equipment that made some type of photo product. GAF was part of a Hong Kong company by then.

Anitec/Kodak produced some digital products after 1999.

Dead Link Removed

PE

 

[eclarke]

Something is missing here.

GAF exited the consumer photo business in 1977. The coating equipment for that end of the production was demolished at that time. Anitec was part of Ilford and produced graphic arts materials until 1998 when it was bought by EK. IDK how much equipment was there, but the consumer product coating was not in business since 1977. The equipment was apparently demolished back then. There was a later destruction of the Anitec graphics arts equipment that made some type of photo product. GAF was part of a Hong Kong company by then.

Anitec/Kodak produced some digital products after 1999.

Dead Link Removed

PE

Yes it was the graphic arts line, that was Anitec's business but it was a coating line. Digital typesetting really brought a screeching halt to the whole operation. Danny started there in the late 60s and I started working on Clinton St. in the early 70's, it was a real shock to see the place flattened, it was sort of a local landmark...EC