Kodak's Future

<p>Was reading news about Kodak and speculation about future of the Corp. It was interesting to note-the CEO is signed on until 2013. Since I've been away from the hobby for awhile, much of this is news...</p>

<p>One look at their stock data over time and one will see a gradual decline in share price and that is not encouraging for the company. Their profit margin, return on assets, earnings per share growth all look dismal. Investors are not buying the stock, if that tells you anything.</p>

<p>Kodak-<strong>ugh</strong> ! Kodak blew it and it's that simple. It used to be the altar that most photo people worshiped at. They pretty much had a wrap on most things outside of cameras and clung on to that thinking that digital was probably a fad.</p>

<p>Myself, I did buy a few shares of the stock years ago at 70 plus bucks and I believe it is now around 5.00. My son picked me up one of their SLR camera's and after one year the lens locked up at full extension. The price to fix it is $220.00 and listed as a normal problem.</p>

<p>My final strike came this year. I did store a number of photos at their site and I spend quite a few months of 2009 in the hospital. Towards the end of the year I was ready to turn my computer back on and found out they sent a email that said if you didn't spend 15.00 a year they would dump your photos. I called them and told them the situation and that I would be happy to spend the fifteen bucks. Their response was pretty much "sorry, they are gone". If I was going to perish from thirst and Kodak was selling water for a penny a bottle I would not buy it.</p>

<p>I suffer from Irish alzheimer's which means I forget everything except my grudges. :))</p>

<p> Kodak is suffering from a failure to thrive. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>They pretty much had a wrap on most things outside of cameras and clung on to that thinking that digital was probably a fad.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure that your statement is completely accurate given that Kodak engineers were on the forefront of creating digital sensors. I think it would be more accurate to say that if they had ignored digital, they might have delayed the revolution for a bit longer and might be in a better position today. Or that if they had worked harder to keep the technology forthemselves rather than licensing it, they might be in a stronger position today.</p>

<p>in any case, there are alot of things that can be said about Kodak's business choices. But that is true of any large company with as long of a history as Kodak. They do have good people working there who care about photography, care about digital, and yes, care about film. Does that mean they will be around in 25 years? I have no idea. I'm sure everyone in the northwest thought that Washington Mutual would be around that long just a few years ago. Look how wrong we were.</p>

<p>I don't think Kodak's problems came from ignoring digital. If anything, they jumped in too soon, without a good understanding of the changes that would be required from a film state of mind.</p>

<p>The Leica M9 uses a sensor from Kodak, don't know much else about the company but if they can make a full frame sensor and a brand like Leica is willing to use it, then I guess they know a thing or two about digital.</p>

<p>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/News/pressReleases/archive/2009/pr3.jhtml?pq-path=15380/15611</p>

<p>On the other hand, I remember as a kid seeing Kodak everywhere and still when I travel see Kodak ads in tobacco stores, I would guess kids now days won't know what that company makes or what they are selling.</p>

<p>Sad to see ads for Kodak gear on a local online site - as Kodiac and Kodiak! Seems the brand is fading away.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kodak has been involved with digital about longer than anybody around. They were into/researching digital recording back in San Diego 30 years ago; they had a full skunkworks for optical recording on media and sensors too. When APS came out; Kodak somehow thought this was going to be another gravy train. A photo trade show when APS came out; there were also other companys hawking digital. I think Kodak missed understanding how folks would use a digital camera for BBS photos; web photos; ebay photos. Kodaks latest push is trying to get folks to use a lower cost inkjet system; ie theirs. Kodak is now attacking/sueing Apple and RIM/blackberry over patents; ie digital photo stuff in phones; patents they own.</p>

<p>IMO, Kodak's downfall came with the hideous disk camera. They spent a fortune researching and creating a 'model of photographic space', built in all sorts of features to help out photo-finishers. Then three things happened, all of which they should have predicted. 1) The images sucked. Grain all over the place, skin tone from hell, etc. 2) The processing machines were so damn expensive, no minilab wanted to buy them. (Some did, but lost money.) 3) Canon introduced the Snappy 35, and created the auto-loading, DX detecting 35mm, which quickly dominated the amateur/family market the disk was supposed to suit.</p>

<p>Here's something that's not helping: the price of their film. I can buy Fuji Acros 120, a beautiful film, for $2.89. T-Max is $4.00--one third more expensive. In 35mm, I can use Arista Premium for $2.09, or Kodak Plus-X for $6.29.<br>

I should buy Kodak for 3 times the cost?<br>

Fuji Acros in 35mm: $4 vs. Kodak T-Max for $5.<br>

In color neg film, a propack of Portra is $22, and Fuji is $19.<br>

Unfortunately, I simply don't have any compelling reason to pay more for Kodak film when the alternatives are just as good, and cheaper.</p>

<p>Given all the technology they put into film and paper, and their many publications and especially expertise in those areas (from Kodachrome onwards, over at least 60 years), it is surprising that they completely massacred their B&W photographic paper business and a lot of their color paper and film businesses. It might have made more business sense to maintain a much smaller business unit in these areas, instead of abdicating to others, like Ilford (now Harman), who it is said now has about 60% of the photographic paper business. Fuji has maintained their film and paper production, with the latter particularly in the color materials sector. Accordingly, film and darkroom and commercial printing users are remaining faithful to Fuji. It seems that the market for traditional photo materials will continue, if at reduced size.</p>

<p>Given that comparisons with other industries are not always fruitful, the past situation for Bombardier comes to mind, the Canadian multinational manufacturer of commercial aircraft, rail equipment and ski-doos/sea-doos, chose to sell back the latter recreational business to family members, rather than closing it in times of reduced demand. It still operates as a smaller unit than the parent company. It would have made more sense, IMHO, for Kodak to have done something similar with their silver-based photographic products, while developing the more marketable digital technology. </p>

<p>"One look at their stock data over time and one will see a gradual decline in share price and that is not encouraging for the company"<br>

That, applies to a large number of companies these days.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It still operates as a smaller unit than the parent company. It would have made more sense, IMHO, for Kodak to have done something similar with their silver-based photographic products, while developing the more marketable digital technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Given the size of the production facilities and the scale that they are designed to operate, I'm not sure that was possible at Kodak. though I could surely be wrong.</p>

<p>The whole camera business seems to be a minefield today. Kodak, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax and Fuji; too serious a misstep and anyone of them could be history in a decade or so. Minolta and Konica leaving the camera biz behind sure surprised me, but in hindsight I suppose it was not unexpected in some circles. Digital has become a disposable consumer gadget like my $79.99 5 year old DVD player. When it goes belly up there is no choice but to make it landfill.</p>

<p>It would be strange if the only surviving camera companies are the non traditional ones.</p>

<p>Kodak reports that in the 3rd quarter of 2009, its "traditional business" (Film, Photofinishing, and Entertainment), provided about 30% of its revenue. The rest is digital someting or other. As Josh suggests, scaling back film/paper may not be an option. But in Kodak's favor, as we switch to digital, we can still buy Kodak products if they suit us. Kodak pins a lot of hope on its consumer and commercial ink jet product lines</p>

<p>I think Kodak got rid of silver/light based paper in B&W several years ago; and the paper they sell is inkjet; or color stuff for C41 labs (maybe)</p>