Kodak Film Sales

<p>I've been watching the photographic film industry for a couple of years. It's an incredible example of what the economists call "disruptive technology" with regards to what's happening to film because of digital.</p>

<p>The graphs show what has been happening with Kodak's film sales for the last few years. The first graph is the Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group which Kodak created in 2007 for reporting reasons. A couple of years before that, they started to break out films sales - hence why there isn't expenses related to the 2004 & 2005 years - those numbers weren't available. Those numbers include the movie film business.</p>

<p>Kodak is the film market leader for most of the World so their performance is a pretty good bellwether for the entire industry. What's happening to them is pretty much happening to everyone.</p>

<p>Assuming that their direct and indirect cost structure stays the same, FPEG will go into the red sometime between 2015 and 2017. Of course, Kodak could offshore everything, sell off the film stuff and licenses the "Kodak" name, or just shut the thing down. I can't read their minds and I don't know how much more expenses they can cut, but it doesn't look good.</p>

<p>I've also been looking at FUJIFILM and they aren't doing much better and all through out their reports they mention "divestitures". They're vague about what those divestitures are, but I'm assuming it's film assets.</p><div></div>

<p>I actually wonder if film users would pay more if film had cost more. Would Kodak end up being a Poloroid?</p>

<p>Oh Prophet of doom I see the gloom and in my heart I have no digital room. :)</p>

<p>Kodak Film Sales (in green)<br /> (1) It looks like the glide path of the space shuttle landing in Florida.<br /> (2) It looks like the my dropping savings each year:)<br /> (3) It looks like the drop in dialup usage.<br>

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gatess-amazing-yet-terrible-call-on-kodak-2009-12</p>

 

<p>Or also the GNP of America.</p>

<p>What is Ailing Kodak (1997):<br>

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/10/27/233297/index.htm<br>

PG:<br>

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/12/29/a-little-more-corporate-suicide-from-eastman-kodak/</p>

 

<p>Old news... real old.</p>

<p>There's also a marked drop in new house sales. So I guess we all like living in apartments don't we. We love it right?</p>

<p>But a blip on the chart, for the newest data, is still about $100m.</p>

<p>If on Jan 2, 1970 you spent 35.68 bucks on Philip Morris stock; you would have 100 shares; today worth 2383 bucks; if one spent every dividend check.</p>

<p>If on Jan 2, 1970 you spent 35.68 bucks on Eastman Kodak stock; you would have 1.0376 shares; today worth 4.11 bucks; if one spent every dividend check.</p>

<p>With the EK stock; one could sell it today and buy a Big Mac; or a roll of film; game is over.</p>

<p>With the MO stock; one could keep it and buy a Big Mac; or a roll of film every 10 days with the dividends; ie 152 bucks per year; ie 6.40 percent of the stocks value</p>

<p>With the EK stock; one could keep it and live off the dividend; which is zero.</p>

<p>Adjusted for splits MO Jan 2 1970 was 0.3568; today is 23.68; dividend 1.52 per share</p>

<p>Adjusted for splits EK Jan 2 1970 was 34.6837; today is 3.96; dividend zero</p>

<p> To have the same 4.11 bucks today in MO stock (as the EK stocks worth today) ;<br>

you would have have to spent 6 cents on MO stock it back in Jan 2 1970; maybe a postage stamp</p>

<p> </p>

<p> I guess I would rather have a roll of film then a pack of cigarettes. I do remember 1970 however. I could shoot a roll of B/W film and have it processed for $1.00 at Fort Benning in the PX. I still have some of the pictures. </p>

<p>I think this is more about scale. Yes if you looked at Kodak as an island and factor in that their major business is still moves, that (i would imagine) is their cost of production. Consumer market is still small for them. I don't think companies like Ilford or Foma would fear too much of the demise of Kodak's film production. They are smaller scale and more efficient at what they do. They would survive and so would the film. That is more of the reality.</p>

<p>No getting around it film sales are tanking badly the past ten years.Then again have you looked at higher end digital SLR sales for Canon & Nikon lately - the economy is bad all over and taking a toll on everything photographic (except maybe cellphone cameras).Kodak's best hope is Fuji throws in the towel before they do and they pick up that share like what happened when Agfa went belly up.Someone will remain and I hope it will be Kodak for at least another decade.A all digital world will be a very strange and uncomfortable place for many people who love the art of photography.</p>

<p>Kodak's already taking the C-41 professional market from Fuji. Fuji meanwhile is probably winning in the E-6 market.<br>

Challenge for Kodak is that they can't reduce their costs much more. They only have 25% of the original R&D staff. They can't afford to build new film lines optimized for smaller runs. It takes so many people to keep the machines running and happy.<br>

Biggest way to help Kodak is to convince movie theaters that digital projection stinks, to get their movies on film prints. That's Kodak's bread and butter business, what keeps the lines humming. Far more than 50% of their total film sales are "Eastman Color Print".</p>

<p>All we can do is keep supporting Kodak film and this will eventually level off. Let's stop worrying and shoot! "Use it or loose it"!</p>

<p>Support both Fuji and Kodak. I on the other hand support Arista Premium. :)</p>

<p>Kodak had a digital camera in 1991; are they making a profit with digital yet?</p>

<p>Fuji is not throwing in the towel; they bagged Walmart; Kodak is not sold there anymore; probably over pricing</p>

<p>In still Photography; the bulk of film sold is dumb C41 400 and 800 iso stuff to Joe Six Pack; few pros shoot C41 or E6. Wedding folks shot gobs of C41 two decades ago; I shot a lot of E6 until the local lab died; then I got a digital scan back.</p>

<p>I invested 10 years ago in digital projector and lost money; now local places use them</p>

<p>Look at this ancient link from 1997:</p>

<p>"Fuji's sales per employee, for example, are twice those of Kodak."</p>

<p><strong>13 years ago Fuji had twice the sales per employee</strong></p>

<p>Is Kodak an island full of blubber with folks saying lets figure out how to make money with digital for 19 years?</p>

<p>http://www.businessweek.com/1997/42/b3549001.htm</p>

<p>More 1997:</p>

<p>"Kodak lately seems increasingly out of touch with its customers. It has so far sunk $500 million into launching a film and camera system known as Advantix. Manufacturing glitches left retailers short of products, while a confusing ad campaign never explained to consumers why they should buy Advantix."</p>

<p>In another thread; many folks say it really doesnt matter if the largest retailer (Walmart) dropped Kodak</p>

<p>I just got a digital projector for $25 at Goodwill it was from 2004.</p>

<p>I thought film sales leveled off at least 5 years ago. I don't recall losing any more film camera users since they were already pretty much digital in 05.</p>

<p>Hey It must be us guys with huge freezers in the salt mines. :)</p>

What's film??

<p>@Starvy - I would continue to pay more for film. I am in little NZ so USA are a dream. A roll of 135 slide cost like $20US, Provia 400 could cost up to $30US (a roll). Even if USA prices go up I will still pay for it, but I do mostly thought out preplanned landscapes, cityscapes, so I am a low volume shooter. I am actually looking at ditching 135 for 120 format. </p>

<p>I don't shoot much other stuff but I kinda just shoot cos everyone else does, haha, but I don't really work on thos images, just snapshots 6x4 prints. </p>

<p>I enjoy how no PP are done, that is everything is captured off the slide. No scanning, no Photoshop. Just projected. </p>

<p>Dan, I arn't from the states, so it's easier for us to live in one of the few main cities. To me at least, obviously people may prefer a big house than an apartment but there has been increasing amount of people and probably in the States that prefer to live in an apartment just so they can be in the CBD. It's a lifestyle thing. </p>

<p>I don't really know what the figures mean.<br>

I've bought and used film and chemicals in the last year, but I can't remember when I last bought Kodak, nor even Fuji or Ilford. My recent film has been Adox, Shanghai, and Efke.<br>

So if I'm not buying Kodak, but I am buying film, are the figures significant ?<br>

I need to know the figures for the manufacturers who make the film I buy, not just the big famous ones that I don't.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's film??</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its that thin layer of chemical on one side of your plates</p>