Kodak Tries to Sell Film Business

<p><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kodak-sell-imaging-units-focus-212342730.html">http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kodak-sell-imaging-units-focus-212342730.html</a><br>

It appears from this article that Kodak is going to try selling their remaining film operations.I wonder who would consider buying it other than the Chinese?We are entering the final chapter folks after a long hard lesson in flawed business stategy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And with this....we witness the end of Kodak. Run by a team of incompetent management thinking they're gonna change the world of printing. <br>

Guess I better stock up on Ektar 100. Ilford...pay attention. Here's your chance to pick up business from the failure that is Kodak!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Actually there is an argument that the overall <strong><em>strategic</em></strong> management was on the mark. Kodak was one of the first to do digital, etc.<br>

It was the <em>realization</em> of those directions that seems more at fault to me. Who do you blame that on?<br>

Middle management? Fossilized technical work force? I wouldn't be too quick to say.</p>

<p>I can't see why the Chinese would have any interest in purchasing this.</p>

<p>The Kodak story will be studied in business schools for decades. Kodak knew digital photography <em>would</em> take over eventually, but they badly miscalculated on the <em>speed</em> of the transition. After the transition occurred they could never decide on what their core business should be, and this led to their demise. What a shame.</p>

<p>I think the film business could be refigured as a "boutique" product -- and I hope it will -- but Wall Street isn't interested in that.</p>

<p>I don't think Wall Street has any interest in Kodak at this point, there's no real upside for them no matter what happens. I do agree that there will be little interest from China, and that they completely misunderstood what was happening. The brand may be worth something.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder who would consider buying it other than the Chinese?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would "the Chinese" have some special interest over others?</p>

I don't get it. How would it make sense to separate the photo film division from the cine film division? Don't they use

the same materials and equipment?

<p>Are they crazy? Why sell the only part of the business making any money?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why would "the Chinese" have some special interest over others?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was wondering about that too.</p>

<p>Because they are going to revolutionize inkjet printing....LOL</p>

<p>The Chinese have huge resources (money & people) and seek familiar world name brand images.Lots of people in China (1.25 billion people) still shoot a lot of film and it would be a good temporary fit for their domestic film producers ( world class technology for pennies on the dollar) and competition for Fuji ( Japan - where there is no love lost in China).They could milk it for all its worth for very little cost and make a seamless transition to all digital when their standard of living is ready for it.They are very smart people who many times in the past have bought 'obsolete' cast off second tier technology from especially western countries after they throw in the towel because it does not fit their current profit model.They have done it in about just about every other industry why not photography?Travel to China and try getting away from the main cities and get a real taste of the country and the people.It would be a good fit for about another decade.</p>

<p>The Chinese might be interested for the same reason they bought the Hummer brand of truck manufacturing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lots of people in China (1.25 billion people) still shoot a lot of film</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> What statistics do you have to support this? My experience in Asia (not China, but around it) is that there is very little infrastructure for processing film. In Vietnam eight years ago, I saw one person using a film camera besides me, and digital cameras were everywhere. Even in remote villages, there were places that would do print from digital but had no film processing, often because of the chemical and water issues. And I only found one store in the whole country that carried 120 film. And this was eight years ago.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Japan - where there is no love lost in China</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Old stereotypes never die.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Chinese might be interested for the same reason they bought the Hummer brand</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Brands are different than building something. I think the Kodak brand may still have some value, although far less than if they had sold it ten years ago. But buying a brand is very different than building something, as "Polaroid" has shown.</p>

<p>I doubt that anybody in China with the kind of money to buy that business would do so just to annoy some Japanese people. Whoever buys it is going to want to make money.</p>

<p>Jeff....Fuji is a tough sell in China because it is Japanese. I have a lot of friends in Shanghai and Hong Kong who have confirmed that Fuji is indeed used less because of national pride...and that a lot of people still use film in China. </p>

<p>So, it's not a stereotype. Just because you don't know something...doesn't mean it isn't true.</p>

<p><em>If</em> it is true, as is often asserted here, that Kodak is, on the whole, making money on film manufacturing and sales (with or without the associated processing chemicals and RA-4-based paper business), then I can promise you that some Wall Street-type will be interested in buying that business at some price. The price has to be low enough to repay the investment, plus a reasonable profit to the investor, before the film business's profit is expected to decline to zero.</p>

<p>Can that be done? I suspect yes. Will it be done? I have no idea how the Kodak bankruptcy is going. Also, if the financial parties believe that the film business's assets (factories, land, patents, whatever) are worth more broken apart and sold off piecemeal, than they are worth in terms of anticipated profit from ongoing film business, then almost certainly that is what will happen.</p>

<p>What would a sell-off on an intact film business do for film users? Maybe preserve Kodak film products for a few years longer than otherwise would have occurred, and maybe preserve them indefinitely. But I don't think it is remotely safe to <em>assume</em> that some buyer will ultimately make a go of it in the long term. (Because, IMO, as is being dicussed in another thread, I can't see the mass market ever returning to film <em>even if both film and processing were free</em>, given digital's convenience and, by any reasonable standard, plenty-good-enough-for-most-people/uses quality.)</p>

 

<p>Digital has won the battle of quantity and an "avreage Joe" everywhere uses digital. Especially in the developed world (=lack of viable film processing infrastructure as already noted) almost everybody has a digicam or a cell phone with one.<br>

Yes, there is a "back to film" movement, especially among young "hipsters" (for the lack of a better word...) but it is akin to the "back to vinly LP" movement: fringe of a fringe of a fringe.<br>

I shoot film (MF 6x17 mostly, but also some 6x6) and hope that Kodak is smarter than the assholes at Polaroid who just shuttered down the film production line. Of course they need to spin off the film and paper lines into a boutique operation, devoid of the Kodak's Byzantine corporate structure. You know, 100 emplyoees per manager not the other way around.<br>

If you are a shareholder in Kodak and want film/paper production to continue, write to them...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji is a tough sell in China because it is Japanese</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Fuji is heavily embedded in China and has huge sales, although mostly outside the consumer sector because the profits are there. From copiers to heavy construction machinery, Fuji is a major player in China, both in sales and in joint ventures. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I have a lot of friends in Shanghai and Hong Kong who have confirmed that Fuji is indeed used less because of national pride...and that a lot of people still use film in China.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<br />That's about as far from a usable statistic as anything could be. A small amount of anecdotal comments. "National pride" as an objection doesn't really apply when Fuji is building in China.

<p> </p>

I don't know what to think anymore, those poor people who work there that have just been hoping for some good

decisions from the top seeing nothing but radically self defeating thinking, it's got to be rough. And the media has field days

with this stuff, film is dead threads on dpreview that take less than 48 hours to hit 150 posts....horrible man.

 

I do know this though, all film, motion and still is coated at Building 38 and Kodak has signed on to contracts with the

motion picture industry to provide stock through 2015. So maybe who ever buys that division will use the brand name and

keep making the film on that coating line. Heck, maybe the motion picture industry will buy the whole deal and keep

Kodak still films around until the digital transition is done.

 

Also.....if you like to use the product and don't want to chance paying 10-30% more, then stock up now

because this stuff is not going down in price. I have enough Kodak film to where as I use it along with Ilford, I am set for

20-30 years.

 

But this news just makes me sad, we stand to possibly lose a lot of film options in the next 12-18 months with this and demise of Efke....damn.

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt that anybody in China with the kind of money to buy that business would do so just to annoy some Japanese people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I work for a $multi-billion Chinese company. The owner of the company could easily buy Kodak's film division but would only do so for a good business reason. i.e. if there was a market for the products or the technology could be used elsewhere. Most certainly not to annoy the Japanese.<br>

He's visiting our UK factory next week - perhaps I can get him interested in film photography!</p>

<p>Whatever happened to communism? It's even deader than Kodak. </p>

<p>Is film production really going to be stopped, or is that just the conclusion everyone is leaping to? </p>

<p>They might be able to sell the personal imaging business, but there is no way to separate the personal film manufacturing from motion picture film manufacturing. As Dan points out, they share the same manufacturing facilities (not only Building 38 where film is coated, but also support and component manufacturing). Perhaps they will sell the film finishing plant in Mexico and supply it with master rolls from Rochester. </p>

<p>Buying the Kodak Park site may be difficult since it is on the Superfund list. The ground water contamination is controlled but requires continued attention. Few business will want to buy that liability. I suspect they will eventually divest the Kodak Park site and let the spin-off business deal with the liability. </p>

<p>The film business still makes a profit, but it is shrinking rapidly. Once the motion picture business completes the digital transition (2-5 years?) I can't see how they will be able to continue. Once they close, Fuji will finally attain their lifelong dream of becoming the largest photographic film company in the world. Their reign will be short. In 10 years, my guess is that Ilford will be the largest film company. I expect they will have a long life. They have facilities that are about the right scale to serve the market. </p>

<p>Assuming this does kill the film business, that leaves me on the horns of a dilemma. Before I get around to buying a 5x4 camera, do I stock up on Velvia 50 (Fuji discontinuing in large format) or Portra? Sad news, anyway.</p>

Hey Jeff, I was using film in Vietnam 8 years ago. Was that me you saw?!<div></div>