News Story: Kodak may pull down the shutters on film business

[gene_e._mccluney]

Uh, Kodak DID sell its chemical plant some time ago, so now Kodak chemicals are made by

an independent company FOR Kodak.

[wigwam jones]

I once thought that Eastman Chemicals had been spun off from Eastman Kodak, but I could be wrong:

 

http://www.eastman.com/Company/About_Eastman/History/

 

It looks here as though George Eastman founded Eastman Chemicals to be a separate entity from the start.

[rustys pics]

It may be speculation, but I cannot see another new major player in the inkjet market, which is already saturated with products by the big 3 (Canon, Epson, and HP). Kodak already had a wonderful, economical printer technology in the dye sub area. They never promoted it, and so now they want to get into the inkjet market??? I'm sorry, but it does not take a Wall Street analyst to see where that will lead; failure. Unless they have a radical new technology and take a serious loss on the first ones they sell.

 

Kodak can't even compete in the low end digicam market. They dropped to number 3 from number 1. The writing is on the wall for the greedy, stupid CEOs and shareholders who have driven the company into the ground. Think ENRON here people, and you'll get the picture.

Quote all the macro economic theories you want, but when corporations get greedy and make stupid decisions by committee, the whole economy suffers. Capitalism works best when it is creative, flexible, and the vision and responsibility stop with the person in charge. Kodak has none of the going for it right now.

[al_divenuti]

Sadly, Daniel, I suspect you are right.

 

It's entirely possible that no manufacturer (yup, zero) can make enough money on film given their present infrastructure to justify continuing operatinons (vs selling off the property).

 

Operations of this nature, it seems, do not downsize gracefully. As some have pointed out, once the production infrastructure shuts down - it can't be rebuilt.

 

Beyond just the depression in demand also seeing silver prices nudge $14/oz and that could provide an economic "killing frost" for a lot of operations in Central European countries that don't use the EMU.

 

I fear it's very possible that analog photography will be true, DIY alt process in just a few years (coating glass plates and paper) at the present rate of decline.

[al_divenuti]

Russ,

 

Inkjet technology isn't a big 3. It's a big 5.

 

You've forgotten Lexmark and Brother and THOSE are the players that Kodak has targeted. Many people buy their photo printers when they buy a laptop direct from Dell, HP or Lenovo. And that's where Lexmark's and Brother's market share is at the present.

 

There's also a huge difference between ENRON (massive accounting fraud) and EK. Also, you're forgetting that ENRON didn't make stupid decisions by committee, they made dishonest, self-serving decisions in a vacuum....

 

For all the bitching about Kodak's management (much of it I WOULD agree with) - they are only one of two solvent film manufactuers with a FULL line of consumer and professional films left. Which means that even if they cease operations tomorrow - they still beat most of the field.

[wigwam jones]

Russ,

 

Kodak announced at the same time yesterday that they are introducing inks for their new line of printers that they claim are 50% cheaper and last ten times longer (as I recall, didn't read the whole thing) than HP's. So as you say, the market may not support more printer makers, but if Kodak undercuts seriously and the products turn out to be worth squat, we may see a price war, and who knows who might get nudged then?

[al_divenuti]

Russ,

 

You've clearly no notion of where the digicam market in the USA is right now.

 

Kodak dropped from No. 1 to No. 3 because the only growth in the market is in dSLRs. Every other segment in the USA has leveled off or declined. Enthusiasts upgrade their equipment more often and right now they are buying, almost exclusively, dSLRs.

 

Kodak will not be in the digial camera market in a few years. Nor will most players, it's going to get sucked up in the convergence between hand-held devices, phones, etc. They want to be in commerical printing, photo finishing, and components (CCDs, etc.).

 

I have no idea at this whether they can succeed. But it's pointless to blame the decline in the film market on them.

[wigwam jones]

This just in...

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/sns-ap-kodak-investors,1,2557454.story?coll=chi-bizfront-hed

 

**** QUOTE FROM HERE ON ***

 

Kodak Plans to Cut 3,000 More Jobs

 

By BEN DOBBIN

 

AP Business Writer

 

Published February 8, 2007, 1:53 PM CST

 

NEW YORK -- Eastman Kodak Co. is cutting 3,000 more jobs this year as the picture-taking pioneer wraps up its wrenching transformation into a digital-imaging company focused on consumer photography and commercial printing.

 

By year-end, its work force will slip below 30,000, less than half what it was just three years ago.

[alan_rockwood]

Oh great! just a couple of weeks after I bought a 100 ft. roll of Tri-X, intending to standardize on it for my high-speed film.

 

Any thoughts about Ilford as a company, and HP-5 compared to Tri-X?

[ronald_moravec1]

All they are trying to do is get a cash infusion to sink in other venues ASAP. They are not satisified with film profits coming in annually that they can invest in other businesses.

 

They whole problem is consumers love digi cams for whatever reason. There is no logic to it unless to share with relatives over the net. Financially it defies logic for a small consumer. Most do not even back up the files to save then from a computer crash. If they really understood all the ramifications, they would not use digi, yet I have not seen a single person who did not love his digi.

 

The other problem is the poor state of consumer processing. I have yet to get a decent print I did make myself or get from my pro lab. I did slides for years to avoid consumer processing.

[joe_s6]

Since 2007 has started off better for me, I'm committed to purchasing 100 rolls of Plus-X and Tri-X (in alternating films) every month this year for the entire year.

 

Better to have 1k rolls of Kodak in the freezer than not be able to find it at all. Once I settle on a new E6 film, will do the same there. Sure wish they still made their Lumiere Warm films, that was nice color.

[rowland_mowrey]

Dear Wiggy;

 

You didn't include all of the quotes.

 

Perez said that Kodak has no intention of selling their photo products division due to its high return. Motion picture is doing well as are several other traditional areas.

 

One person commented "besides, who would want to buy it" of course referring to todays market situation. Raising money to buy a business that may be declining to who knows where is a losing proposition.

 

Ron Mowrey

[wigwam jones]

Ron, that's not what he said:

 

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/BUSINESS/702090347/1001/business

 

"Perez took questions from analysts about Kodak's plans for its film business, the heart of which is in Rochester. During the quarterly earnings call last week, he said Kodak was evaluating all options when it came to the declining film business, including a sale.

 

Perez repeated that Thursday but said he felt no "urgent" need to sell either Kodak's consumer film or movie and television film operations. The business continues to supply revenue, profit and cash flow, he said."

 

This is what we call a 'trial balloon'. It is commonly placed into calls from investment analysts or 'leaked' through 'anonymous' sources. This is how Kodak signals that they are interested in selling, checks to see how the market likes that idea, and does not commit themselves in case everybody freaks out. I watched them do this a year ago with their health care imaging business. First they floated a few balloons, then they made a few carefully-worded public statements, and then they found a buyer.

 

As to whether or not anyone would buy Kodak's film business, I agree, it could be a real problem for them. Doesn't mean they won't try.

 

I have no evidence for this, but my gut says they'd spin it off on its own with a few Kodak execs at the helm, much like Agfa Gevaert did.

[al_divenuti]

Ron,

 

>>There is no logic to it unless to share with relatives over the net.

 

Change that statement to "unless to share with relatives and/or friends" and you've described the impetus for perhaps 98% of all pictures ever taken.

 

I agree with you but, as tends to happen with photonetters, we have an exaggerated sense of our importance in the grand scheme of things photographic...

[rowland_mowrey]

Wiggy;

 

He said that he expected to see growth in film for at least 10 years, and that film sales supplied a lot of revenue. He particularly cited motion picture as being a big customer.

 

It has been reported in detail on TV and in the paper here in Rochester. There are detailed posts of the conversation on APUG.

 

Ron Mowrey

[fred_obturateur]

"now Kodak chemicals are made by an independent company FOR Kodak."

 

I betcha it's the solution Kodak top-execs will choose : having "someone" make products for them. As long as the profit's there fine. As soon as the film-making business sinks it's "Bye! Been a pleasure working with you. Now YOU deal with the lay-offs".

 

"Clean-hands" business or "Firm without workers", yup that's what is called the newest trend among CEOs around the world...

[zachariah_edwardson]

If I was a Kodak shareholder, I would feel better if the Kodak Digital Products actully sold better. Nothing "proven" with my add-hock surveys, but anyone who tries to convice me to go digital insists "Don't buy the Kodak cameras/printers". Glad I don't own any Kodak Stock, as while I think there will be money to be made in the end in digital, Kodak is not in the right place to do it.

[don_mckeith]

"He, I know--for the question had been discussed among us long before the Time Machine was made--thought but cheerlessly of the Advancement of Mankind, and saw in the growing pile of civilisation only a foolish heaping that must inevitably fall back upon and destroy its makers in the end. If that is so, it remains for us to live as though it were not so. But to me the future is still black and blank--is a vast ignorance, lit at a few casual places by the memory of his story. And I have by me, for my comfort, two strange white flowers--shrivelled now, and brown and flat and brittle--to witness that even when mind and strength had gone, gratitude and a mutual tenderness still lived on in the heart of man."

 

HG Wells

 

"The Time Machine"

[neil_rankin1]

This is a interesting thread, full of a ton of speculation. But the fact remains, that all business

is driven by demand. As long as people want Kodak film, there will be production, even if

things change hands. The truth is, Kodak has gotten too big for its britches, and they have

little chance of continuing at there current size. I'm not worried. What cracks me up, is that

people freak out over the future of film production. Film is really easy to produce compared

to a digital camera.

[doc_w]

If Kodak is planning on selling the film operations, that could be good news. I WISH they had sold off the paper operations so someone else could still be making it. If they do sell off film, the new owner will try to make a go of it.

 

Ilford seems to be digging in its heels for the fight, and thinking creatively. It is not simply attempting to serve a declining market and whistling past the graveyard. It is actively promoting silver-based products and everyone I meet who is studying photography in an art school (not a community college) buys TONS of Ilford materials.

 

The theory is that as long as people want film and paper, it will be manufactured. I hope that that is true, but I fear that the method of manufacture (i.e., highly industrialized) does not lend itself well to a cottage industry as with, say, photographic chemicals. We may be in a "alt process" world in the not too distant future, as someone else suggested, i.e., making our own paper, and coating glass negatives.