Some Kodak film to "Retire"

[wblynch]

<p>For all of the postings defending American business management in the name of "profits" I offer this.</p>

<p>Say that a company has a machine that can economically produce 100,000 pieces of a product per month, but the "market" has demand for 1,000,000 pieces per month. The company can install 9 more machines for a capacity of 1,000,000 or scrap the 100,000 machine and replace it with ONE 1,000,000 piece machine.</p>

<p>This looks great to the accountants and management because it drops the production cost per piece (say, in this example, 20% ... from $1.20 to $1.00)</p>

<p>Well, that's fine and dandy as long as there is demand for all 1,000,000 pieces. But now say demand drops to 500,000 or 300,000 pieces per month.</p>

<p>With the old 100,000 capacity machines, it would be no problem to retire a few and have them available for demand surges or even spare parts. But since the decision was made to go with 1,000,000 piece machines it is no longer "viable" to continue producing the product whatsoever. Now the entire offering is scrapped.</p>

<p>Wouldn't it be better for the company to sell 300,000 pieces than none at all? So it goes until the entire (formerly thriving) company ceases to exist.</p>

<p>This is one more way that MBA's have destroyed America.</p>

 

[a._valerio]

<p>This TXP-320 is probably going to sell out fast. Oh well. You either buy and freeze it if you have the money and freezer space, or you just switch to 120 Tri-X 400. While we're at it, it doesn't hurt to ask questions about potential 220 b&w film availability in the future.</p>

<p>As usual, Daniel Bayer has a very balanced, healthy point of view on this. Dan, I personally want to thank you for writing what you wrote.</p>

<p>And to Patrick: This was interesting, wasn't it? Learning by trial and error is always fun. I make tons of decisions every day that I could have made better looking back. But that's the adventure in living and doing things. Anyone who says they don't goof things up regularly or have any regrets, is lying.</p>

<p>Now, I've said it before elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: I believe the product discontinuations will be slowing down after this. As Daniel Bayer stated, Kodak IS committed to film and color paper, and processing. They derive significant income from these products. Keep using it if you can.</p>

<p>I'm not saying there wont be anymore film discontinuations in the near future. But we have an idea already what those might be if we've paid attention over the last few years; they're been mentioned here and elsewhere. (I'm not going to go into depth here because I don't want to start more rumors though).</p>

<p>But we have to adapt the best we can. Just for the sake of one example: If Kodak discontinues P3200, I personally will not be happy about it. I often shoot this film at EI 6400. But there are other ways of adapting that don't involve switching to 100% digital. For example: Ilford makes Delta 3200 in both 35mm AND 120 format. Though it's supposedly a bit grainier than P3200, possibly a bit slower, and maybe a bit less shadow density, there are ways around it. Use the 120 film, and the grain goes down. Try different developers, times, and agitation schemes. I'm sure there is some way to get EI 6400 out of Delta 3200. But maybe P3200 will hang on. Maybe it won't be discontinued in the next year. Who knows.</p>

<p>Another example: Many of us want a b&w film in 220. Ok, we have several choices. We can either learn to replace it with 120, and just have more backs on hand at any given time. Or, maybe there will be something else available in 220 if there's enough demand. Maybe Kodak would make T-Max 400 in 220 if there's enough demand. Who knows.</p>

<p>If Ektachrome E200 goes, we can push-process E100G or E100VS a stop or two. If we need to go faster, there is Fuji Provia 400x.</p>

<p>If Portra 800 goes, there is Fuji 800Z. Or if the Fuji goes first, there is still the Kodak.</p>

<p>Or if Kodak really doesn't want to continue in film at some point in the future, maybe another company would take over where they left off, buying that portion of the company.</p>

<p>Whatever happens, I honestly think we will still have film in a range of speeds available, and in a range of types and sizes, from ISO 50 to EI 3200, for a long time. I really think we've weathered the worst of it. Once TXP in rolls and those several discontinued Ektachromes, and possibly several other films are gone, I think we're done for a while and can go back to enjoying the image rather than worrying that the medium is getting harder to find.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p><em>"Most folks on Photo.net do not run an actual business; thus they are at the 1st grade level in understanding profits; or return on investment"</em><br>

Well Kelly, Kodak management must be in Kindergarten then, because in spite of all the films they've killed and the digital products they've introduced Kodak is <strong>NOT</strong> making a profit. They <strong>DO make a profit on most film</strong>. The question is do they make<em> ENOUGH</em> of a profit. The current economic "De-Cession" in the USA is proof that the "Brain Trust" on Wall Street is as bankrupt as the cash flow to AIG. I just can't sit here and let you make analogies like:<br>

<em>"So if Sherwin Williams drops a poor selling paint color; do you damn them and not buy any other products there; ie other mainstream colors?"</em><br>

When I go to Sherwin Williams, they <strong>CUSTOM MIX a color </strong>for me. In fact last summer I made some insane concoction from several old paint cans. I ran out 2/3 of the way through the job. I took the mixing stick in just hoping they could make something close so I could repaint. The clerk said "No Problem" and came back with a new, perfectly matched can. Now THAT'S customer service. The point is if you're going to make an analogy, please be sure to at least check some basic facts before making posts. You may also want to double check those ECON 101 "facts" you've been spoon fed by the Corporate Banking industry over the years as well.....</p>

[c_o1]

<p>Tom A said the following:<br>

The biggest problem with "posters" on the internet is that they need to feel important, informed and try to present themselves as knowledgable in the photography community.</p>

<p>Read your own words and apply them to yourself.</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>""Most folks on Photo.net do not run an actual business; thus they are at the<br /> 1st grade level in understanding profits; or return on investment"</p>

<p>And the above statement is 2nd grade. Operating a business is about first and foremost Profit Margin, not profits.</p>

[guy_e]

<p>I'm still a relative newbie to the film world, having spent the majority of the last 12 years shooting with digital cameras. Now that I've become more seasoned, particularly with Ilford's lineup of films, I've been looking to branch out and try some other brands / types of B&W. I actually had just put TXP-320 in 220 size in my wish list on B&H last week - I have quite a bit of color neg, slide, and b&w film in the ol' fridge at home, and only get to really shoot on the weekends, so was planning on waiting until I went through most of that, then place another big order to restock.</p>

<p>Now I have to make a decision - do I scoop up some of the remaining 220 stock before it disappears forever, or just stick with what I know works for me? I've begun to appreciate the value of 220 more in the last few weeks as I've begun shooting with it - makes it a heckuva lot easier to shoot without worrying about changing backs in the frozen parks I like to shoot. But now that Kodak is once again souring us all with this announcement, I am getting more and more put off from even bothering with their products. Why should I try something that is now guaranteed to be extinct - investing time and energy into figuring out the best way to process the film so I get the best results - when there are products I use and know which will (I certainly hope!) still be here 1, 2, 5 years from now.</p>

<p>It's too bad that like others have said Kodak is acting like a typical American corporation, but what else would you expect an American corporation to act like in this day and age? This is but another symptom of an immensely fundamental problem with this country's focus on the almighty dollar, one which apparently the Japanese companies have not been so shortsighted to follow (see Fuji's reversal of several product "cancellations" last year after numerous consumer complaints). If film really is on the brink of a resurgence (and I think that resurgence is well under way), then Kodak stands to lose a lot more market share than they expect by this latest blunder.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>That's a good point Guy. I'm about to purchase a bulk roll of either Fuji Acros or Kodak Plus-X. So the question is where do I put my money? With the guys who have made a commitment to analog photography, or the the guys who seem to be indifferent at best?<br>

As I've said many times here. All Kodak has to do is actually <strong><em>Market</em> </strong> and <strong><em>Advertise </em> </strong> their film products. Think of what some simple little posters that say "Film-We're Still Here!" would do with the big Yellow Eastman Kodak symbol on it? It would reassure buyers like me, and show the younger students anxious to try and use film that Film is still viable.<br>

As a former Rochester N.Y. resident, I look at Kodak and just shake my head.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>As I've said many times here. All Kodak has to do is actually <strong><em>Market</em> </strong>and <strong><em>Advertise </em></strong>their film products. Think of what some simple little posters that say "Film-We're Still Here!" would do with the big Yellow Eastman Kodak symbol on it? It would reassure buyers like me, and show the younger students anxious to try and use film that Film is still viable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe when the economy mellows out and Kodak shows another quarter or two of profit, they will unveil that type of campaign. But right now, if I were a shareholder who did *not* know about the photography world, I would not want to see capitol invested in advertising in what is widely, albeit ignorantly regarded as old technology. <br>

And how much ROI on that ad campaign would they actually get back? Most people who shoot film know where to find it, who is making it, what sizes, etc. Most film shooters of any age are problem solvers, they get the goods, get busy shooting and don't waste time "Windbagging" on the internet forums, get the picture?<br>

This is especially true of young people, they don't take "Windbaggers" at face value and they seek out the truth them selves. If you want reassurance, buy some film instead of using an ad poster as a pacifier of sorts. <br>

And by the way, I have written Kodak over the weekend in regards to marketing, corporate identity in the public eye, quelling rumors, etc. There are REAL people on the other ends of those phones and emails and they care a lot more about this than you think, ask Josh Root, he saw first hand just like I did. <br>

So many companies use viral and social networking to market where they can not afford to put money into to expensive campaigns right now. Why should Kodak be any different? Why should they not be allowed to make a profit and instead, have to sacrifice the "Film profit" lamb for the good of a few hundred fist pounding shooters on sites like these? <br>

You want Kodak to advertise? Help them do it, be genuine in why you want them to keep making film, spread the word, meet them half way. You may not get paid, but you will get your film...</p>

 

[rustys pics]

<p>Daniel Bayer wrote:<br>

<em>"This is especially true of young people, they don't take "Windbaggers" at face value and they seek out the truth them selves"</em></p>

<p>Yes. As a college photo teacher I'm aware of this. But where is the "film viral marketing" you're speaking of? It's not there. It's not here, it's not on Facebook or Twitter nor anywhere else. I'm not averse to Kodak making a profit. We all want film to be profitable. You're stating the obvious and assuming a lot.</p>

<p><em>"Most film shooters of any age are problem solvers, they get the goods, get busy shooting and don't waste time "Windbagging" on the internet forums, get the picture?"</em> <br /> Yeah I get the picture. That's why I'm here and that's why I teach my students about film photography. I can tell you that when they come to college, many of them have NO IDEA that film is still available. The point is that Kodak and other companies need to grow that market of younger people interested in experimenting. They're not doing that. They recently cut D-76 developer available in the smaller 1 liter packets. That really puts a crimp on people who don't want or need to mix a gallon for home developing.<br /> <em>"Why should they not be allowed to make a profit and instead, have to sacrifice the "Film profit" lamb for the good of a few hundred fist pounding shooters on sites like these?</em> "<br /> As noted. we all want Kodak to make a profit. And someone said it before but it bears repeating;It's about profit margin, not just profits. And I don't think anyone is pounding any fists. It's a simple venting of the frustration we feel from a company that should be leading the film revival rather than ignoring it.<br /> <em>"And by the way, I have written Kodak over the weekend in regards to marketing,....There are REAL people on the other ends of those phones and emails and they care a lot more about this than you think, ask Josh Root, he saw first hand just like I did.</em> <em>"</em> <br /> OK. Good on ya! Want to share some of that inside information? Or are you just "windbaggin" about your inside connection? ;)<em><br /> </em></p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>They have not responded yet, so no inside info to share...</p>

[tim gray]

<p>To be fair to Kodak, they did give a good deal of expired film away on flickr a couple months ago. Not saying it was enough for 'viral marketing', but it's something :)</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Daniel Bayer wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But right now, if I were a shareholder who did *not* know about the photography world, I would not want to see capitol invested in advertising in what is widely, albeit ignorantly regarded as old technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, <strong>food</strong> is "old technology" but thankfully there are people and companies that still want to produce food.</p>

<p>There is still a market for photographic film and Kodak does photographic film better than anyone else and Kodak can still make a profit on film. When there were half as many people in the United States, and even when we were mired in the Great Depression, Kodak seemed to do pretty well with film sales.</p>

<p>I do remember the Sunday evening TV ads for Kodak on Disney and Bonanza. Their well-placed "Kodak Photo Spot" signs in Disneyland and their hanging tins over the drugstore doorways.</p>

<p>These items kept Kodak in the front of everyone's consciousness to where we all believed that there was only one film, Kodak. Yet I don't know anyone that considers Kodak a worthwhile competitor in the digital camera market.</p>

<p>I saw an internet video today from EK's Chief Marketing Officer decrying an unfortunate name given to a new electronic device. He, himself, seemed to be uninterested in Eastman Kodak's legacy photographic products. (He appears to be a man in his early 40s who may have never used film, for all we know...)</p>

<p>He sure seemed excited by computer printers and ink cartridges though.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

You are preaching to the choir Mr. Lynch, I am just giving my opinion. I have to be done with this now, I am a

photographer, not an enthusiast. Add to that my girlfriend is out of surgery now and I need to attend to her.

Every minute of your life you are on the Internet, you are not out making pictures, not using film......somethng to think

about.

[wblynch]

<p>May I extend my best "get well soon" wishes to Daniel Bayer's girlfriend?</p>

<p>Truly, people and their relationships are more important than corporations and hobbies.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<address>Russ; the paint analogy was about if a weird *PRE PACKAGED* paint color that does not sell well in inventory ; (1)should be dropped; or (2)supported by the profits of other mainstream products.</address>

<p>Film is not blended when sold; there is no mixer at B&H were Henry blends the iso; like an old SunoCo octane blender. Each film product is made at a factory; packaged and sold as is. If it does not sell well; it expires on the shelf; like old milk. If a grocery or film store has alot of expired items; the manager tends to order less; or drop stocking it anymore.<br>

<br /> Film today is sold mostly via mailorder; the largest retailer (walmart) in the USA does not even carry silver based B&W film anymore. 50 years ago every drugstore sold Verichrome in 620 and 120 too ;'even in towns of a few thousand folks.<br>

<br /> Film is a declining mature market; just like erasers for a draftsmens electric erasing machine. Ponder why was about 14 different types of eraser refills 20 years ago; and there are about 3 today. Somebody who wants a grey #72 eraser can vist old shops and up old stock; like buying up old panatomic-X.<br /> the reason the smaller 1 liter packages of D76 were dropped is they have a shorter shelf life that the larger packages. A smaller packet has a larger surface area to volume. A 1 liter packet of D76 dies quicker than a 1 gallon packet. Shelf life is important in a declining slow sales volume market.<br>

<br /> Here I have been shooting film for over 50 years. I remember when one could by 4x5 film pack B&W at a drugs store in Indiana in town of a few thousand. One also had a Hickok tester in the drug store too; it had new tubes locked up in the drawers below. \<br>

<br /> What is real sad is how folks here do not understand the basics of business; that is why the county is in trouble.<br>

<br /> Products survive via actual sales; not wishes, not tear jerking letters. It benefits Riverdale pro Hockey if you buy actual tickets versus *wanting* them to stay here in Riverdale next year thru emotional letters. One could write a million letters asking Kodak to keep Kodachrome; or Riverdale to have hockey next year if you want to. Actual rolls and seats sold matter more than letters; most here cannot understand this.<br>

<br /> `10 thousand years ago folks in business understood that to keep selling a product requires enough sales to have a decent return. Kodak is really no different.<br>

<br /> It really is nothing new that plates and films types and formats have come and gone over the last 150 + years in Photography.<br>

<br /> I was at a ham radio swap meet a few weeks back and a guy had a whole box of stainless developing reels and tanks; it never sold in 2 days time. There was tank/lid for 1 35mm; 2 35mm; two for 4 35mm; one for 8 35mm; plus 4 120 reels and 6 35mm reels and one 220 reel. The entire lot was 12.5 dollars</p>

[craig_sander]

<p>I am so sick and tired of the Kodak apologists on this board.<br>

It’s always, "If Kodak was making a profit, believe me, they wouldn't be axing films."<br>

Really?<br />Competition has nothing to do with it?<br />All the throngs of people who are being driven to Fuji didn't cause Kodak to lose some business?<br>

And how about some advertsing? Is Kodak REALLY done all it can to help its own film sales?<br>

I have to go back to my analogy of the pizza store owner in my neighborhood who had good food, but never advertised in the local coupon saver and never so much as had a sandwich board out on the street for cars to see. The bare minimum of advertising would have helped him stay afloat.<br>

His last week of business he complained because people "obviously didn't like quality menu items", and that the bigger pizza sports bar down the way came in and took a lot of his business.<br>

Sorry. As much as I enjoyed his food, I was frustrated with his lack of understanding how business works.</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Craig, you are right on the money. Polaroid drops their business model down the tank and Fuji was right there, understanding how to make substainable margins out of it and now, it's going gang busters.<br>

As soon as they announce a discontinued film product everyone rushes in their order thus explaining, at least to me, the film is being used.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Why can't Kodak (or other company) simply announce (for example): "Tri-X 320 sales in the 220 roll size have fallen to the point that if they don't increase by xx% in the next 6 months, we will have no choice but to drop the product". ?</p>

<p>Then if the loyalists really want that product it will be their responsibility to build sales. They will have had a fair warning.</p>

<p>Instead, these companies have made their decision and simply waited until supplies were depleted to cancel the product, leaving their customers no chance to save it.</p>

<p>Thank an MBA</p>

 

[michael_crouser]

<p>It's easy to imagine that something that has been around, seemingly, forever would continue to be around to use at our leisure for forevermore. But it should come as no shock, especially in these times, that when people don't buy something it ceases to be manufactured. And if that was a shock, then it shouldn't be anymore. Plainly, Kodak, like any other manufacturer, will continue to make products that enough people use to make it worth their while. Do you suppose Kodak has to advertise Tri-X and Plus-X films for film photographers to know that they're there? You know what film is available. You know what you like to use. If Tri-X 320 medium format films were being purchased by enough people they would still be on the shelves. If you fear, as some on this board do, that Plus-X film will go away in the same manner, then buy it. Use it. Show the manufacturer, through sales, that it's important to you. That's how and why products of all sorts, including your favorite film, stay on the market.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>For those who think Kodak should advertise more; what; where and how would you deploy the advertising money? <br /> How to announce one is stopping or possibly stopping a product has different routes. In some cases the hard core users buy up all existing stock and others get nothing; and the product still gets axed anyway.<br>

<br /> Understanding business seems not be be a strong point for most all photo.net vistors; since most are amateurs and thus making a living with photography is totally foreign. <br>

<br /> At one of my old shops we had these several hundred foot rolls of gridded 10x10 and 8x8 super heavy green matted paper drawing board covers that would last for replacement usage many many decades. The stuff got discontinued about 18 years ago. We sold it by the foot. It become known that the stuff was discontinued ; a fellow worker sold both rolls; at the wrong price to an engineering firm who only really needed a few pieces. They folded 12 years ago; they *threw out* the rolls; I still have folks who want the stuff. That is the last time I will let the public know a product is discontinued; since somebody will buy it all and then other users are mad that I do not stock it anymore.</p>

<p> </p>