Jump to content

Struggling Kodak disbands film group, shares soar


Recommended Posts

<p>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Struggling-Kodak-disbands-rb-2420781718.html?x=0</p>

<p>Kodak finally got rid of that albatross around its neck - the Film Group.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eastman Kodak Co announced a new business structure on Tuesday that eliminates its film group as the once-iconic photography company tries to refocus as a digital company to help fend off financial difficulties.</p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What a bunch of gobbledeygook. All they are doing is moving the pawns around. Sounds like one business unit will own movie film and maybe professional film, and another business unit will own consumer film. That sounds ludicrous, since they all use the same production line.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Before you all jump down that cliff......</p>

<p>"Under the business structure changes, which were effective at the beginning of the year, the company's commercial and consumer segments are absorbing the businesses that now sit in the Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment group."</p>

<p>It says nothing of "Kodak finally got rid of that albatross around its neck - the Film Group". It's a re-org.</p>

<p>Too much TMZ goin on here......</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>But that's the point.<br /> I went for my quarterly check on FPEG on Kodak's site and I saw noting. And then on the financial websites I saw that headline that I posted.</p>

<p>Film was barely breaking even the last reporting period and now I can't find the numbers to see how film is doing at Kodak.</p>

<p>Why is reporting Film on its own a problem - all of a sudden?<br>

What does that tell you?</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, when a company does a reorganization for no reason at all, I have to wonder what's going on.</p>

<p>The shares soared. Management's compensation is based on share price.</p>

<p>I won't say anymore - time will tell and is telling.....</p>

<p>TMZ - indeed.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Rueters' headline is, as usual, misleading. Here is the AP story about the same event, with a more accurate headline of, "Troubled Kodak creates new business structure" :</p>

<p><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Troubled-Kodak-creates-new-apf-997568969.html?x=0">http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Troubled-Kodak-creates-new-apf-997568969.html?x=0</a></p>

<p>As the story states, "No business segments are being cut, just reorganized."</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This looks like your standard corporate make-work-for-the-MBAs project. If they're not cutting any projects or

eliminating any jobs, all they're doing is giving the executives new titles and changing the table of contents on their

financial report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning<br />to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later<br />in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;<br />and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress<br />while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."</p>

<p>from Charlton Ogburn, Jr. (1911-1998), in Harper's Magazine, "Merrill's Marauders: The truth about an incredible adventure" (Jan 1957)</p>

<p>In theory, when you combine organizations, you may be able to eliminate some support positions (fewer secretaries, smaller HR staff, maybe even fewer executives). In practice, efficiencies are minimal and the disruptions are significant for a few months.</p>

<p>Wall Street liked the news as the stock price shot up by 50%. (The two share still kicking around in my 401K will now almost cover the cost of a 20 oz diet Pepsi.)</p>

<p>The film group reported a profit of $15 million for the 3rd quarter. That isn't much, but it was the only group to make any profit at all. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just more paper shuffling to keep shareholders happy. Unless Kodak stops messing around they're finished. Slim down, get rid of non-profitable products, stop making stupid stuff like printers and crappy digicams and take a leaf out of Fuji's book. Start making a couple of desirable digital cameras and push the stuff you're good at... FILM! Forget everything else.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kodak did make some pretty good printers, but they were mostly dye-subs meant for professional photo labs. They could not compete with the more popular and cheaper ink-jet printers once photography labs started folding.<br>

Kodak did make a pretty good dye-sub Consumer printer that would output photo-quality 8X10s, but that endeavor only lasted maybe 10 months before it folded. I was trying to get a discontinued model myself, but even those were hard to find. <br>

I remember when AT&T was going through this, they kept throwing stuff at the wall praying something would eventually stick. Now they are doing OK, somehow they managed to get through it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Paul Ya think? LOL I just got a second freezer for my Twinkies... LOL I am sorry but I have to laugh but I do remember when Ilford went into a Chap 11 it did cause a slow down in production yet they got out of it.... I had a hard time finding some films during that time so just think about that as it may be a temp problem but it could be the same ...IF... It does fuggen go that way... :) Smile people.... It is not like it is the end of the world... it is just the beginning of something new...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The current AT&T is the Cingular cell network. No relationship to the old AT&T </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's amazing that things like this get posted. I realize it has no bearing on Kodak, but it's dead wrong. It's not hard to find the right information.</p>

<p>Regarding Kodak's reorg, it appears that a lot of people think they know more about Kodak than the people there. There are many reasons for corporate reorganizations. While some may be mistakes, there are reasons. These can include things like sales channel realignment, marketing budgets, strong and weak managers, etc. etc. etc. That people here assume they know what Kodak should do, given that they aren't inside, is amazing. It's obvious that Kodak failed to adapt to a changing world, but that doesn't mean everyone is know an expert on how to manage their internal resources.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Pacific Bell bought AT and T and kept the AT and T name as it was more widely recognized. They seem to have kept some of the bad customer service practices as the old AT and T also. (ma bell got a face lift :D)</p>

<p>Kodak is a well known name. Time will tell if it remains a leading imaging company or not.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...