Interesting article on what Kodak could learn from Polaroid

Discussion in 'Industry News' started by bitnaut, Nov 30, 2012.

  1. bitnaut

    bitnaut Member

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
  2. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    11,176
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I don't see this stabilisation at all!


    Either his figures do not fit, or he counts them apart. Eitherway I find this most irritating.


    I totally agree on the standing the name Polaroid still has.
    But I got no idea what the title of that article is hinting at. Polaroid as manufacturer is dead. Kodak, Fuji and Agfa are alive. Learning to survive from a deceased??
     
  3. Brian C. Miller

    Brian C. Miller Member

    Messages:
    495
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Location:
    Everett, WA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Polaroid has become nothing more than a brand name. There is nothing left of Polaroid film except for a refurbished machine the Impossible Project bought.

    What the author is writing about is not using Polaroid as a good example, but as an example of what not to do. "Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

    Another one of the problems with the article is that the author doesn't have any understanding of what it takes to manufacture film. Kodak can't do a small run, so it can't sell to tiny niche markets, like a Kodachrome run or a Plus-X run. The author has some good points, but aside from indexing executive pay to company profits, Kodak is doing all that it can.
     
  4. railwayman3

    railwayman3 Member

    Messages:
    1,922
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Agreed...can't really see the connection between Kodak and Polaroid. Polaroid cameras were a niche area so far as the general public were concerned...the novelty of instant pictures, but normally one copy only, quite expensive films, and fairly bulky cameras. For the casual snapshotter, a small 35mm, Instamatic or APS camera would score in most respects, and there were plenty of one-hour services if prints were needed quickly. And now, of course, digital.

    The Polaroid brand name does seem to hold some value, though any company needs to keep close control on branded third-party goods using its name.
     
  5. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    11,176
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What does the author say?


    -) Kodak lost 98% revenue in the US-film market

    -) Kodak should dare to raise prices as aficionados would pay them

    -) Kodak should not try to sell film by means of first selling cheap cameras

    -) Kodak should sell single-use cameras

    -) Kodak should contract-manufacture for Lomography Comp.

    -) Kodak should stick to manufacture high-end photographic films as they are unique on the market and could set higher margins on them

    -) Kodak should make something from the goodwill its name has
     
  6. Rudeofus

    Rudeofus Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,396
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The most impressive pair of numbers (to me at least) in that article is 20 million rolls of Kodak film sold versus 1 million packs of TIP film. Note that Kodak kicked Ektachrome into the curb because it made only a tiny percentage of their overall film sales so chances are more TIP film packs were sold than rolls of Ektachrome. Remember that TIP can neither match the precious colors of Ektachrome nor does a TIP photo have the resolution and the many flexible options for use and post processing. And it's much more expensive than a roll of Ektachrome and has only 8 vs. 36 frames, too.

    If Kodak couldn't sell more Ektachrome than TIP by a large factor, their strategy and marketing are abject failures, and blaming their demise on the "digital revolution" is nothing but a sleazy cover up for that.
     
  7. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    11,176
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    You are using attitudes of the past to reflect on consumer sales of today.
     
  8. cepwin

    cepwin Member

    Messages:
    336
    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I read this article as well. I didn't agree with the author that film prices need to jacked up to boutique prices.....ilford is a small company and they manage to sell film at competitive prices and if I'm correct make a profit. I do think Kodak was horribly managed. I think had they made a serious effort at digital (they had one of the first digital cameras) they would have had the resources to make a profit off of they're film and taken full advantage of the lomography movement.
     
  9. Brian C. Miller

    Brian C. Miller Member

    Messages:
    495
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Location:
    Everett, WA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Manufacturing costs and demand.

    The formulated batch sizes for Ektachrome were too large so they had to throw away barrels of dye and emulsion for each run, and the cost to reformulate the film wouldn't have turned a profit. When new regulations meant that Fujifilm had to reformulate Acros 400 in 120, it was discontinued due to lack of profit due to the cost of reformulation. The demand just wasn't there to support the cost of reformulation, for both Kodak and Fujifilm.
     
  10. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,314
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    sheet film prices for kodak films are already jacked up to be 2x the price of ilford
    seems to me they are already boutique prices ...
     
  11. Rudeofus

    Rudeofus Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,396
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    If decent marketing can sell 1 million packs of an expensive, colorwise unstable and in many other aspects deficient product, then it's time to question the overstretched argument with "lack of demand" for analog products. The big difference is that TIP opens or partners with stores and outlets all over the world, while Kodak and Fuji desperately try to make everyone forget that they ever made and sold analog products. Reminds me of this situation ...
     
  12. StoneNYC

    StoneNYC Inactive

    Messages:
    8,093
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I do agree with the last part, they only sell lomography at urban outfitters, not other film types, BUT they may not be able to sell because of some non-compete that lomography already set up...

    Man I hope they don't reformulate acros100....


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk