Nasty Rumor? "Kodak Sells Photochemical Operations" ?

Discussion in 'Product Availability' started by kb244, Sep 22, 2006.

  1. kb244

    kb244 Member

    Messages:
    816
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Location:
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Seen a link for it on another photography related message board, but when I try to see the thread, the site conviently is down at the moment ( and its a site I visit regularly ), but the thread title said "Kodak Sells Photochemical Operations".

    I'm trying to figure out the story behind it, I know on the 20th Kodak stopped developing some synthetic chemicals used in the operation of "products" (they don't tell you specifically which product it affects).

    So was the title just grossly exagerated? I know some people say one thing, and its usually not it, such as saying fuji stopped making neopan across 100, when it was just stoping the distribution of it's bulk roll in asia, not discontinueing it totally.
     
  2. reellis67

    reellis67 Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,887
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Central Flor
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I read it. Apparently Kodak has sold their chemical production facility in Rochester to another chemical company and that company will continue to produce the Kodak products. It did not say whether they would be doing the selling themselves or whether they would be making the products *for* Kodak. They did not state anything about discontinuing products, just to head off the inevitable.

    - Randy
     
  3. jgjbowen

    jgjbowen Member

    Messages:
    879
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Nothing on the Wall Street Journal site about Kodak since 9/20.
     
  4. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
  5. kb244

    kb244 Member

    Messages:
    816
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Location:
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  6. reellis67

    reellis67 Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,887
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Central Flor
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
  7. kb244

    kb244 Member

    Messages:
    816
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Location:
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Oh.. so no big deal then, Kodak likely just wanting to stop all effort on their part in terms of producing film and such and concentrate on digital, which would make sense to have other companies pick up the rest. I was just kinda worried it was gona be something stupid that would lead to a quick deminishing on the chemistry.
     
  8. reellis67

    reellis67 Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,887
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Central Flor
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I was curious too, although I don't use much in the way of Kodak chemicals, I would still hate to see them drop out. It's a cost cutting measure I would imagine - at least in theory.

    - Randy
     
  9. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
    More likely a cash generating measure. Selling off profitable operations, particularly those engaged in what are no longer considered part of the firm's "core business" such as this, is a necessary part of their restructuring strategy.
     
  10. kb244

    kb244 Member

    Messages:
    816
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Location:
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'd imagine it would also make their stock look better if they dont have any portion of their business reducing in sales and such, since its outsourced.
     
  11. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I agree. I expect that Kodak will engage in more asset sales of its "mature businesses" with similar production buy-back provisions. They need the cash to reinvest in the digital businesses, so it's logical to first milk and then sell off the "cash cows" before they go dry....
     
  12. Paul Howell

    Paul Howell Member

    Messages:
    2,658
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    Phoeinx Ariz
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I was surprised that Kodak did not sell off or spin off it's B&W paper division, although Kodak may have looking for a buyer and did not find one.
     
  13. jmailand

    jmailand Member

    Messages:
    151
    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Location:
    Belmont Mich
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I bet the new company will offer to keep the same employees, but only if they take a pay cut or work without a union. I guess the good part is that their keeping the operation in the USA, for now anyway.

    James,
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    As I posted on photo.net...

    Personally (my opinion), I couldn't care less. Kodak abandoned the market a long time ago in favor of digital items such as TV's (wait til Christmas) and cell phones.

    I switched to Ilford products a few years ago and have been very happy with their products and their support. They even introduced TWO new paper developers.

    And with Kodak possibly going away, their market share, whatever they had left, will certainly fall onto Ilford. This is a good thing.
     
  16. ann

    ann Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,920
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Shooter:
    35mm
    in the article it states they will keep 150 employees to continue production
     
  17. mikebarger

    mikebarger Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,936
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Location:
    south centra
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Looks like Kodak had more capacity at this plant than it needed.

    Champion will continue to make Kodak product, plus manufacture some of its own chemicals there.

    With ony 150 employees going to Champion, I doubt Kodak considers it a cash cow.
     
  18. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Actually, if you only need a few employees to spin cash then that enhances a "cash cow". The asset sale is a result of the further maturing of the business with the expectation that future cash generation will NOT be as strong as in the past.

    Perhaps you were confusing "cash cow" with "cost reduction"?

    Kodak is strategically exiting mature businesses using a classic restructuring model*. Let's not forget that the current Ilford that we know is actually Harmonn (sp?) a "spin off" by the former parent using the Ilford name under license.

    The big question regarding Kodak's moves will be when do they spin-off the film division? And will they do it via a management buy-out like Harmonn or some other way.

    One thing for sure, they cannot keep hemmoraging money as they have done for a number of quarters now. The scary thing is, no one is convinced (yet) that their restructuring is going to succeed.

    *One, reasonably successful example of this is IBM. Sold the "Selectrics" then sold the "laptops" and PC's and are now basically positioned as a "systems solution" company.
     
  19. John Bragg

    John Bragg Member

    Messages:
    630
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Location:
    Penwithick,
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
  20. Jim Chinn

    Jim Chinn Member

    Messages:
    2,512
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    Omaha, Nebra
    Shooter:
    Multi Format

    IIRC that was the case as Kodak tried, but could not find a buyer that could operate a North American plant and compete with lower costs of overseas manufacturers and the size and scale of machinery pretty much eliminates the option of moving the operation somewhere else.
     
  21. Jim Chinn

    Jim Chinn Member

    Messages:
    2,512
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    Omaha, Nebra
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Except for HC110 and KRST, everything else Kodak makes can be either replaced by other off the shelf products or easily made up with stock chemicals. When Kodak dropped its paper I bought 3 gallons of HC110 and with its shelf life rated basically in the millinieum range, that should last me as long as I keep shooting film. I think someone else now produces a selenium toner, but worse case scenario this can also be mixed at home but requires a much higher level of safety precautions.

    Like anything else, as long as there is a market, someone will make most of this stuff.
     
  22. ann

    ann Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,920
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Shooter:
    35mm
    kodak stills makes selenium, but it is only available in qt. not gallons
     
  23. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I believe Ilford is now making selenium as well.
     
  24. ann

    ann Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,920
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Shooter:
    35mm
    i know ilford has been testing their version of selenium, not sure it is on the retail market yet.
     
  25. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    There's a review in one of the last issues of B+W(uk).
     
  26. bjorke

    bjorke Member

    Messages:
    2,032
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Location:
    SF & Surroun
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Sounds like a reason to raise prices to me!

    Though I've realized that the only Kodak stuff I use these days are Xtol and PhotoFlo.