PDA

View Full Version : It's official, Kodak is selling its film business.



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

PKM-25
08-24-2012, 05:40 PM
Can we get the title of this thread changed? I can't seem to find an official statement in this thread or on the internet to verify the title of this thread to be true.

Maybe I'll start a thread:"Its Official, Kodak is keeping its film business."

What is the point of that? Colleen has posted on here that they want to sell it if they find a suitable buyer who has the will and the means to keep the current film line up and quality intact. If I post an ad in the classifieds saying that I want to sell a lens, than it is official, I am selling it, even if the buyer has not yet surfaced....

NB23
08-24-2012, 05:51 PM
The amount of misconceptions in this thread is crazy!!

"Coke needs Pepsi to stay dominant. If Pepsi goes bankrupt, so will Coke!!"

LOL!!

lxdude
08-24-2012, 06:03 PM
Those who are frustrated and angry at reality frequently mistake realism for cynicism. :)

Sal, your brand of realism is cynicism. You clearly came across as negative.
I'm realistic; I know why Kodak hired a PR firm. But I'm not cynical about it- I'm glad they're doing it. It helps Kodak's still film group, which is a good thing in my view, and it doesn't hurt me. I get a better picture of what's going on, and some of the confusion is alleviated. I see no attempt to fool me. I'm not so naive as to think they're just doing it because they care about me. At this point I'm more interested in them keeping their still film business alive.
That they are trying to keep customers from leaving is obvious. Saying they're spinning things to keep customers from leaving is cynical. The subtext is clear: they don't care about you guys, so don't be fooled by it.
Spinning is an attempt to give a false impression. I saw no spin, only statements.

Colleen presented herself forthrightly as the still film group's PR person. As I said, we know what PR is. She came on here and clarified a confusing announcement, which the rest of us could only try to figure out. I appreciate that.



What do you mean "Let her do her job?" Who's trying to stop her from doing her job? She's here posting. Isn't that her job?

Do you really not understand what I meant?



If I hadn't listened I couldn't have replied. What I posted, like all my posts, was polite and gracious.
Trying to shoot her down with your analysis of what anyone with basic reading comprehension could already understand while calling it spin, coupled with your "translation"- yeah, real polite and gracious.



I never suggested not listening or asking questions.

Didn't say you did.



I simply advised reading and evaluating very carefully.
Good advice.



A PR firm hired by a corporation is not substantively different than the press secretary employed by a president. A public communication person is told only what management wants "us" to hear and their job is to present it in a way most advantageous to management. The press secretary / PR person is not given adverse information and can plausibly deny knowledge of it. These are critical points to keep in mind when reading/listening.

Yes. I really think, as I've stated, that people know what "Public Relations" means. I thought my post was fairly clear as to the limitations on what we would hear from Colleen.




It's far different from when Mirko and Simon post. They're both owners of their respective companies and cognizant of everything taking place within them.
Yes, we are getting it straight from the top. That is different. But with Kodak, at this point, if we heard it from Perez would it make a difference? Simon and Mirko have been very straight with us, and deserve the credibility they have earned here. But a principal in a company can obfuscate as well as anyone if they want to.
I think the Kodak equivalent to Simon and Mirko at this point is the person in charge of the still film group. That person is constrained by upper management in what can be said, and may well have little additional information anyway. So whaddaya expect- whether it's someone in Kodak, or a PR firm, the information's going to be the same. But the information Colleen gave us today is valuable, and cuts through at least some of the confusion and conjecture. Beats the hell out of the rumor mill.




Since you didn't quote either of my posts, I don't know whether this refers to the bumper sticker saying or my comment about Kodak getting its PR money's worth.
The PR one. My entire post was in response to the post that appeared in.




In either case, my satisfaction is of no import. The only thing Kodak seeks through its PR campaign is the satisfaction of potential buyers that film division customers aren't prematurely abandoning Kodak film.

You could be right. It's smart to want to protect the business value. But that doesn't hurt us. At this time confusion could be deadly to the still film division and isn't any fun for us, either.

Thomas Bertilsson
08-24-2012, 06:04 PM
The amount of misconceptions in this thread is crazy!!

"Coke needs Pepsi to stay dominant. If Pepsi goes bankrupt, so will Coke!!"

LOL!!

Pepsi uses nothing that is in common with Coca Cola, except maybe sweetener and water, none of which is in short supply or particularly expensive.

Kodak uses things like gelatin, dyes, dye couplers, etc, things that are specific to this technology, whether it is Fuji, Ilford, Kodak, Foma, or someone else. It's highly specialized, and if Kodak goes under, arguably the largest consumer of these products, do you honestly think the supply chain will remain unchanged? Just give us something constructive that states the opposite, and explain what has been misconceived.

ic-racer
08-24-2012, 06:10 PM
What is the point of that? Colleen has posted on here that they want to sell it if they find a suitable buyer who has the will and the means to keep the current film line up and quality intact. If I post an ad in the classifieds saying that I want to sell a lens, than it is official, I am selling it, even if the buyer has not yet surfaced....

The title of the thread should be changed because it is either not true or impossible to prove based on facts available today.

The Kodak website "Official" statement uses the word "Film" only once:


...we will continue own and operate...Commercial Film...buisnesses... --AP

If you intended to equate "continue to own" with "selling" then the thread should be moved to the Lounge where it can be discussed along with similarly useless threads like "It's Official, God Exists..." and "All poor people should die..." :munch:

DREW WILEY
08-24-2012, 06:11 PM
NB23 - it makes perfect sense! There are economies of scale involved with a lot of suppliers and
specialized materials, esp in something as tricky as color film mfg. Then you have distribution issues:
Kodak is based in the US, Fuji largely in Japan. Too much competition can disincentify anyone; but
having all your eggs in one basket greatly increases the risk to the consumer. Even the concept of
coating your own black and white film gets mauled pretty badly if there is no volume market for
comparable ingredients. Multiple industries are involved. And some of the smaller-volume coaters
are dependent upon things like master rolls of film base leftover from the big boy orders. Its a matter
of critical mass for some of these components, sink or swim. For instance, both Kodak and Fuji want
to continue being suppliers to the RA4 paper market; but if color neg film sinks, that will immediately
impact a big piece of that pie - not all of it, but enough to potentially introduce another tailspin to
this whole equation. Same goes for Coke and Pepsi - they are giant purchasers of carbonic acid,
for example, and have a cumulative footprint. Lose one or the other, along with their numerous other
branded soft drinks, and you might have to go find something else to rot your teeth.

MDR
08-24-2012, 06:12 PM
NB23 it seems you're comparing apples and carots. Pepsi and Cola produce mostly colored sugar water. The ingredients they use are used by thousands of companies some of them several times bigger than Cola and Pepsi together. Kodak on the other hand is at the top of the food chain. The film market is very small, some ingredients used in the manufacturing of Film are pretty much only used by Film manufacturers. So without Kodak prices will rise and or the production of film products will become much more difficult. Kodak = Film in the public's perception. Without Kodak no Film. Ilford, Adox and Foma are nobodies in the public perception that is. Most Film shooters use color film not B/W. B/W is a niche in a niche. I am also sure that Fuji would leave the market as soon as Kodak is finished.

Why all the hatred against a PR rep from Kodak, who is not responsible for Perez stupid decisions?
Is there a PR rep from Fujifilm on this forum? So why not complain about Fujifilm and their ongoing product discontinuations and lack of prior informations.
Kodak has made a lot of mistakes in the past but I wish them and their hopefully sucessful Film spinoff the best of luck.

PKM-25
08-24-2012, 06:21 PM
The title of the thread should be changed because it is either not true or impossible to prove one way or the other at best based on the facts available.

The Kodak website "Official" statement uses the word "Film" only once:

With all due respect, this is bizarre commentary....Colleen Krenzer is working directly with the manager of Worldwide PR and Communications for Kodak's Film Capture and Professional Output business and has clearly stated that all still film and even still photo chemistry is up for sale, it is all over the web and she has said this on several forums. Still films, even the professional category do not fall under "Commercial Films", they fall under "Personalized Imaging" as she has clearly stated. Colleen is also the person who is the voice on Kodak's Professional Facebook page, again, under the direction of her manager Audrey Jonckheer at Kodak Rochester.

I'm sure she will address you directly but this is literally as official as it gets, among other things, Kodak's still film division and photo chemical operation is up for sale.

SkipA
08-24-2012, 06:26 PM
The amount of misconceptions in this thread is crazy!!

"Coke needs Pepsi to stay dominant. If Pepsi goes bankrupt, so will Coke!!"

LOL!!

You are talking apples to oranges here, or cokes to pepsis. It is not even remotely similar to the competition between film manufacturers.

Digital refreshments haven't replaced chemical sodas yet in the minds of most people. The same is not true of film. the name "Kodak" suggests "film" to most people. That's the difference. Most people have never heard of Ilford, Efke, Foma, or Adox. Some people know Fuji makes film. If Kodak goes under, the majority public perception will be that film is gone. Kodak is gone, therefore film is gone. And that perception will affect the film sales of other companies. Fewer stores will carry film products. People will not see single-use cameras and Kodak Max film on the shelves. Many of those who might be inclined to try shooting film will be dissuaded because they will feel it is wasted effort. Why buy a film camera if there is no film for it?

There is already evidence of that, even here on this forum. Earlier in this thread someone who returned to film in recent years was wondering if he should "... give up the dream of analog creativity." He wondered if he should sell his film gear while it still has some small modicum of worth, and stop acquiring processing equipment. If the mere contemplation of Kodak's demise can do this to someone who knows full well that there are a number of sources for film in the market, what effect will it have on others who give thought to shooting film?

Kevin Kehler
08-24-2012, 06:27 PM
None of the above is true if the number of film consumers remain constant once Kodak goes under. The market for gelatin and silver remains unchanged.

To paraphrase a bad guy, that is "the mother of all assumptions" because it assumes that the manufacture/transport/distribution costs are fixed (you don't think North American or South American mined silver costs more to ship to Japan than to Rochester?) and that these other manufactures have the capacity to make more film efficiently. To continue the Coke/Pepsi analogy, if one dies, yes, the other could survive but if both died, the costs for Dr. Pepper or Schweppes would increase dramatically due to decreased global demand for high-glucose corn syrup. On the world film stage, Kodak is the equivalent of Coke and Pepsi combined.

Look at all of the people who assumed film was dead when they killed off Kodachrome, which by Kodak's own figures, accounted for less than 0.5% of all non-commercial film. Most people have no idea what Tri-X or Porta is. Kodak was very successful in one regard - in the average North American consumer's mind "Kodak = film". The perception is you can't kill one without killing the other and perceptions have real world implications (e.g., The tea party perceives Obama has raised taxes when every independent accounting method shows taxes are lower = the general public perceives film to be the exclusive domain of Kodak and if Kodak dies, so does all film).

Thomas Bertilsson
08-24-2012, 06:28 PM
Do Fujifilm use the same dyes? If yes, then people switching from Kodak to Fuji will keep the supply chain intact as Fujifilm will buy more. If no, then Fujifilm's supply chain is even stronger, as people will not stop shooting film, they will get film from Fujifilm. This whole raw material situation is a total non issue.

Kodak makes a lot of it. I don't know the inner dealings of every ingredient of Fuji and Kodak film, but how do you honestly believe that having only one supplier of color film be a good thing? Photographic grade gelatin, for example. Kodak's main film product is movie film, 95% of it I heard someone say. I'm not sure Fuji is ready to step up to the plate and be the sole supplier of movie film. So the demand would be lowered significantly for this product. This affects pricing and distribution, and willingness to supply by those that provide the product.
Now, spread this out across all of the specialized products included in the making of film, possibly hundreds of them, and tell me that having mainly Fuji make all of the color film on the world is good for consumers.

Photo Engineer
08-24-2012, 06:32 PM
Pepsi uses nothing that is in common with Coca Cola, except maybe sweetener and water, none of which is in short supply or particularly expensive.

Kodak uses things like gelatin, dyes, dye couplers, etc, things that are specific to this technology, whether it is Fuji, Ilford, Kodak, Foma, or someone else. It's highly specialized, and if Kodak goes under, arguably the largest consumer of these products, do you honestly think the supply chain will remain unchanged? Just give us something constructive that states the opposite, and explain what has been misconceived.

Kevin and others equate common chemicals with Fuji, Kodak and Ilford. And this quote by Thomas begs for a reply.

Kodak uses couplers unique to Kodak and no one else. Fuji uses totally different couplers, and Ilford uses none. Kodak makes its own gelatin in Peabody Mass. Fuji gets theirs from a company in the Far East. Kodak makes their own dyes for the most part, and European companies have Honeywell to rely on. Kodak gets the acetate and estar pellets from Tenn. Eastman and make their own support. Ilford buys some film support from ICI IIRC. Fuji, IDK. They certainly do not buy it from EK.

So, there is virtually nothing in common except uniqueness to the photo industry, and also their rarity and cost.

BTW. As an afterthought edit, Coke and Pepsi use several common ingredients. One example comes from the fact that they are both "colas" and as such use the cola nut. Another ingredient is caffeine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_nut

PE

DREW WILEY
08-24-2012, 06:32 PM
Coke and Pepsi might be similar, but with Kodak now dominating color neg film mfg, and Fuji the chrome side, it's no longer the same kind of analogy, not if you expect the level of product quality
currently available.

Kevin Kehler
08-24-2012, 06:39 PM
Kevin and others equate common chemicals with Fuji, Kodak and Ilford. And this quote by Thomas begs for a reply.

Kodak uses couplers unique to Kodak and no one else. Fuji uses totally different couplers, and Ilford uses none. Kodak makes its own gelatin in Peabody Mass. Fuji gets theirs from a company in the Far East. Kodak makes their own dyes for the most part, and European companies have Honeywell to rely on. Kodak gets the acetate and estar pellets from Tenn. Eastman and make their own support. Ilford buys some film support from ICI IIRC. Fuji, IDK. They certainly do not buy it from EK.

So, there is virtually nothing in common except uniqueness to the photo industry, and also their rarity and cost.

PE

Thank you for the clarification.

Diapositivo
08-24-2012, 06:42 PM
ic-racer, you probably did not read the thread since the beginning to where it is now. At the beginning everybody was wondering what was inside all those acronyms and labels that Kodak was selling. A new user, cdkrenzer (Colleen Krenzer) who works for a PR firm which in turn works for Kodak, clarified certain aspects of the press release, obscure to most of us.

So now we know as positive truth that the still film division (both consumer film and professional film) is on sale. We also positively know that the motion picture business is not on sale. Or at least we know that this is the Kodak official position at this time.

Regarding the raw material issue, I would agree with RattyMouse if we could be sure that in case Kodak films cease to be all film users will instantly switch to Fuji products (or other products).

The practice is I think a little different. Those small shops who let's say develop film, still on the brink of profitability, asking themselves if it makes sense to remain in this business, and use Kodak material, if Kodak goes out of business will not necessarily phone Fujifilm explaining the situation and asking for immediate rescue. Some of them will just consider it the last straw and close the production.

Your grocer round the corner, who had a Kodak provision of films because he had certain continuing contacts with a sale man whom he knows since ages, when Kodak stop providing films will maybe just stop selling film. The small turnover might be not enough to make him look for an alternative provider.

The person going to the grocer to find a film for his daughter's birthday will find there is no more film available: "well, just use your phone"... "I guess I'll do so, thanks". He'll use the phone, he'll develop a new habit.

A sizeable chunk of Kodak business would not automatically fall into Fujifilm hands and will probably be lost.

In this forum itself we can read of people who say they stopped using slide film because the film is not Kodak, or that they stopped using Kodak slide film because the film is not Kodachrome.

Both scenarios are possible: if Kodak falls into a black hole, Fujifilm might certainly profit nicely, exploiting its monopolist position, or might be caught in the sector crisis which would ensue, and which would be felt also by Fujifilm. We don't know.

What I hope is that Kodak remains alive as a film producer because monopolies are never a good thing for the consumer.

jnanian
08-24-2012, 06:45 PM
Thomas, perhaps we should not feed the troll.

+1

thanks !

cdkrenzer
08-24-2012, 06:54 PM
The title of the thread should be changed because it is either not true or impossible to prove based on facts available today.

The Kodak website "Official" statement uses the word "Film" only once:



If you intended to equate "continue to own" with "selling" then the thread should be moved to the Lounge where it can be discussed along with similarly useless threads like "It's Official, God Exists..." and "All poor people should die..." :munch:

IC-Racer: I think someone else may have posted in reply to this as well, but I work with the company's PR agency and am trying to answer people's questions and am the one who started this thread. To clarify, the commercial film business at Kodak comprises films like aerial, industrial and printed circuit board films. This business is NOT part of the proposed sale. The still film business, which comprises all consumer and professional photography films, is part of the businesses in the proposed sale. I hope this clears up any confusion.

PKM-25
08-24-2012, 06:59 PM
IC-Racer: I think someone else may have posted in reply to this as well, but I work with the company's PR agency and am trying to answer people's questions and am the one who started this thread. To clarify, the commercial film business at Kodak comprises films like aerial, industrial and printed circuit board films. This business is NOT part of the proposed sale. The still film business, which comprises all consumer and professional photography films, is part of the businesses in the proposed sale. I hope this clears up any confusion.

Thanks Colleen,

Now lets all take a break from this, go out, get a bite to eat, sip a glass of wine, walk the dog, hug your spouse, shoot some Tri-X and have a great weekend.

jnoir
08-24-2012, 07:16 PM
I have read in full the 20 pages full of comments (seriously!) and, while I agree with some comments and disagree with others, I find it pointless to discuss who's wrong or who should be praised.

Nevertheless, there is something I wanted to remark, and for that I took the liberty of quoting (nothing personal SkipA, you just happen to be one of the latest posts mentioning this at the time of my writing ;)


You are talking apples to oranges here, or cokes to pepsis. It is not even remotely similar to the competition between film manufacturers.

Digital refreshments haven't replaced chemical sodas yet in the minds of most people. The same is not true of film. the name "Kodak" suggests "film" to most people. That's the difference. Most people have never heard of Ilford, Efke, Foma, or Adox. Some people know Fuji makes film. If Kodak goes under, the majority public perception will be that film is gone. Kodak is gone, therefore film is gone. And that perception will affect the film sales of other companies. Fewer stores will carry film products. People will not see single-use cameras and Kodak Max film on the shelves. Many of those who might be inclined to try shooting film will be dissuaded because they will feel it is wasted effort. Why buy a film camera if there is no film for it?


I think you are missing some point here: in the US, Kodak may equal film. In Europe, I doubt it (I have no figures to go with my guess, though ;). Here, we have had Agfa, Orwo, Ferrania, Negra, Adox, just to name a few. Heck, even Voigtländer, Ensign and Zeiss-Ikon sold film under their own brand (at this point I have no idea if they were the actual manufacturers). All of them as they were known are long gone, and life went by. Some have resurfaced and are doing fine (at least they stay in business ;) and I support them as much as I can) and that is well known by European film photographers. The way I see it, if someone thinks Kodak = Film, then he/she is not informed, and I doubt he/she will even remotely know about Kodak going out of business.

If film with quality is available, naming it won't matter. Most of the newcomers to film won't have or haven't heard about Kodak anyway, except maybe in "tales from the Granpa". The name will mean nothing to them. Newcomers here are driven to film by things such as "lomography".

PKM-25
08-24-2012, 07:19 PM
That's my plan! Except for the dog part and Tri-X.....I have a ton of Porta and Acros in the house and I need to start burning that down.

LOL, you realize that sounds like you are going to burn your house down, right?