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 27

Sal Santamaura
08-24-2012, 03:21 PM
Thanks for the cynicism, Sal...Those who are frustrated and angry at reality frequently mistake realism for cynicism. :)


Colleen said at the outset that she is a PR person. Let her do her job...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?


...We should be gracious and listen...If I hadn't listened I couldn't have replied. What I posted, like all my posts, was polite and gracious.


...None of us are expecting some inside information or anything other than what Kodak's still film division wants us to hear. That does not make Colleen someone we should not listen to and ask questions of...I never suggested not listening or asking questions. I simply advised reading and evaluating very carefully.

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. 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.


...Regarding your final statement: there's nothing Colleen could say that would satisfy you.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. 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.

mhanc
08-24-2012, 03:24 PM
There are no bad assets, only bad prices... someone will by the film division. And, if they are good business people they will get it at a good price without legacy liabilities and, then, make a good profit. Maybe these people will be the current engineers and employees, maybe someone else... but if they do their homework and are interested in building a business then this will be a good thing.

To the buyers of the film division: I will always buy Kodak film as long as they are of the same quality and "character" as they are now. (And... if you bring back KR I will shoot one roll per week - promise)

mikendawn
08-24-2012, 03:25 PM
yay! Kodak is going to sell their film, CASH COW, and move into selling cheap crappy printers with inexpensive ink, money-pit...

Interesting... so Kodak is synonymous with "FILM" as Epson is Synonymous to "PRINTERS"...

Photo Engineer
08-24-2012, 03:35 PM
yay! Kodak is going to sell their film, CASH COW, and move into selling cheap crappy printers with inexpensive ink, money-pit...

Interesting... so Kodak is synonymous with "FILM" as Epson is Synonymous to "PRINTERS"...

Wow, are you wrong!

Kodak is not interested in the tiny home printers as a means of revenue, and in fact have considered selling it (or have already sold it), but I have not kept up with that end of EK.

What they are talking about are the big printers for producing books and other items having long runs. These printers are about the size of an automobile and can print hundreds of books in just a few minutes. This includes binding. In other words, POD.

PE

lxdude
08-24-2012, 03:38 PM
Sal, I see no spinning here.

I agree. The announcement produced much confusion and conjecture. Colleen clarified several things.

pbromaghin
08-24-2012, 03:41 PM
Hmmm. Just as the world goes to online digital books.

Photo Engineer
08-24-2012, 03:42 PM
What do you mean by over capacity versus over sized? Aren't these the same thing?

I assume you mean that by making fewer runs per year, a run every two years, whatever, they could keep this going profitably? Maybe - but then what do you have for those skilled people to do to justify their salaries the rest of the time? If they can be employed doing other things that take advantage of their skills that might be workable. But I assume that's what Kodak has been doing so far.

Maybe it's workable for a buyer. I agree with the thought that they must at least have a buyer in mind and some talks going on or they wouldn't have released this. This sort of release isn't the way to advertise "hey, this is for sale, anyone interested?"

Roger;

Over sized was when Kodak had plants in several places making the same products for a WW market.

Over capacity is when a company makes (or can make) more product than the market can bear. This is a subset of Over Sized.

Kodak is now one plant. It is properly sized for the market, but within that plant, as the market shrinks, it is over capacity for some large part of the product range, for the market out there.

To compensate, Kodak now cannot become smaller, it can only reduce production within its current capacity. It does that by reducing operation hours or days of operation, among other things. It is very difficult to do as the market shrinks, because the capacity in terms of equipment is n ow frozen at a fixed level and there is no capital to redesign the equipment.

This is a very complex dilemma that is the opposite end of the scale from EFKE which drama is playing on in that other thread.

PE

Brian C. Miller
08-24-2012, 04:42 PM
Kodak is not interested in the tiny home printers as a means of revenue, and in fact have considered selling it (or have already sold it), but I have not kept up with that end of EK.

According to one yesterday's articles, Kodak can't just spin off the consumer printer business. They signed licensing agreements that dictate that Kodak can't transfer the licenses it bought. The purchaser would have to purchase seperate licenses for the technology.

Sal Santamaura
08-24-2012, 04:50 PM
…part of the sale...


… NOT part of the sale…


Sal, I see no spinning here. It is talked about "discussions about how a sale would proceed" not "the sale...


I agree...Because two readers can't see it doesn't mean it's not happening, only that it's being effectively executed. :)

Colleen is very good at her job. By the time she got to the large format forum several hours ago


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?94171-Kodak-announces-plans-to-sell-consumer-film-division&p=924434&viewfull=1#post924434

she'd refined her post so none of my comments here apply. :D

Kevin Kehler
08-24-2012, 04:55 PM
Several points:

1) Ilford, Adox and Efke all need Kodak, as does Fuji to a certain extent. Kodak orders tons of gelatin, raw chemicals and other consumables in order to make film. If Kodak were to disappear, the cost of supplying these materials to the remaining manufacturers increases. In short, everyone's cost is lower because Kodak needs so much, because they are buying the extra from Kodak's need - if Kodak doesn't need any, then the remaining buyers are no longer buying the extra production but are now paying for the primary production. Since this will be less that when Kodak was buying, it will be more per unit purchased (i.e., the price of film will rise based only on the cost of the materials to produce film, not because of less competition in the market which could also raise prices). Similarly, if Kodak no longer needs tons of silver a week, the market price of silver will fall and new silver production will be delayed, which will cause the price in the long run to rise higher than if Kodak had remained in the market.

2) Ron and several others have indicated numerous times that formulas are machine size and place specific - these cannot be replicated without extensive investment by another manufacturer or the same manufacturer at a different location. Even Kodak had difficulties in moving film production to other locations, such as Brazil and China. If Ilford or Fuji bought the recipe for Tri-X or Porta (they could probably reverse engineer the chemicals pretty quickly but not the process), it could not be replicated on another machine without extensive testing; just like Kodak cannot make smaller patches (1/2 orders) as the recipes are calibrate to full sizes (if it took 12 rotations to mix a full batch, it takes how much to mix half a batch? And the answer is not 6). So the reality is that the new buyer has to buy the recipes, machines and keep making product at the same location in order for the film to remain the same - very difficult to see a buyer doing that but you never know.

3) I am glad Kodak is providing some information about what is happening - if you have never worked in a large corporation or government, providing information is never a simple process. I once argued through 4 managers that we should send a letter to our clients about a potential problem - I prepared 8 pages of documentation showing why this was a good idea and how it would be beneficial in the long term, and cleared it with legal and media relations. We all went to the Director who spent less than one minute on the idea before denying it. You don't think there are plenty of employees within Kodak who have wanted to provide a voice on APUG or any other website? The odds are it was shot down long ago.

RattyMouse
08-24-2012, 05:24 PM
part of the problem is materials used to make film.
kodak is a huge consumer of these chemicals, and if they stop
some of the places that make the raw chemicals might have trouble
producing smaller quantities of these chemicals and it will disrupt the whole industry.

these things have been discussed ad nauseum in the past 6 or 7 years here
with people like PE who have an idea about the chemistry &c used to make the materials we
consume.

it would be hard to educate yourself about these topics ...

This makes NO sense. Or I should say, it only makes sense if Kodak goes under AND people stop shooting film. If Kodak goes under, the VAST majority of people will switch to FUJIFILM or Ilford or any other player. The raw material situation remains constant. Kodak going under will be a good thing for the industry because the supplier situation will be closer in tune to that of demand.

ic-racer
08-24-2012, 05:26 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."

RattyMouse
08-24-2012, 05:34 PM
Several points:

1) Ilford, Adox and Efke all need Kodak, as does Fuji to a certain extent. Kodak orders tons of gelatin, raw chemicals and other consumables in order to make film. If Kodak were to disappear, the cost of supplying these materials to the remaining manufacturers increases. In short, everyone's cost is lower because Kodak needs so much, because they are buying the extra from Kodak's need - if Kodak doesn't need any, then the remaining buyers are no longer buying the extra production but are now paying for the primary production. Since this will be less that when Kodak was buying, it will be more per unit purchased (i.e., the price of film will rise based only on the cost of the materials to produce film, not because of less competition in the market which could also raise prices). Similarly, if Kodak no longer needs tons of silver a week, the market price of silver will fall and new silver production will be delayed, which will cause the price in the long run to rise higher than if Kodak had remained in the market.



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.

Roger Cole
08-24-2012, 05:34 PM
"It's official - Kodak is trying to sell it's film business?"

DREW WILEY
08-24-2012, 05:37 PM
Maybe it should be clarified by the statement that Kodak is "attempting" to sell off this division. If
that fails, they might be back to Plan B, if they have an alternative. They also attempted to raise
a lot of capital by selling off patent rights, but that didn't quite do the trick.

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.

Sirius Glass
08-24-2012, 06:04 PM
This is nonsense.
They're all in it for the money, not for the image of the industry. If Kodak is gone, their cake suddenly gets bigger. And they'll be happier.

I thought that we were rid of you two pages ago.

Now go sit in the corner and be quiet.

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.