PDA

View Full Version : Kodak is cutting more jobs. President and CFO stepping down.



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

kb3lms
09-11-2012, 08:05 PM
... the roles of CEO and Chairman being combined person should be a red flag from the word "go".

For Kodak, this is 1989 all over again.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/09/business/click-up-down-and-out-at-kodak.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/09/business/click-up-down-and-out-at-kodak.htmlhttp://)

Note the line of Prof_Pixel's Kodak vs Dow chart under Whitmore. And that was during boom times for film with next to no digital competition. It didn't work then and it ain't gonna work now.

All this has happened before and all this will happen again....

lxdude
09-11-2012, 10:00 PM
For Kodak, this is 1989 all over again.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/09/business/click-up-down-and-out-at-kodak.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/09/business/click-up-down-and-out-at-kodak.htmlhttp://)

Note the line of Prof_Pixel's Kodak vs Dow chart under Whitmore. And that was during boom times for film with next to no digital competition. It didn't work then and it ain't gonna work now.

All this has happened before and all this will happen again....

The link goes to a 'Page not found' message.

Brian C. Miller
09-11-2012, 10:49 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/09/business/click-up-down-and-out-at-kodak.html

Try it now. There was some extra stuff at the end.

Prof_Pixel
09-11-2012, 10:56 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/09/business/click-up-down-and-out-at-kodak.html


Phillip Samper would have been a MUCH better choice as far as I was concerned!

I didn't know him well, but his son was truly outstanding.

Poisson Du Jour
09-12-2012, 01:36 AM
Lots of hot-shoe-shuffling and positive-spin at the top, rather like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, but the Big K is still precariously close to the abyss.

"Analysts have said most of Kodak's earnings problems are concentrated in the company's core photographic business, the one Mr. Whitmore knows best. ''Kodak's photo business has been suffering a long-term margin erosion attributable to more competition''

So what did Kodak and its many innovative boots and minions in the boardroom do to stem the tide of the competition trampling over it? Nothing much. It glossed over inkjet paper, scanners and kiosks (make a longer list) and then stepped up into seriously expensive patent infringement bunfight with Polaroid. A $12b payout? Where would Kodak get that sort of pocket money from? And all those people left unemployed, and still more and more going. Except the comfortably remunerated eagles at the top of the company who continue to churn out carefully crafted spin and surgar-coated assurances. Ugh—!

msa
09-12-2012, 08:58 AM
I wish Kodak would have entered the Photovoltaic Solar Cell business instead of junky ink jet printers.

I still have 6 boxes of Kodak Christmas Lights in my garage.

Christmas Lights!

Thing is, the PV market (when it existed in the US, anyway), really favors those with larger chip fabs.

IBM has a process to partially strip down wafers and then recoat them to create PV cells...this lets them recycle manufacturing rejects.

Not that there's any money in it vs China, but it would have favored companies with large fabs (IBM, Intel, Motorola (of course, all that went to Freescale and ON), etc.)

I don't think Kodak could ever have been competitive in that market, but it's all overseas now anyway.

Photo Engineer
09-12-2012, 09:30 AM
Phillip Samper would have been a MUCH better choice as far as I was concerned!

I didn't know him well, but his son was truly outstanding.

Fred;

Carp was very much like Samper, while Kohrt was much like Whitmore. Look at what Carp did!

The marketing type / bean counter usually cuts things the wrong way. You need a team! Every person has to input their information with their expertise.

PE

Photo Engineer
09-12-2012, 09:31 AM
For those of you who did not know this, Kodak has / had a rather extensive chip fabrication facility at Kodak Park. It was one full wing of B 81, the Physics Division, and that is where the first digital imaging sensors were made.

PE

Thomas Bertilsson
09-12-2012, 10:09 AM
For those of you who did not know this, Kodak has / had a rather extensive chip fabrication facility at Kodak Park. It was one full wing of B 81, the Physics Division, and that is where the first digital imaging sensors were made.

PE

Didn't they make sensors for the Leica M8 and M9 cameras?

SilverGlow
09-12-2012, 11:23 AM
For those of you who did not know this, Kodak has / had a rather extensive chip fabrication facility at Kodak Park. It was one full wing of B 81, the Physics Division, and that is where the first digital imaging sensors were made.

PE

Yes, true, and as most of us know, Kodak sourced the early full-frame sensors for both Canon and Nikon, but in the time since then, those two companies eclipsed Kodak's technology on sensors. This should've never have happened. Kodak should be top sensor dog today, but their stupid management resulted in them getting left behind. Too many old bastards, not enough fresh blood, young blood. They should've consulted Steve Jobs, but I suspect their arrogance was sky high.

Photo Engineer
09-12-2012, 01:03 PM
Kodak still makes top of the line sensors, and has had a recent major breakthrough in this area.

Thomas Bertilsson
09-12-2012, 02:34 PM
Kodak still makes top of the line sensors, and has had a recent major breakthrough in this area.

Wouldn't it be cool if they could capitalize on this?

msa
09-12-2012, 03:27 PM
For those of you who did not know this, Kodak has / had a rather extensive chip fabrication facility at Kodak Park. It was one full wing of B 81, the Physics Division, and that is where the first digital imaging sensors were made.

PE

Sure PE, but the companies I'm talking about have (or had, when they were in one piece), dozens and dozens of fabs in the US alone, and hundreds worldwide.

It wouldn't make sense for Kodak to try to compete with them, since that market favors scale. Anyway, the PV ship sailed...straight to China.

(Just like it doesn't make sense to try and compete with Epson and HP by making $50 printers.)

Kodak should be focused on the high end sensor market, things they can do that nobody else can. Getting down in the mud on low margin products won't save the company.

Prof_Pixel
09-12-2012, 03:28 PM
(Just like it doesn't make sense to try and compete with Epson and HP by making $50 printers.)

It's not about the printers, it's about the ink and paper

Diapositivo
09-12-2012, 03:30 PM
It is my understanding that the $330,000,000 figure applies to the total of 3,700 employees being cut in 2012 - that comes out to about $89,000 per employee being cut.

The text says:

The company has reduced its workforce by approximately 2,700 employees worldwide since the beginning of 2012. Kodak expects to reduce its workforce by approximately an additional 1,000 employees by the end of 2012. The annualized savings generated by these headcount reductions, including compensation and benefits, is approximately $330 million.

(bold and underlined mine)

The key word here is "annualised" (even if Steve would mark it is spelt "funny"...)

That means that to arrive at that figure Kodak has summed the saving for a certain (undisclosed) number of years discounting each year value with a certain (undisclosed) discount rate.

If we have let's say a flow of 6 years of savings (S1, S2, S3, ... S6), the present value of those savings, discounted at a let's say 4% discount rate, should be equal to:

PV = S1/(1,04) + S2/((1,04)^2) + S3/((1,04)^3) + S4/((1,04)^4) +S5/((1,04)^5) +S6/((1,04)^6)

If the rate is not specified and the number of years of future money flows is not specified the firm can come out with "any" number of "discounted" saving.

$89.000 pro capite would be quite an excessive amount, I believe, also in the US. I don't think it includes overhead costs as the words "including compensation and benefits" seem to clearly state that other "less direct" labour cost items are not taken into this account.

We should also consider that $89.000 is the discounted saving from the average world workforce cut and it might be that Kodak also cut jobs in countries where the average labour cost is less than in the US.

Basically, though, the "annualised" 330 million $ is not a "serious" figure so to speak.

If Kodak meant to discount only 1 year of savings the word which would be normally used is "discounted saving". "Annualised" is typically used for a flow of let's say at least three years (although annualising and discounting yearly are, in fact, the same operation and the words mean the same thing).

msa
09-12-2012, 03:31 PM
It's not about the printers, it's about the ink and paper

I get that, but to sell ink you need an installed base of your printers.

They've never made enough headway in that market to sell that much ink.

Worse, when your chief selling point is "cheaper ink," that means you're giving up some of the margin the other guys use to recover their loss on the printers.

wblynch
09-12-2012, 03:48 PM
Now it's cheaper to buy a whole new printer than replacement ink...

Lose money on every Sale but make it up in Volume ?

Prof_Pixel
09-12-2012, 04:03 PM
Kodak should have entered the ink jet market back in the early '90s (before Epson and HP), but was so attracted to thermal dye sublimation printing, they chose not to get involved with ink jet at that time.

Thermal dye sub makes GREAT looking prints, but has a high materials cost because your must use 4 (or 3 in some cases) patches of dye, even if you don't need any of a color.

msa
09-12-2012, 04:42 PM
Kodak should have entered the ink jet market back in the early '90s (before Epson and HP), but was so attracted to thermal dye sublimation printing, they chose not to get involved with ink jet at that time.

Thermal dye sub makes GREAT looking prints, but has a high materials cost because your must use 4 (or 3 in some cases) patches of dye, even if you don't need any of a color.

They missed that opportunity, but I think they'd have had to start even earlier. I bought an HP Deskjet 500 in 1992 or so. Still works, too. (Not that I use it.)

EDIT: Found this: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press_kits/2008/deskjet20/bg_deskjet20thannivtimeline.pdf

Looks like the original DeskJet shipped in 1988. Kodak had its own problems at the time, and probably was not focused on new markets.


Now it's cheaper to buy a whole new printer than replacement ink...

Lose money on every Sale but make it up in Volume ?

And this is why I see the cheapest printers on the market at thrift shops. ;)

They've caught onto this, by the way -- If you read labels carefully, in the last couple of years they've started underloading the starter cartridges... even toner, not just ink. I was looking at a LASER printer the other day, 2500 pages per cartridge*

* Except, you know, the one they give you, which is only filled for 600 pages.

Anyway, the margin on that stuff is huge -- it's a definite moneymaker. Problem is, since the printers are an automatic loss, you don't make any money until you've got quite a bit of the market. And that space is..occupied.

RattyMouse
09-12-2012, 04:49 PM
Didn't they make sensors for the Leica M8 and M9 cameras?

Yep, but Kodak sold off that division. Anything successful, sell it off.