View Full Version : Kodak reports---

Pages : 1 [2] 3

01-26-2011, 12:44 PM
First they need products to advertise?

Or maybe the Flintstones Barney Rubble Easy Share? With the Kodastone mode, oh yea I'm getting all wiggley. :)

they have plenty of products to advertise but in the last 10 years ( or more )
they stopped advertising the part of their business that they depended on to carry them through their time
of transition, but instead of advertising their core products,
the products people know and trust ..
they announce to the world that film based photography is dead
and try to sell inkjet printers on the cartoon network ?
they wonder why they are doing so badly ?

just seems kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy ...

oh well ...:(

01-26-2011, 01:31 PM
The sky is not falling. Here's a better, more complete look at the numbers: http://investor.kodak.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115911&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1519991&highlight=

Kodak's cash position is good, in fact it appears they have more cash this year than last year. With respect to the film business, Kodak attributes the small loss (only $3 million) in the fourth quarter to the increased cost of raw materials and the decline in sales volume. I hope this serves as a warning for those who jump all over Ilford for raising prices. Despite the fourth quarter loss, earnings from operation were positive in 2010 for the film division. Put more plainly, the film division made money from operations in 2010.

That said, Kodak continues to broadcast that it does not consider film a growth area or a core strategy, going forward. That is a reasonable conclusion for the company. I hate to sound like a broken record, but right now the film division still is useful for the cash it provides. We really can't know whether Kodak will succeed in the areas Perez has identified. If it doesn't create a soundly profitable business there, or even if it does, eventually it will cease producing film. That doesn't mean the film will go away, just that Kodak will no longer make it.

Reading this, I would bet that Kodak will have to raise prices for its film products and possibly keep paring away at its offerings, to keep film profitable.


Ian Grant
01-26-2011, 01:49 PM
It's easy to knock kodak but we should try to supports their film division and also Ilford Foma, Fuji etc if they have the products we want to use.

I was using Tmax films and only stopped because I just couldn't get them, that's poor marketing etc by the corporate body not the film division. That correlates to jnanian's comments about their advertising. When I switched the price differential meant a saving compared to Tmax as well, but it's a bit of a see-saw know.

Laura's right though to point out there's another side to the figures apart from the headlines, and it's really not looking like Kodak's becoming another Epson or HP easily. They needed a more dynamic CEO to re-invent the company not copy others.


01-26-2011, 03:21 PM
Ins, please keep in mind the following on the URL referenced.

"Certain statements in this document may be forward-looking in nature, or forward-looking statements" as defined in the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. For example, references to the Company's expectations...".

Ian, nobody here is "knocking" Kodak. In order for EK to sell film, they have to make money on both film and digital. I'm not convinced they can. If you go to kodak.com, look at their digital offerings, thin. They list 8 printers, more than the number of Easy Share cameras listed. Both of those products are swamped by the number of digital picture frames.

The DCS Pro dSLR was one of the very first that carried a FF sensor, the DCS Pro back was for a time the best on a price to performance ratio on the market. I believe that EK dropped the ball on transforming the company into the "digital age". I'm not knocking the company, I just don't believe they can do what they say. It's us film users that have shot Kodak products that suffer from their poor corporate governance. FWIW, all of the boxes in my fridge are yellow (until I can get some Pan-F at least).

01-26-2011, 03:22 PM
The 130–year–old photography pioneer is banking on replacing the hefty profits it once made from film with ink revenue

Well.. people around here can get 4x6 prints for next to nothing. No consumers I know are going to spend a fortune on ink and papers when they can just pop over to a tech store and get 1-3c prints (I think they do this now at a loss just to get people in the stores). I would say around $6 NZ for 200 4x6 prints. In NZ 200 sheets of 4x6 inkjet paper would be over $60 NZ, not sure how much ink is required to print 200 photos.. maybe $40 NZ or more? So Kodak is going to be saved by people choosing to spend $100 or more on a batch of prints vs. $5-7 getting it done at a shop? I suppose they are talking about commercial ink sales but it seems that is a very tough market Epson, HP, Canon..

01-26-2011, 03:42 PM
I believe that most of these 4x6 -and bigger prints are still RA4/C-type. Smaller shops are converting to other processes but most (specially bigger shops) print on RA4, so it's usual to see "Kodak Royal" or "Fuji crystal archive", though these other processes are slowly taking over.
So, aside of competing with the other brands that offer Ink & Paper, they are competing with themselves?

01-26-2011, 04:01 PM
i'm not knocking EK, i hope they stick around until i am old and grey ..

according to their ads, their printers consume ink that costs way-less than the other printers.
every time i feed my printer ink
it costs me over 100$ the kodak printer ink cost a fraction of that
i think they refer to the high ink prices as a conspiracy :)

i gotta stop watching so many cartoons, but i just can't! :)

01-26-2011, 07:01 PM
Perez has to go. Utter failure. Very sad... kodak, imo, have the best film in the business.

01-26-2011, 07:03 PM
Maybe Kodak should consider getting into the banking business.

...or out of it, more likely. Time to quit trying to make money by shuffling money around, and start making it by selling physical products.

01-26-2011, 07:38 PM
...or out of it, more likely. Time to quit trying to make money by shuffling money around, and start making it by selling physical products.

I can hear the giant vampire squids of Wall Street laughing all the way up here!

01-26-2011, 08:52 PM
I like Kodak's product just as I liked Polaroid's.

Sadly, Kodak is the next Polaroid.

Ian Grant
01-27-2011, 09:16 AM
There's another issue raising it's head which could have a more positive effect on Kodak's film division. There's now growing debate about the future of 3D cinema and whether it'll survive.

It wouldn't be the first time that stereo & then 3D technology has had a short burst of enthusiasm only to fade away into the background. The first 3D films were actually about 90 years ago although there were early experiments.


01-27-2011, 09:31 AM
I think that Kodak's biggest mistake was not actively targeting the digital RA-4 market. Where I am, 80-90% of the digital RA-4 is held by Fuji CA. If they were selling paper to Walmart, Rite Aid, and everyone else, I think they would be in a much better position than they are in now.

When I see a Noritsu printer loaded with Fuji paper, I know something went wrong.

01-27-2011, 09:52 AM
I hope 3D doesn't impact film sales. I already think it's (3D) a massive gimmick used by production houses because their movies are terrible, would be the icing on the cake if shitty movies in 3D, in a way, help to kill film.

01-27-2011, 09:53 AM
I don't mind headaches from darkroom chemicals. I do mind headaches from crappy movies!

Ian Grant
01-27-2011, 09:55 AM
I hope 3D doesn't impact film sales. I already think it's (3D) a massive gimmick used by production houses because their movies are terrible, would be the icing on the cake if shitty movies in 3D, in a way, help to kill film.

The problem is that 3D has already impacted film sales that's why there's such a large drop.


01-27-2011, 10:54 AM
I think iMovie will be a greater threat to film than 3D.

I doubt the kids watching the cartoon network today will ever own a device called a "camera"----nor will they know what RA4 or C41 is.I am pretty sure they'll know what a hologram is.

01-27-2011, 10:54 AM
Two weeks ago I saw a leaflet of my local cinema. It's got 8 screening theaters (2 are 3D) and of the 8 films advertised one said near the title "analog". I wonder if it means that they have converted all their theaters to digital except that one. Last time I went there, there was still film.

I've heard comments that 3D might be just an strategy to convert the theaters to Digital.

If I'm not wrong, the drop was mostly on positive film, Eastmancolor, the one used for screenings.

01-27-2011, 11:01 AM
The way I read it, the report does not say that film operations are not profitable. It says that revenues declined 25% (which is the expected yearly decline rate, the problem is when the decline will stop) the part "[hit by volume declines] and surging costs for silver and aluminum" does not make sense IMO as costs for silver and aluminium can affect profits, not revenues. Should have said "hit by volume declines" simply, supposing Kodak did not change pricing that is.

The photographic film, photofinishing and entertainment film unit posted a $3 million operating loss tells us how that division performed overall, but does not disaggregate between film, photofinishing and entertainment film. It is possible that photofinishing creates operating losses > $3 million, and so that the other two subdivisions have positive operating profits.

When browsing Kodak information I find it always difficult, or impossible, to find separate data for "film" and "non-film" activities.

In any case, we live in dire economic straights and even the soundest business can go down temporarily. Economy will recover. Film can easily become profitable again for Kodak next years, even supposing it is not today.

The figure I would be interested in is the decline in revenue for film products. We'll look for a decline in the yearly decline percentage, e.g. for some signs of stabilisation of the market to certain film volumes.

I actually would not be surprised if film consumption begins increasing again. Film is perceived as "expensive" in relation to digital (besides "impractical"). This very moment, "expensive" stuff don't sell. When the economy improves again, I think that people will use more film, both amateurs and professionals.


01-27-2011, 11:40 AM
It wouldn't be the first time that stereo & then 3D technology has had a short burst of enthusiasm only to fade away into the background.

Remember "Quad"? A total flop in the market, no one wanted to pay for the extra speakers. Twenty years later, everyone wants surround sound, needs new speakers, receivers, disc players, everything. For decades, Phone Co. tried to sell videophone service, no one wanted it. Service quality was awful and only worked if you knew someone else who had it too. Now people do video skype over the net. Who the hell knows with these things? But I've seen a few of the new 3d movies, and while it's a huge improvement over the b-movies of the 1950s, most of the movies are not. The effect might be better but it doesn't actually make the movie better. But Hollywood thinks it needs these things to compete with HD TVs and Netflix and everything else. Just making movies that are worth paying to see seems to be passe now.