Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,691   Posts: 1,482,391   Online: 821
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: New Kodak Ad

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South of Rochester, NY, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    256
    Allen... We can all hope we're wiser. There are many times I wonder though? Although, when I was younger, I knew that I knew and never wondered.....

    Anyway... I think we're actually having two seperate discussions. Yes, I meant the products and the people driving them. Some of the products remain, but not the research or driving force...

    And yes, the basic philosophy has come back after many years of wavering and failed business ventures. But I see this as yet another major mistake. Going back to "You push the button and we do the rest". In the digi market, there is very little kodak can offer the common user after the button is pushed, and that's historically where they made much of their money. They REsold film, plus the chemicals and papers for the printing services. They even sold the services for those who wanted pure kodak along with the equipment. With the digi, there's nothing after the button. Far too much competition. Would I buy kodak paper when the company that sold me my printer recommends their own paper, and it's cheaper? Would I send a memory card to kodak for them to print when I can do it myself or drop it off at wallmart? How many digi users even bother printing any more?

    Unless they plan on investing billions into a new communications company to support mobiles and digi transfers, their philosophy breaks down pretty quick...

    But here, we (okay, me) are second guessing the corporate decisions that we have little information about...

    I know how badly they screwed up in the medical field. I read the financial reports of the film based _profits_. And my comment was NOT misleading. They had a film division, a digital division, a medical division, etc. The film division was the only one at the company to make a profit at the time. How misleading can that be???

    Over the past 10 or even 20 years, kodak has made quite a reputation at making disasterous business dealings. I don't wish them any hard luck. I would love to see the logo last several more lifetimes as it at least recalls fond memories. And we can not know what they are actually planning until after it's done, as they're also known for changing their minds mid-stream... I wish them luck. If I had to buy a digi product, I would rather it be a kodak than a fuji, but that's just me...

    Now, at least I know I'm older ;-)

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,399
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by raucousimages
    I just saw kodak's new tv ad, their new slogan: KEEP IT DIGITAL, KEEP IT KODAK.

    Is this the end of Kodak film too? Go ILFORD.
    Perhaps another slogan could read as:
    Keep it Analogue, keep it Ilford, the future in Black & White.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    653
    Now here's a digital slogan I can almost live with:

    "Where digital photos become film-quality prints."

    http://www.myphotopipe.com/

  4. #34
    esanford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Hertford North Carolina
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    637
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by RichSBV
    And my comment was NOT misleading. They had a film division, a digital division, a medical division, etc. The film division was the only one at the company to make a profit at the time. How misleading can that be???)
    Your unintentional misleading point is that Kodak was profitable selling film and they had a film division and they some how screwed up in selling film... Go pull the recent annual reports and go back to 1998... it's all on Kodak's website under investor information.... Kodak hasn't had a film division in almost a decade. They are organized by business unit and not by product line... In their current set up film is in the Digital and film imaging systems unit... go back a few reports, it was split between consumer and Professional.

    I agree that Kodak was, in fact, profitable selling film. However, although film sales were profitable, the sales volumn was decreasing dramatically. Moreover, professional film sales made up <=15% of total film sales volumn. Consequently, consumer film sales was the piece of the business that was eroding the most. Professional sales (to guys like us) couldn't begin to offset the deficit. Digital further eroded film sales to consumers. So, Kodak was forced to go digital... plain and simple.

    Now, many have spoken of Fujitsu. I was in hi-tech sales for 32 years and Fujitsu is one of the largest manufacturers of communications transmission products in the world. Hence, they did not have as much of a dependency on photographic products as Kodak... ergo, Fujitsu is a stronger company overall because of this business diversification. Kodak finally realizes that if they are going to continue to exist, they are going to have to diversify into other areas because, as stated in this thread, digital doesn't have a sufficient back end revenue stream to offset the losses in film... I just want to leave emotion out and get the facts straight....
    Often wrong, but never in doubt!

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South of Rochester, NY, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by esanford
    Your unintentional misleading point is that Kodak was profitable selling film and they had a film division and they some how screwed up in selling film... Go pull the recent annual reports and go back to 1998... it's all on Kodak's website under investor information.... Kodak hasn't had a film division in almost a decade. They are organized by business unit and not by product line... In their current set up film is in the Digital and film imaging systems unit... go back a few reports, it was split between consumer and Professional.
    Where did I say they screwed up?? Doesn't make any difference. You call the divisions what you want. I'll call them what kodak reported a year or two ago.
    Their "reports" change more than opinions as do their profit earnings. The FACT of the matter is that one or two years ago, their only (insert any appropraite name of division you'd like) that produces film and papera was the ONLY (insert any appropraite name of division you'd like) that made a profit. I really don't care what the supposed 'reports' say on their web site this week. It will be different next week anyway. I was here and lived through it. My memory isn't that bad yet and not much you can say will change my memory...

    Quote Originally Posted by esanford
    I agree that Kodak was, in fact, profitable selling film.
    So where's the problem. kodak was profitable selling film. Exactly what I said. But somehow you're disagreeing... Is this photo.net???

    I'm beggining to see a real incentive in joing discussions around here...

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South of Rochester, NY, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    256
    And actually back to the topic...

    I finally saw the ad tonight. My personal feeling is that it's very misleading, geared to younger people and leaves me with the impression that the world's most famous photographs going back 100 years were all taken with a cell phone... If I was 17 and didn't know better, I'd be running for the nearest verizon store, without a thought about kodak...

  7. #37
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    So where's the problem. kodak was profitable selling film. Exactly what I said. But somehow you're disagreeing... Is this photo.net???

    I'm beggining to see a real incentive in joing discussions around here...
    Rich,

    Don't let them get ya, this is far from Photo.net, although sometimes, things do get a bit heated..I enjoy your informed posts, and like I said, don't let them get ya....all in a days posting! LOL

    Dave

  8. #38
    esanford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Hertford North Carolina
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    637
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by RichSBV
    Where did I say they screwed up?? Doesn't make any difference. You call the divisions what you want. I'll call them what kodak reported a year or two ago.
    Their "reports" change more than opinions as do their profit earnings. The FACT of the matter is that one or two years ago, their only (insert any appropraite name of division you'd like) that produces film and papera was the ONLY (insert any appropraite name of division you'd like) that made a profit. I really don't care what the supposed 'reports' say on their web site this week. It will be different next week anyway. I was here and lived through it. My memory isn't that bad yet and not much you can say will change my memory...



    So where's the problem. kodak was profitable selling film. Exactly what I said. But somehow you're disagreeing... Is this photo.net???

    I'm beggining to see a real incentive in joing discussions around here...

    My goodness why are you so angry! I am not trying to offend you here. Just one subtle difference:

    Here is the point: yes film was profitable; the big problem however is that volumn was falling so fast year over year that Kodak was on a trajectory to cease to exist as a company. That's it... Please stay calm.... Here are the " sales" (although film is not broken out from 2001 to 2004 (since you said to go back a couple of years; if you go back to 1998 the drop-off is worse. 2001:Photography Sales: $9.4B (net earnings: $535M or less than 10% return) 2002: Sales: $9.0B (net earnings: $550M) 2003: Sales: $9.2B-didgital is in this number though (net earnings: 347M... a huge drop in profitability). By contrast, for the same 3 years Health Imaging averaged $1B in sales with an average net earnings of 300M or an average 30% return... Film, photography, paper even with digital looked horrible on a rate of return standpoint... this is why Kodaks stockholers pressured them to change... that simple ... stay peaceful!
    Often wrong, but never in doubt!

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South of Rochester, NY, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Satinsnow
    Rich,

    Don't let them get ya, this is far from Photo.net, although sometimes, things do get a bit heated..I enjoy your informed posts, and like I said, don't let them get ya....all in a days posting! LOL

    Dave
    Thanks Dave... We have good days & bad days. I'm working on a lot of bad days waiting for a dental appointment. Seems emergencies don't mean what they used to. It's okay though. I can still function for at least 2 or 3 hours a day....

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    17
    Fundamentally at issue, I think, is that Kodak's focus on digital is a questionable decision at best. There's always the decision between being a big fish in a small pond, or vice versa. Kodak has demonstrated, over the long term, an ability to produce some very good analog products. They have also traditionally been the leader in that market. With the move to digital photography, they aren't really in the photography business. They're in the electronics business. That is something they have no experience with, and they certainly aren't leaders in it.

    Regarding film, in truth for the point and shoot market, digital is far superior. In that market, the users of photography have no interest in art. They want images that are reasonable representations of what they photographed. Nothing more. For that usage, digital is better. As users of film, we are in fact benefactors of this change. The cost of film equipment is dropping(not long ago I purchased an enlarger on ebay for $10!), and the analog photography community is becoming cemented. APUG is a sign of this development. As an art, analog photography can only improve and grow from here. The point and shoot photographer is digital.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin