Quote from the Rochester D&C
"Antonio M. Perez likes to tell people that one of his main ambitions as chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak Co. is to wake up on Jan 1, 2008 at the helm of a 'Digital' company"
It goes on, but there it is in all of its glory.
The article shows that film imagine supplies 33% of Kodaks revenue through 9 months of 2006. The health imaging unit just sold supplied 19%. Full 2006 results are due January 31.
There you are. Right up to date.
Oh, I'm told that Kodachrome has its 75th anniversary in 2010.
And I suppose he will at that unless the majority of stockholders offer him a digit of their own! It will be interesting to hear the tale told by the final '06 financial report, and will stockholders be impressed by improvement of digital sales (if there is improvement), or will they assess only the bottom line.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Why am I not surprised by this, even though I am horrified? Any other CEO who took such a cavalier attitude to the source of OVER HALF of the revenues of the company he was hired to run would be the subject of a Mafia contract, never mind dismissal.
Given the man's talent for ruining Kodak, he may well succeed in his ambition. But I wonder if Kodak will still be in business on January 2nd?
Well, now that Kodak has sold off chemistry production (made under license with Kodak's name, but not by Kodak itself) all he has to do is off load the film and paper coating plants the same way and he's there. Whether this is the right strategy for EK I cannot say. But Perez has an irritating way of publicizing it. I like and use certain Kodak traditional products and will continue to do so as long as they are available. It is difficult at best managing a giant company under conditions of extreme rapid technical change and EK has correctly identified their strength lying in mass marketing. Or in other words, they are unwilling to change the corporate beauracracy to allow managing smaller lines of business cost effectively. Managing the shrinking segments requires real insight. Until the board of directors gets their heads out of their rears, Kodak will continue to shrink in size with or without film.
"I always take a camera, That way I never have to say 'Gee, look at that - I wish I had a camera'" -Joe Clark, H.B.S.S.
Buy on the rumour, sell on the news . . . the stock market is more about psycology than reality. In other words, perception is the idea. If it seems that a company is growing, then partially that will be down to the emphasis on products and services that are growth industries, or perceived as growth industries. Kodak was literally a small player in the commercial printing and graphic arts supply business, then they bought Creo and a few other companies, and suddenly they are the largest player in the industry. This is also where many of their current charges originate. SEC reports are quite long, and need to be read in the context of past reports, though the variations of how divisions are grouped and reported can also influence the perception of any company. Articles written based upon SEC reports, or quotes, or sound bites, will always fail to give the big picture reality behind any company.
So Kodak want to loose the public perception of being a film company, much like IBM worked hard at getting away from the public perception of being a computer company. When revenues from film are only 1/3 of total revenues, it seems to me they have achieved that, though changing public perception is slower. This is an era in which the propoganda of oft-repeated terms eventually drives perception; again that buy on the rumour, sell on the news idea. So when statements are made about Kodak being a digital company, this is much like so many companies only a few years ago adding dot com to their names to emphasize they were hip to technology . . . driving public perception.
In reality, when you look at how fast the GCG division of Kodak is growing, mainly fueled by purchasing other companies, then such claims as Mr. Perez makes are not in error. Whether the constant push of terminology will push public perception is too early to tell. Recall that some people still used the term IBM compatible long after software boxes did not use those words. Commercial printing and graphic arts supplies are not sexy, but they can generate lots of revenues and profits.
Personally I think Kodak would have a better run of altering perception if they pushed that they are an imaging company. This is much closer to reality, and can eventually avoid that dot com mentality. Eventually the term digital will be as meaningless in business as dot com is today, and the future is coming up fast.
A G Studio
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Probably, Kodak will deflate into just a brand name only, with digital products produced in China but with a Kodak sticker. It's still interesting that so much of the bottom line is carried by film products. And that it is ignored and has to go, because it's not "hot stuff", i.e digital. However, I still think Tri-X is a damn fine film. And I still buy it.
Prints reveals truths that negative scans obscures.
In related news, the French Ministry of Agriculture, inspired by this bold move, decreed that beginning immediately, they shall begin a crash program to pull up the trees, plow up the orchards, slaughter the pigs, and abandon the "old tech" truffle trade. In place of the truffles, they will be planting soybeans. French Agriculture Minister Pierre P. Pierremont said, "They are the wave of the future! Everyone is growing them! Our vision is to be an all-soybean agronomic nation by January 2008!"
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. N'est ce pas?
Or better still and more relevant.
On ne peut pas placer toute les oufs dans la meme pannier? (spelling, gender and accents sadly lacking or in error - sorry - no French dictionary either.)
Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil
Il ne faut pas mettre tous ses oeufs dans le même panier
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
The spelling in mine is my own, but the sayings are from Mike Lamisse from Chalon. Sorry MHV. At one time, he was director of Research there.
But then another friend, Patrice, told me of the big difference between Quebecois French and Parisian French. Personally, IDK, as it has been over 40 years since I studied it, but I did get on well enough in France.