|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by 2F/2F
....
If the company was actually a film company, 100%, tooth and nail, maybe their executives would look at something other than the monetary values of each of their peripheral products when deciding how to proceed. Why can't they see the draw of completeness of product line, instead of nitpicking anything that loses money at the expense of it?
Talking not specifically about Kodak, but generally, if one were to look at the diversity of photographic lines that were ever in production, compared to what is on the market today it would be what? Maybe 99:1, I doubt if anyone has ever researched this. Products have always been superceded by newer, better ones, it's commerce not a social service. No company subsidises loss-makers, unless there's some major factor there, even Harman culled their cold tone print dev. recently, and that was 50% of a complete line.
The difference now is that the newer & better ones are getting thin on the ground. Kodak gave us the enhanced TMax 400, which from their perspective probably makes raking out the weedier fast B&W films more acceptable. And is, to most consumers.
-
..i normally do subscribe.. ..just haven't 'renewed' as yet this last time. Many personal problems in '09, but ill get to it this week, promise!. 
Originally Posted by MattKing
I too think that David's (dr5's) beginning post to this thread is fine.
He might get less flack here, however, if he would advertise (it's really inexpensive) or at least subscribe .
Just saying ....
Matt
-
If there is a reasonable profit of some sort, well IMO, it's just back to the whole shareholders/more more more/greed side of things.
What does "greed" mean, exactly? Does it mean wanting the largest possible return on one's invested capital? What is "reasonable" and who defines it?
This sort of post has me tearing at my hair, in its casual mating of sanctimony to ignorance.
-
[QUOTE=2F/2F;941142]Mozaktly!
(I would remove the word "sometimes", though.)
...and Ilford seems like they have tried to do this. Their appeal to me is not that I view their films as superior to Kodak's. It is that they have a far more complete "total solution" for film photographers. There are a few gaps, but nowhere near as gaping as Kodak's...and in the past few years, they have filled in gaps more than enlarging them, as Kodak has done.
Interesting comment. On the last tour in Oct 2008 I think it was Simon Galley who said that Ilford Satin paper sold in very small volumes compared to Pearl and Glossy and yet there has been no indication that Satin is about to be discontinued. Maybe because it is part of the "paper family" which Ilford sees as being valued as a family by consumers who are then more loyal so a near break even or slight loss product actually cements the customer to the company and makes economic sense when not regarded as a single unit.
pentaxuser
-
The thing that ticks me off the most about this is the Kodak sabotage....So, I think the lack of demand was artificially manufactured by refusing to ship it, not that no one uses it any more....
If I follow correctly, this theory holds that Kodak had a product that was flying off the shelves, and decided that this profitable situation was intolerable. They decided to obstruct and delay delivery of said product to the customer in order to kill the product. Makes sense. I'm sure the shareholders would approve.
320TXP, beloved film of Birthers, Kennedy-assassination and 9/11-conspiracy theorists, Roswell denizens, and alien abductors.
"O Judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason."
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by MikeSeb
What does "greed" mean, exactly? Does it mean wanting the largest possible return on one's invested capital? What is "reasonable" and who defines it?
I know what you mean. Shareholders invest to make money, and seldom know businesses they invest in.
Along with that, though, is the problem of management constantly looking at the next quarter, because they believe they need to maximize short term gain. Which makes it difficult to take a long range approach which may be better for the company in the long run.
Not relating this to Kodak; just sayin'.
To me, "greed" is wanting immediate turnaround on investment, immediate profit without concern for long-term health of a company. By making it difficult for management to make prudent long-term plans requiring patience to see through, it also makes it difficult for prudent investors to select long range investments.
Last edited by lxdude; 02-12-2010 at 02:36 PM.
Reason: clarity
-
Originally Posted by MikeSeb
What does "greed" mean, exactly? Does it mean wanting the largest possible return on one's invested capital? What is "reasonable" and who defines it?
This sort of post has me tearing at my hair, in its casual mating of sanctimony to ignorance.
On the internet, fools rule! 
-
"My heart is in the coffin there with "TXP", and I must pause till it come back to me."
-
[QUOTE=pentaxuser;941475]
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
Mozaktly!
...and Ilford seems like they have tried to do this. Their appeal to me is not that I view their films as superior to Kodak's. It is that they have a far more complete "total solution" for film photographers. There are a few gaps, but nowhere near as gaping as Kodak's...and in the past few years, they have filled in gaps more than enlarging them, as Kodak has done.
Interesting comment. On the last tour in Oct 2008 I think it was Simon Galley who said that Ilford Satin paper sold in very small volumes compared to Pearl and Glossy and yet there has been no indication that Satin is about to be discontinued. Maybe because it is part of the "paper family" which Ilford sees as being valued as a family by consumers who are then more loyal so a near break even or slight loss product actually cements the customer to the company and makes economic sense when not regarded as a single unit.
pentaxuser
I think this gets to what a lot of people believe. If a company is willing to carry a marginal product, one which does not make them much money but serves the needs of a segment of their customers, there is a perception that the company will look after the customers. When the perception is that a cold, hard calculus is used regarding under-performing products by people looking at numbers and not at customers, alienation and resentment result.
I think many believe that the products being discontinued by Kodak are not necessarily money-losers, but represent small enough numbers that they are judged to be not worth bothering with. I don't know if that's true, but I do think there is something to the concept of a full line retaining customer loyalty, even if some products lose some money.
I don't know if Tri-X 320 actually lost money or not. If so, it's hard to assert as the department head, that it should have been retained. It may have been that a downward trend showed it going past break-even with the next coating. It's awfully hard for a department head to plead for preservation of products over and over, especially if they feel that they must choose which to defend. Unless they can show management that there is an overriding concern, like market presence, not just market share, they may find themselves without enough political capital when they most need it.
There's a fine line to tread. If someone sees Ilford committed to film and Kodak seeming to waver, they might consider it more prudent to give their business to Ilford, to help ensure that they will still be around when Kodak gets out of the market.
I do think it was stupid of Kodak management to announce plans years ago to move away from the film market, and it did not sit well with all investors, either. By announcing it, every film termination has the appearance of fulfilling the management's wishes. They seemed to be viewing digital and film as mutually exclusive, or film as dead. As they appeared so willing to toss their historical business, they appeared also willing to toss their loyal user base.
They clearly cannot afford to jettison all film at this time, as its profits cover digital's losses. So it's not that they won't support a money-losing product, it's that they see digital as their future, and film as their past. With their vision and goals so directed, it's not hard to see why people would no longer believe Kodak supports their interests to the degree it could.
If Kodak were not in digital they would either be in film and resigned to being a small company, or would be in something else that they believed held promise of growth. Success in digital is not assured, as they are up against companies who are long experienced in electronics. What if their sensor sales tank, due to not having competitive enough products, or the market for sensors drying up as camera makers create their own, or something else? If the margins and volume become too small, how is that different from a poorly selling, barely break-even film?
I'd bet there are people who are competent to run Kodak who wouldn't be willing to, given what it's facing in the future.
Last edited by lxdude; 02-12-2010 at 02:38 PM.
Reason: grammar
-
|
|
Adv Reply
