|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
I will be good for this thread and not make any reference to the one who thinks that magenta and maroon are not colors. 
Steve
Of course they are not. All colors are an illusion. Everything is really black and white.
-
the loss of 600M+ is non cash but will about Goodwill reduction
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
i think that this action was taken by Kodak for the Dec. Qtr 2010 was Cleaning the balalnce sheet with non cash loss in 2010 item which i think will be followed by selling the Non strategic assets and businesses, so the sales in Cash will be profitable in 2011
-
Hopefully the first action will be to get rid of Perez.
Inkjet printers aren't going to do it for them, no matter how big, fast or cheap they are. Might not be a bad business to be in but it ain't a save the company strategy. Find something to do where they can apply their coating technology. Do some REAL marketing to convince photo enthusiasts and artists that film is a beautiful (but, yes, niche) medium and they are missing something by not using it. Continue to introduce films that make digital even more so look like crap. Find a way to apply your film technologies to readily available, economical, everybody can afford it, digital output. Market film to people (ie your mother) who don't want to ^%$#% around with computers. Get the photo magazines to run an article about film here and there. Make up with Walmart.
They really should have kept the pharmaceutical business and selling the health imaging group was a HUGE mistake.
-
Reading this thread made me hungry.
If you own 24% of a publicly owned company you have a lot more influence than you might think. First as someone mentioned you can demand a seat on the board and start firing people, also there is a bigger threat where you can start dumping shares quickly and drive the stock price down thus removing the ability of a company to raise capital and leaving it ripe for hostile takeover.
I would not like to see a hostile takeover of Kodak, unless that takeover is by APUG users.
"Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
"Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"
Me
-
Originally Posted by khaledmrd
i think that this action was taken by Kodak for the Dec. Qtr 2010 was Cleaning the balalnce sheet with non cash loss in 2010 item which i think will be followed by selling the Non strategic assets and businesses, so the sales in Cash will be profitable in 2011
Ken
"In 1850 it would have been unusual to find someone who had handled a camera or looked at a photograph, but 100 years later the reverse would have been true—the camera had become a ubiquitous device, its techniques manageable by even the clumsiest and least sophisticated person."
– Naomi Rosenblum, A World History of Photography, 1984
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Is Perez a "non-strategic" asset?
-
Stupid question, but where is Kodak at the forefront in any technology outside maybe film? I was under the impression that they're core photo business was imaging chips. We all know it's not their printers or P&S's. So what's their big money maker?
-
Originally Posted by waynecrider
So what's their big money maker?
Methinks you've hit the nail squarely on its head...
Ken
"In 1850 it would have been unusual to find someone who had handled a camera or looked at a photograph, but 100 years later the reverse would have been true—the camera had become a ubiquitous device, its techniques manageable by even the clumsiest and least sophisticated person."
– Naomi Rosenblum, A World History of Photography, 1984
-
Originally Posted by kb3lms
Do some REAL marketing to convince photo enthusiasts and artists that film is a beautiful (but, yes, niche) medium and they are missing something by not using it. Continue to introduce films that make digital even more so look like crap. Find a way to apply your film technologies to readily available, economical, everybody can afford it, digital output. Market film to people (ie your mother) who don't want to ^%$#% around with computers. Get the photo magazines to run an article about film here and there. Make up with Walmart.
Generally, I don't disagree with what's being said here (and I do wish Kodak and other film manufacturers would make some sort of a marketing push), but there are a few factors that make me think this strategy would be ineffective at getting the general public into using (more) film.
For starters, the lack of easily-available film cameras is a big impediment. Sure you can get some crappy P&S at the local pharmacy or top of the line Nikon F6 or rangefinders but the variety isn't there. And you need to know and be determined enough to find the cameras that do exist. (Not everyone has the time or desire to seek out used gear in good condition.)
Shooting with a crappy P&S is not a good way to showcase film (just like shooting a crappy digital P&S are not a fair representation of what digital is capable of). You may end up doing film a disservice by pushing people to try film with a crappy camera when people think they can get similar results by using a crappy digital camera but without the perceived hassle of film.
Now, think of yourself as Joe Consumer (or mom) who already has a digital camera that's "good enough" (often as part of their cell phones). What incentive is there to try film when I already have what I need and is predictable?
So, ultimately, Kodak ends up trying to sell film to the artist or photography enthusiast, people who typically know what they want and know where to get it. Advertising would basically be preaching to the converted, so what's in it for them? Would it grow their film market? It's hard to predict whether it would.
-
Those "crappy" P&S cameras are one of the biggest sellers for both Fuji and Kodak, so don't run them down!
PE
|
|
Adv Reply
