Why should Kodak fire Perez?
The simple answer is, Perez killed Kodak. Or, the doctor killed patient.
Pérez has been CEO of Kodak since 2005 and the Chairman of the company’s Board of Directors since 2006.
1) Why has Kodak been focused in inkjet business for last few (critical) years?
"Mr. Perez brings to the task his experience from a 25-year career at Hewlett-Packard Company", ..." Mr. Perez served as President and CEO of HP’s inkjet imaging business for five years." (From Perez's resume at Kodak website)
2) Why Perez should be fired?
Under Pérez's leadership the price of Kodak shares has decreased from around 25 dollars (in 2005) to less than 50 cents today.
3) Should Perez serves in Obama’s Jobs and Competitiveness Council?
Perez "serves on President Obama’s Jobs and Competitiveness Council, which is responsible for promoting economic growth and job creation in the U.S." This is definitely a wrong committee to put him in. According to WikiPedia, "Antonio M. Pérez (born 1945) is a Spanish businessman". It might be best to send him back to save European from their sovereign debt crisis.
Last edited by bwfans; 01-09-2012 at 12:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.
What about film sales in free fall since 2001?
Before you round up the lynch mob, have a look here:
I think it's a pretty safe statement to make that Kodak made bad mistakes on the 'big picture' choices it made, about what to do and how to pursue those goals.
Focusing on printers -- maybe not so smart. Making digital cameras that never captured the consumers' imagination or market share? Big mistake, also.
Any business can only withstand so many blunders. Nothing against Mr Perez personally, but performance matters. With that record, I'm surprised he's still there.
"Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you've got their shoes."
MY BLOG - www.reservedatalltimes.com
YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THIS SITE - www.colincorneau.com
Remember, the failed switch to digital, especially lately the inkjet business, killed Kodak.
- Do you know who led Kodak during last decade?
- With today Kodak to be a $0.40 stock company, do you think it still a good decision to hire Perez eight years ago as Kodak president, seven years ago as CEO. and six years ago as Chairman?
- Give me a good reason to keep Perez today. To save the severance cost?
Originally Posted by CGW
Last edited by bwfans; 01-09-2012 at 01:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Perez should be fired because he didn't diversify the business quiet the contrary he sold profitable parts or parts that could be used in the future (optics for space etc..)and thus weakened Kodak position.
I also agree that he wasn't the only catastrophic Kodak CEO as I've stated numerous times CEOs should be held responsible for their actions and not receive golden parachutes. Kodak's downfall isn't all Perez fault the consumers switch to digital was foreseeable especially by Kodak.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Film sales? Where did the easy money go? Perez to blame for that? Just askin'
Originally Posted by bwfans
In running a business some people get away with "murder" others get kicked out for far less. It all depends on the "ties" Mr Perez has had with the actual owners of the company. It's called manipulation. More often that you think people from outside can see the big picture better that the ones involved. So fricking sad that politics can kill a good business.
"There's more to the picture
Than meets the eye." - Neil Young
& My APUG
Originally Posted by bwfans
The loss of over 1 billion film customers is Kodak's problem. Their inkjet biz was over-hyped as a revenue substitute, and on that Perez failed in both strategy and execution, but Kodak had no choice but to transition to digital to preserve shareholder equity. For that Perez should go. What is happening to film is beyond any CEO's capacity. If anything Kodak put too much faith and too many resources into analog film.
And does anyone really think a government committee really accomplishes anything, or is it just a place to park some over-prices tailored suits?
Last edited by Aristophanes; 01-09-2012 at 02:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.
No, not to blame for the loss of "easy money." To blame for mismanaging the consequences of that event.
Originally Posted by CGW
It's not that event which uniquely caused Kodak's problems. All film manufacturers were hit with that same loss of easy money. But some of them, with better business management at the helm, ended up fairing far better.
The catastrophic drop in film usage is old, old news. The issue with Perez/Kodak BODs is how they reacted to it. Or didn't...
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
When they hired Perez, they thought they were getting Perez Hilton. This was done in response to Polaroid's appointment of Lady Gaga as their Creative Director. Kodak should simply admit their mistake and move on.
I think Kodak's policy on film is best described by the term "euthanasia."