Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,536   Posts: 1,646,108   Online: 821
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,649
    There are two aspects involved in downsizing: The sale or closure of whole divisions including the manufacturing part of that division; the downsizing of a plant or machinery.

    Further more one can try to gather the market-capacity, eased by competitors falling off, to be served by ones own plant and going on without downsizing.
    Last edited by AgX; 01-21-2013 at 09:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    789
    Images
    5
    Then is it the production process that is so costly that making films on a much smaller scale, for a much smaller market, can't be profitable? Or is the organizational side of downsizing a company with these amounts the real issue?
    No doubt there are HUGE costs in downsizing an industrial giant. It's likely the cost of the legacy overheads are the real cost issues. Production of film at the correct scale probably wouldn't be a cost problem. The issue is getting from where you are today to the correct scale when you have the legacy costs consuming all the money.

    who finds pride in downsizing a company and make it profitable at a size only a few percent of what it once was?
    If it is done right, bringing a company back to profitability might be a very rewarding challenge. The upside is that once a company is profitable you may get to try again, if you can develop new products and services that someone wants whether they are in your current market or something else.
    All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

  3. #23
    sly
    sly is offline
    sly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,433
    Images
    236
    Now if Kodak, Agfa, and others had concentrated on actively competing in a shrinking market, would Ilford have been able to hold their own? Would they be the strong and dynamic company they are today?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    623
    I'm actually very surprised if it is 10% of the peak number. At film's peak, sales were of course huge, 10% of that number is still really quite a lot, considering the current obsession with smartphone cameras and the like.

    If it's 10% of the peak, that really sounds pretty good.

  5. #25
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,690
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    General Motors and Ford downsized rather extensively, closing dozens of plants worth billions and billions of dollars. Why can't Kodak shut down their plant and build one to fit the current business?
    Automotive sales are on the increase.

    Film sales have at best plateaued, and may be still on the decline.

    New film manufacturing is expensive to design and build.

    And shareholders and creditors demand that that money be spent on growing markets, not markets that are either steady or declining.

    If Kodak had been privately held, it probably wouldn't be trying to get out of bankruptcy now.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    The only down side to the present time is the much lower selection of available films.
    It's not really very low in the b&w world, is it? Color film has narrowed drastically, especially E-6 which I think is now down to five options (Provia and Velvia in two speeds each, plus CR200), but it seems to me like we're a bit spoiled for choice in black and white---a little less so since the demise of Efke, to be sure. There are, what, six or seven 400-speed films to choose from? (Two from Kodak, two plus XP2 from Ilford, Fomapan, two from Rollei if you don't count their infrared film.) I can't find a convenient historical catalog to compare to, but have previous generations of photographers really had more options than that at their fingertips?

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  7. #27
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,690
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    GM's market share dropped during their downsizing time. If memory serves GM used to have close to 50% market share in the US around 1980. Today that is less than 20%. Somehow they managed to downsize their operations and continue production.

    No one is making any new films. Kodak is just selling their old formulations.

    If Kodak downsized properly, they can adjust their facility to be the proper size. According to PE Kodak can produce a years demand of film in one day today. Kodak could easily produce enough to keep sales going while they re-tool their production to the smaller size.

    Everyone always comes back with numerous excuses that say can't can't can't. Can't be done. I've never seen a more negative (heh heh) industry than film producing. Why is it ALWAYS can't be done?
    RattyMouse:

    Market share doesn't mean squat in a market that is shrinking. And GM's market share was high, but their losses were higher.

    Kodak is saddled with the expectations of the holders of what was once a huge market capitalization.

    The directors of Kodak are/were required by law to try to replace the profit stream that was film with something similarly profitable. Film will never be that big again.

    I believe that film can be a profitable and healthy industry, but I think that Kodak wasted its chance to be a major part of that industry. If they had downsized several years ago, and then used their resources to build other, parallel streams of profits, things would be different.

    Remember that it took an insolvency and what was essentially a re-start from almost the beginning to make Ilford the small but apparently successful entity that it is now.

    And Ilford remains far, far smaller than Kodak's film and paper business is today.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #28
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,224
    Images
    110
    If Kodak can manufacture all its film sales in one day , it makes its bigger 400 times they can sell If the film sales dropped 1/10 , it makes Kodak was 40 times bigger than it can sell 30 years ago. Am I wrong somewhere ? I think we did not count movie industry. It makes movie industry was consuming lots of film 30 years ago.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by kb3lms View Post
    No doubt there are HUGE costs in downsizing an industrial giant. It's likely the cost of the legacy overheads are the real cost issues. Production of film at the correct scale probably wouldn't be a cost problem. The issue is getting from where you are today to the correct scale when you have the legacy costs consuming all the money.



    If it is done right, bringing a company back to profitability might be a very rewarding challenge. The upside is that once a company is profitable you may get to try again, if you can develop new products and services that someone wants whether they are in your current market or something else.
    In a way this is very positive: Kodak films could be saved. But reading the other posts I realize there are more forces, like shareholders, involved. Still a shame the right people didn't see this at the right time to save E6...

  10. #30
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,473
    Unfortunately, Kodak is saddled with an idiot at the top, who probably hired, promoted other idiots that agreed with him. It is amazing that he is still there.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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