Originally Posted by jacarape
they have plenty of products to advertise but in the last 10 years ( or more )
they stopped advertising the part of their business that they depended on to carry them through their time
of transition, but instead of advertising their core products,
the products people know and trust ..
they announce to the world that film based photography is dead
and try to sell inkjet printers on the cartoon network ?
they wonder why they are doing so badly ?
just seems kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy ...
oh well ...
The sky is not falling. Here's a better, more complete look at the numbers: http://investor.kodak.com/phoenix.zh...991&highlight=
Kodak's cash position is good, in fact it appears they have more cash this year than last year. With respect to the film business, Kodak attributes the small loss (only $3 million) in the fourth quarter to the increased cost of raw materials and the decline in sales volume. I hope this serves as a warning for those who jump all over Ilford for raising prices. Despite the fourth quarter loss, earnings from operation were positive in 2010 for the film division. Put more plainly, the film division made money from operations in 2010.
That said, Kodak continues to broadcast that it does not consider film a growth area or a core strategy, going forward. That is a reasonable conclusion for the company. I hate to sound like a broken record, but right now the film division still is useful for the cash it provides. We really can't know whether Kodak will succeed in the areas Perez has identified. If it doesn't create a soundly profitable business there, or even if it does, eventually it will cease producing film. That doesn't mean the film will go away, just that Kodak will no longer make it.
Reading this, I would bet that Kodak will have to raise prices for its film products and possibly keep paring away at its offerings, to keep film profitable.
It's easy to knock kodak but we should try to supports their film division and also Ilford Foma, Fuji etc if they have the products we want to use.
I was using Tmax films and only stopped because I just couldn't get them, that's poor marketing etc by the corporate body not the film division. That correlates to jnanian's comments about their advertising. When I switched the price differential meant a saving compared to Tmax as well, but it's a bit of a see-saw know.
Laura's right though to point out there's another side to the figures apart from the headlines, and it's really not looking like Kodak's becoming another Epson or HP easily. They needed a more dynamic CEO to re-invent the company not copy others.
Ins, please keep in mind the following on the URL referenced.
"Certain statements in this document may be forward-looking in nature, or forward-looking statements" as defined in the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. For example, references to the Company's expectations...".
Ian, nobody here is "knocking" Kodak. In order for EK to sell film, they have to make money on both film and digital. I'm not convinced they can. If you go to kodak.com, look at their digital offerings, thin. They list 8 printers, more than the number of Easy Share cameras listed. Both of those products are swamped by the number of digital picture frames.
The DCS Pro dSLR was one of the very first that carried a FF sensor, the DCS Pro back was for a time the best on a price to performance ratio on the market. I believe that EK dropped the ball on transforming the company into the "digital age". I'm not knocking the company, I just don't believe they can do what they say. It's us film users that have shot Kodak products that suffer from their poor corporate governance. FWIW, all of the boxes in my fridge are yellow (until I can get some Pan-F at least).
Well.. people around here can get 4x6 prints for next to nothing. No consumers I know are going to spend a fortune on ink and papers when they can just pop over to a tech store and get 1-3c prints (I think they do this now at a loss just to get people in the stores). I would say around $6 NZ for 200 4x6 prints. In NZ 200 sheets of 4x6 inkjet paper would be over $60 NZ, not sure how much ink is required to print 200 photos.. maybe $40 NZ or more? So Kodak is going to be saved by people choosing to spend $100 or more on a batch of prints vs. $5-7 getting it done at a shop? I suppose they are talking about commercial ink sales but it seems that is a very tough market Epson, HP, Canon..
The 130–year–old photography pioneer is banking on replacing the hefty profits it once made from film with ink revenue
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I believe that most of these 4x6 -and bigger prints are still RA4/C-type. Smaller shops are converting to other processes but most (specially bigger shops) print on RA4, so it's usual to see "Kodak Royal" or "Fuji crystal archive", though these other processes are slowly taking over.
So, aside of competing with the other brands that offer Ink & Paper, they are competing with themselves?
i'm not knocking EK, i hope they stick around until i am old and grey ..
according to their ads, their printers consume ink that costs way-less than the other printers.
every time i feed my printer ink
it costs me over 100$ the kodak printer ink cost a fraction of that
i think they refer to the high ink prices as a conspiracy
i gotta stop watching so many cartoons, but i just can't!
Perez has to go. Utter failure. Very sad... kodak, imo, have the best film in the business.
...or out of it, more likely. Time to quit trying to make money by shuffling money around, and start making it by selling physical products.
Originally Posted by CGW
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
I can hear the giant vampire squids of Wall Street laughing all the way up here!
Originally Posted by 2F/2F