No wonder Eastman Kodak need to use badly paid labour in China to produce so many products when their top brass have their snouts so deeply in the trough.
Hey, these CEO types get paid a lot of money to screw their companies into the ground. That's what they are paid to do. I know, I used to work for Lucent!
I don't know whether Perez is good, bad or indifferent.
I do think, however, that it is true that the portion of the photographic business that is both analogue, and is the former mainstay of Kodak's commercial market, namely the casual snapshooter, is in "irreversable decline".
The (analogue based) volumes will never be close to the same as before. The (analogue based) profits will certainly never be close to the same as before.
As a result, the profits that flow to shareholders from the analogue portion of Kodak's business will never approach what they used to be.
If Perez can bring Kodak back to financial health, that will be good.
If Kodak continues to provide quality products to the substantial (but now much smaller) group of customers that appreciate and use analogue materials, that will be wonderful.
Kodak still has a huge market capitalization, substantial gross revenues, huge amounts of valuable IP (both analogue, digital, and cross platform) and tremendous resources in its employees.
If by focusing on (some might say pandering to) the capital markets that worship digital, Perez helps maintain Kodak as a viable player in the (now much smaller and focussed) analogue photography industry, he may (by accident or hidden plan) be the best friend that us lovers of analogue photography have.
Again, I don't know whether Perez is good, bad or indifferent. I am sure, however, that it is absolutely critical to the health of Kodak that they deal with and respond to and attempt to shape the market as it is now, rather than the market from 20 years ago.