i don't think that was their goal.
Originally Posted by RattyMouse
i think their goal was and always has been to be an imaging company
but they started a late with consumer printing. they tried to keep selling film and paper
as long as they could, until it wasn't profitable ... and when things didn't show
a profit they prune the tree ( as they always have ) ... no use selling things at a loss\
they really didn't fail the analog photography sector, seeing they continued to improve and develop new
films and emulsions and FINALLY have spun off that part of their company to hopefully continue doing just that.
the problem is that it is hard to cook for 3 when you are used to cooking for 3 million.
they are doing everything they can to stay alive ... and it is reallyeasy for someone
who just reads newspaper articles, magazine articles and web fora to know better than
the people actually making the decisions.
unfortunately the business culture in america is the way it is, where people at the top
get compensated huge amounts and often times at the expense of the people doing the work ..
but that is the way it is ...
i wish i could afford to keep buying kodak films, but unfortunately they are priced beyond my means.
i have been shooting tmx/tmy since they were first sold and they are great films .. but $2/sheet of 4x5
is more than i can afford.
The goal of management at EK is obscure to say the least.
However, no on here has addressed the fact that there are several retirement plans out there and only 1 or 2 out of this group are in danger of vanishing. Mine is in virtually no danger. I would lose about 1% of it if they took away that part.
The same is true of our medical benefits. There are several plans. They are roughly divided into 2 or 3 (or more) depending on age and are linked to Medicare. So there are double sets for those under 65 and those over.
And on it goes.
Some people will lose everything and some nothing or virtually nothing of their pension, and the same is true of health care.
Those at one end, are more outspoken about many of these issues than are those at the other end.
But, in the final analysis, I think that most of us side with those who are astounded that management would try to gain such a huge benefit from Kodak in its current condition.
Would anyone here disagree with the bonuses if they were only payable if all the creditors (including pensioners and current employees) received payment in full?
Except that those newspaper articles, magazine articles, and web fora were in many cases created from one-on-one interviews or policy guidance statements given directly by the people actually making the decisions. Didn't have to read between the lines or speculate at all. They told us exactly where they were going to take the company. And they did just that. No surprises there.
Originally Posted by jnanian
And as far as I know, those same people are still in charge—and still committed to the same vision and direction for the company that resulted in the bankruptcy filing in the first place. Now they just want additional compensation to keep them from jumping ship. It's as if the captain and officers of the Titanic had retreated to the stern of the ship, loudly threatening to quit if they didn't get an immediate raise. Go figure...
Yes, because ultimately that's not what those who would receive those bonuses were hired to do. They were hired to successfully oversee and manage the company through its transition into the digital marketplace. Agreeing with the above would be tantamount to conveniently (for them) redefining the finish line after the race had started.
Originally Posted by MattKing
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
i see what you are saying
but the problem is that just because something is written
by a company for public consumption doesn't really
describe what is actually being done, and it leaves a lot as speculation.
PE worked there for decades, and has no idea what the management is up to ...
it seems like when a street "performer" sets up a card table, and asks the "contestant"
to "find the lady" in the 3 cards that are being shuffled and mixed infront of him ..
in the end it was all talk because the lady isn't really there ...
i have heard speculation and ranting and raving
about the management of kodak since before 2003, and it is the same as now ..
Agreeing to what sort of a digital marketplace is another question entirely. HP got bled from executives trying to "evolve" the company from a manufacturer into a brand. For a time, the only division generating a profit, propping up the rest of the company, was their mainframe divison. Not their printers, which were losing money hand-over-fist. And at the time the CEO was trying to kill off the mainframes.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
Polaroid has now become a brand, and there are now many "Polaroid" products entering the market with the Polaroid logo on them. This may well be Kodak's fate. I hope not, but I just don't know. Their losses are shrinking, but they aren't anywhere near generating a profit.
I have been reading in the financial news that next year promises a slowdown. Not good for anybody, including Kodak.
Originally Posted by PKM-25
Very very very angry.
I don't think that's true. It happens all the time, everywhere, including where I live.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Maybe we should give them their bonuses in stock. Overvalue the stock and assume that under their leadership it will rise in value to meet what it was valued at! :devil: