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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
who finds pride in downsizing a company and make it profitable at a size only a few percent of what it once was?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?