I simply posted this thread as an update on inner workings in the local Australian industry, both myself and other sydney businesses were affected by the shipment of stocks from the distributor to to us being out of date before arrival. It was simply sharing of an event.
I, for one appreciate your raising your concerns here, but while this may risk belabouring the point, I'd like to highlight the differences between two of your posts.
First, your initial post:
So much of the dysfunction we observe in the photographic industry flows from problems with the distribution system. That is, of course a problem for the manufacturers, but it also is a problem for the retailers, labs, commercial end users and non-commercial end users.
The distributors seem to get off Scot free when complaints are shared. That should not be the case.
Matt- I don't think it matters to Stephen whether Kodak, or the distributor, is at fault. He has a business to run, and can't do so with dated materials. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably blame Kodak. Ultimately, they are responsible for their distribution network.
Web born complaints that stick around forever have caused a lot of good companies headaches because tons of people get to chime in with their opinions about the issues before the company even gets to fully rectify it. Simon Galley of Ilford is not only on this site to be a great spokesperson for the company, which he is. He is also on here to put fires out that people light without a care in the world regards to anyone but themselves.
The Internet, destroying common courtesy and decency one lousy thread at a time...
If you read his post, he says Kodak was going to rectify the situation. I do agree, having Simon here, to represent Ilford, probably means this wouldn't occur with their products. If only Kodak saw fit to do the same...
As for Stephen not having "a care in the world regards to anyone but themselves [himself]", I don't see where you come up with that statement. We have a lot of Aussie members to whom this information may be relevant. I doubt anything he's posted can do any more damage to Kodak than they've already self-inflicted.
I think avoiding posting things on the web at all costs only helps to foster these relationships, we protect each other's mutually beneficial interests. And perhaps you misunderstood the context in which I mentioned Simon Galley, clearly put, because of how nasty and damaging the Internet can be, he is as much a babysitter of the brand as he is a front man...this was never quite as nasty a problem pre-Internet. Period.
Whether or not a company's wrong decisions could be deemed as self inflicted or not should be an invitation to pour gasoline on them and throw a match in, why add to it?....unless one gets more enjoyment living a virtual life rather than a real one...
I think you're overestimating the damage Stephen's post caused Kodak.
I do have a question, though. Do you think 20-25 years ago Kodak would have allowed a distributor to deliver expired goods? I remember a few times, visiting my local camera store, when a Kodak rep was checking expiration dates on products. If an item was even close to past-date, he pulled it.
Distributors have written agreements with the companies they represent. I've no doubt the distributor responsible for this has a contractual agreement to supply fresh goods or, at the very least, not to supply dated goods as new.
I was raised on Kodak. I find their difficulties as painful as most here. But, the ultimate responsibility when you open a yellow box is theirs. They need to do a better job policing their distributors.