Hopefully the first action will be to get rid of Perez.
Inkjet printers aren't going to do it for them, no matter how big, fast or cheap they are. Might not be a bad business to be in but it ain't a save the company strategy. Find something to do where they can apply their coating technology. Do some REAL marketing to convince photo enthusiasts and artists that film is a beautiful (but, yes, niche) medium and they are missing something by not using it. Continue to introduce films that make digital even more so look like crap. Find a way to apply your film technologies to readily available, economical, everybody can afford it, digital output. Market film to people (ie your mother) who don't want to ^%$#% around with computers. Get the photo magazines to run an article about film here and there. Make up with Walmart.
They really should have kept the pharmaceutical business and selling the health imaging group was a HUGE mistake.
Reading this thread made me hungry.
If you own 24% of a publicly owned company you have a lot more influence than you might think. First as someone mentioned you can demand a seat on the board and start firing people, also there is a bigger threat where you can start dumping shares quickly and drive the stock price down thus removing the ability of a company to raise capital and leaving it ripe for hostile takeover.
I would not like to see a hostile takeover of Kodak, unless that takeover is by APUG users.
Is Perez a "non-strategic" asset?
Stupid question, but where is Kodak at the forefront in any technology outside maybe film? I was under the impression that they're core photo business was imaging chips. We all know it's not their printers or P&S's. So what's their big money maker?
For starters, the lack of easily-available film cameras is a big impediment. Sure you can get some crappy P&S at the local pharmacy or top of the line Nikon F6 or rangefinders but the variety isn't there. And you need to know and be determined enough to find the cameras that do exist. (Not everyone has the time or desire to seek out used gear in good condition.)
Shooting with a crappy P&S is not a good way to showcase film (just like shooting a crappy digital P&S are not a fair representation of what digital is capable of). You may end up doing film a disservice by pushing people to try film with a crappy camera when people think they can get similar results by using a crappy digital camera but without the perceived hassle of film.
Now, think of yourself as Joe Consumer (or mom) who already has a digital camera that's "good enough" (often as part of their cell phones). What incentive is there to try film when I already have what I need and is predictable?
So, ultimately, Kodak ends up trying to sell film to the artist or photography enthusiast, people who typically know what they want and know where to get it. Advertising would basically be preaching to the converted, so what's in it for them? Would it grow their film market? It's hard to predict whether it would.
Those "crappy" P&S cameras are one of the biggest sellers for both Fuji and Kodak, so don't run them down!