"Film division is still profitable," says Kodak

[Damaso]

And..

"Hours after Kodak announced it was seeking bankruptcy protection, the Rochester-based imaging company was quick to reaffirm that its film division will survive the company's restructuring as long as it remains profitable.
"Film (still and cinema) remains a profitable business for Kodak, and we have the broadest and most respected portfolio of films in both segments," Audrey Jonckheer, Kodak's worldwide director of marketing and public relations, tells BJP."


http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...lm+division+is+still+profitable,"+says+Kodak+[update]

 

[dallard]

Funny: I just came over here to post the same article 🙂
Kodak's professional film sales were up significantly in 2011 compared to 2010.
http://filmphotographyproject.com/content/news/2011/11/film-alive-and-well-fpp-kodak-interview

 

[mbisc]

Funny: I just came over here to post the same article 🙂
Kodak's professional film sales were up significantly in 2011 compared to 2010.
http://filmphotographyproject.com/content/news/2011/11/film-alive-and-well-fpp-kodak-interview

Yeah, that is great news, but it may not stop Perez for dumping ("disinvesting") the film division to bolster the value of his stock options. Almost destroyed HP, too. A company is more than a gravy train for bean counters -- if you lose your soul (as a company), you die...

/end{rant}😡

 

[jsrockit]

Great, now we can stop all of the "OMG what am I going to do when there is no Tri-X" threads... 😉

My favorite quote:

"
"We have taken steps to sustain the business as it has declined, and we know that there are hundreds of passionate fans of film for the artistic and quality reasons they cite."

Only hundreds?

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Let's hear it for Tri-X.

 

[batterytypehah!]

My favorite quote:

"
"We have taken steps to sustain the business as it has declined, and we know that there are hundreds of passionate fans of film for the artistic and quality reasons they cite."

Only hundreds?

Yeah, but the BJP was quick to point out that it's really millions of users, in the same article. Wouldn't beat the guy over the head with it, really.

 

[DerekF]

It's all spin. Kodak wants to become a fully digital company. I don't see how film fits into that portfolio in the long term. The fact that Kodak's worldwide director of marketing and public relations offers a laughable estimate of the number of film users worldwide is equally discouraging because it illustrates how out of touch Kodak is with that market segment. Unless she meant to say "thousands of hundreds of passionate fans of film" or something to that effect. 😛

Sounds more like they are trying to convince potential buyers that their film division is worth gobbling up, which may or may not be a bad thing for those who want to see Kodak's film portfolio survive, depending on the eventual terms of such a deal.

 

[chris00nj]

A quick look at the annual reports show that the film division has been the only profitible business for years, and their digital groups have never made a profit.

It's a been a cliche in the news wires that Kodak didn't embrace digital. It did, just poorly.

It's kinda funny that Kodak would likely still be afloat if they didn't get into digital at all.

 

[dave lackey]

Great, now we can stop all of the "OMG what am I going to do when there is no Tri-X" threads... 😉

My favorite quote:

"
"We have taken steps to sustain the business as it has declined, and we know that there are hundreds of passionate fans of film for the artistic and quality reasons they cite."

Only hundreds?

Yes, we are all on RFF, I reckon. Funny how that did not raise a red flag to somebody.

Wonder how many rolls of film they sold in 2011.

 

[mwooten]

I would guess that the best outcome for those of us that use Kodak film would be for the film division to be spun off as a completely separate entity.

 

[KoNickon]

Yes, and call it "Kodakery." So who here would invest in the IPO of such a spinoff, should it come to pass?

 

[elmer3.5]

Hi, although sad, it´s better to go broken than to fight until nothing is left for good.
Perhaps a "new" "fresh" start for film division away from digital cameras and other parts of the firm.

I remember one of the first dslr´s with FF was an ugly kodak camera, couldn´t do htey have done it better?

Well hope they still make good films and sensors for leica 🙂, perhaps a new FF rangefinder to give them the prestige and a niche market to restart!

bye!

 

[jsrockit]

Wouldn't beat the guy over the head with it, really.

I didn't realize I did so... 😱

 

[robbeiflex]

There will soon be a "Kodakfilm" or similarly named spin off looking for IPO / private equity / corporate buyers, no doubt in my mind.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[carpark]

I was told that the film division was doing okay a while back by my motion picture rep. More TV and films are shot on film than people realise.
Of course this won't last forever but there will always be a market for film. A diminished one I agree but listening to all the told you so's from the digital camp is getting boring. Film will be here a long while yet and I think that Kodak will still have a part to play.

 

[dallard]

I would guess that the best outcome for those of us that use Kodak film would be for the film division to be spun off as a completely separate entity.

That's what I would hope for. Ilford's successful precisely because they are focused. It seems Kodak is all over the place.

 

[NLewis]

A quick look at the annual reports show that the film division has been the only profitible business for years, and their digital groups have never made a profit.

It's a been a cliche in the news wires that Kodak didn't embrace digital. It did, just poorly.

It's kinda funny that Kodak would likely still be afloat if they didn't get into digital at all.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...ee-market-is-brutal-kodak-loses-consumers-win

Article with some interesting factoids:

Apparently, Kodak sold $6 billion of digital cameras in 2006, making it the largest digital camera seller in the U.S.

It still holds a 35% share of the "high end printer market," which might mean commercial printers.

 

[David Murphy]

I've noticed that many large companies become disconnected with the reality of how they are appearing to their customers. They can't see the forrest through the trees so-to-speak.

A quick look at the annual reports show that the film division has been the only profitible business for years, and their digital groups have never made a profit.

It's a been a cliche in the news wires that Kodak didn't embrace digital. It did, just poorly.

It's kinda funny that Kodak would likely still be afloat if they didn't get into digital at all.

 

[mbisc]

A quick look at the annual reports show that the film division has been the only profitible business for years, and their digital groups have never made a profit.

It's a been a cliche in the news wires that Kodak didn't embrace digital. It did, just poorly.

It's kinda funny that Kodak would likely still be afloat if they didn't get into digital at all.

Excellent point -- film is the cash cow that finances all of Perez's silliness.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

So why don't they dump the rest of the hemorrhaging divisions and ride out the film wave with actual net profit, until the digital cinema takeover is widespread? Sure, investors may want the company to diversify and innovate, but the time for that passed along with the DCS pro SLR. After that Canon and Nikon owned the digital world, for the most part.

Of course, I'm speaking quite selfishly since I want to keep shooting film and shooting it at a low-ish cost, for the rest of my life.

Phil Forrest