Kodak Reports 1.03 Billion Dollar Loss for 3Q

[Bertram2]

No, the market just thinks they're cool and wants them at this price point.
Bill Mattocks

Obviously. But this wasn't what we were talking about.
The question was WHY they think it is cool and if the marketing departments of the photo companies have made them believe it .
Using the stone old convenience promise again.
Which now means "instant result".

 

[dexdog]

Convenience is important to many people, and this concept is widely used to market everything from food products to cleaning products to automobiles with power-everything. People like convenience, as demonstrated by the sales of this stuff. It can't all be brainwashing driving this behaviour. I really like old rangefinders, but also have a digital SLR. Convenience is an issue for me, but ability to manipulate outputs to the quality I want is also important. To me, digital is a blessing because I no longer have to put up with crappy developing and printing jobs (Yeah, I am darkroom-challenged).


dexdog

 

[zeos 386sx]

Convenience is important to many people, and this concept is widely used to market everything from food products to cleaning products to automobiles with power-everything. People like convenience, as demonstrated by the sales of this stuff. It can't all be brainwashing driving this behaviour.

There is a distinction between the different camera markets. The mindset of the lowend market is different from the mindset of consumers in the midrange and highend markets.

In the lowend most consumers probably don't compare cameras and rely on a camera salesman's word and price to make a decision. In the midrange and highend the consumers are getting much more interested in output and start comparing and reading reviews - they are much less apt to be brainwashed. When you get to consumers like we have in this forum you can forget any idea of brainwashing. Even reviews are viewed as suspect and we tend to second-guess and question everything - including each other.

It is my understanding that the midrange market is actually the most profitable. If camera companies are going to expend resources to move a market it will be there - in the midrange.

Convenience is an issue for me, but ability to manipulate outputs to the quality I want is also important. To me, digital is a blessing because I no longer have to put up with crappy developing and printing jobs (Yeah, I am darkroom-challenged).

I'm not "darkroom-challenged" and I still agree with that. I like the amazing control over the final image that PhotoShop provides.

 

[Kevin]

Well if Kodak stops selling film to us, we can always get it from these german-speaking girls: auction 5821726479 Bertram, whadya think?

 

[djon]

No Kodak rep is going to talk about this from a stock analyst's perspective, and that's the perspective of the CEO and the stockholders.

The CEO just stated the company's goals. Therefore stock analysts will demand that he execute the plan: They're separating the film camera line from the rest of the company.

IMO: This guarantees the film camera component willl be spun off from the mother ship, certainly with a different name (probably same colors, name probably a Kodak-like name). The buyer will be an investor group, not a competitor. That group will almost certainly sell everything for scrap and create an imported film marketing group. That won't be Fuji, it'll be another group that's tight with Walmart...or it'll get the Kirkland/Costco name, since Walmart's already rebranding Fuji film. They'll take enough losses from the sell-off of assets to shelter the marketing group's income from taxes for a long time.

IMO the only real question has to do with retiree healthcare benefits. Political timing is everything.

 

[canonetc]

I agree. I just find it interesting how many people feel bitterness towards Kodak and want to 'punish them' for not supporting film. Then they complain that Kodak is laying off employees. Duh.

How dare a company see technology changing and decide to change with the times instead of downsizing to the size of a laundromat and keeping a few hundred people employed to make traditional film for an ever-shrinking base of customers! Why, they should have fought the good fight! They should have gone down with the ship!

I understand anger over changing times, especially when the affect our vocations and avocations so directly. I don't understand the denial, blame, and general running around like Chicken Little that accompanies it. But it is interesting to watch. History being made!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Downsizing and keeping a more moderate market is a good idea. Rome wanted the world, and it collapsed. Hitler wanted the world, and he collapsed. Enron wanted the world, and it collapsed. For good reasons. Some current governments want the world and....well you know.

Stay small. Like the guy in England who's the only one who makes "Stinking Bishop" cheese (for all the Wallace and Gromit fans out there). He's swamped with orders since the movie came out. And he said, on the radio, that he will NOT get any bigger.

We'll all pay more for supplies, but a niche market and artform will (and is) be generated. A true hands-on artform will be kept alive by the few (by world population standards) that really care about. Meaning, we folks! And that we can be proud of.

chris
canonetc

 

[sooner]

I agree with Chris, film is shrinking fast but will remain albeit at a higher price point. Think of the art shops that supply fine arts students and professionals with their tools, many of which are made by small manufacturers. But Bill is right, this is a huge industry shift and we're all riding the whale's back, so to speak, wondering when the beast will crash into the sea. Still, Bill's penchant for driving the point home reminds me of a guy who walks into a daycare and dares all the kids to jump on his back. Hey, it's fun. Have a great weekend....John.

 

[bmattock]

Still, Bill's penchant for driving the point home reminds me of a guy who walks into a daycare and dares all the kids to jump on his back. Hey, it's fun. Have a great weekend....John.

Point made, my friend!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

No Kodak rep is going to talk about this from a stock analyst's perspective, and that's the perspective of the CEO and the stockholders.

The CEO just stated the company's goals. Therefore stock analysts will demand that he execute the plan: They're separating the film camera line from the rest of the company.

IMO: This guarantees the film camera component willl be spun off from the mother ship, certainly with a different name (probably same colors, name probably a Kodak-like name). The buyer will be an investor group, not a competitor. That group will almost certainly sell everything for scrap and create an imported film marketing group. That won't be Fuji, it'll be another group that's tight with Walmart...or it'll get the Kirkland/Costco name, since Walmart's already rebranding Fuji film. They'll take enough losses from the sell-off of assets to shelter the marketing group's income from taxes for a long time.

IMO the only real question has to do with retiree healthcare benefits. Political timing is everything.

You nailed it. Hey, we're industry analysts!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RJBender]

Well if Kodak stops selling film to us, we can always get it from these german-speaking girls: auction 5821726479 Bertram, whadya think?

Kevin,
Is this exposed film with photos of the girls on the film? What kind of camera is shown in the photos? It appears to have a crotch level finder. Sorry, I don't speak German. 😕

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5821726479

R.J.

 

[Kevin]

That auction is so out there that I cannot properly translate it at the moment. It is abstract, bizarre. It has to do will selling film but I cant accurately make out just what the deal is. If I get around to it, I will try my best translation this weekend. Could be fun.

Stay tuned...

 

[RJBender]

...A Kodak person is scheduled to speak at the LHSA (Leica Historical Society of America) gathering in San Francisco at the end of the month. Advance word is that Kodak is still committed to film. They are adjusting to market realities in terms of how much of their business it is, but it still is a major part of their business.

--Peter

Peter, please ask the Kodak rep what "occasional mistakes" they have made.
This is from their "values and mission" statement:

We prove and maintain constant credibility. By consistently delivering on our commitments (and even admitting to the occasional mistake), we earn the credibility of those around us.​

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/careers/why/valuesmission.jhtml

R.J.

 

[Kevin]

R.J.,

You tell me, I am not sure.

I continued in a new thread - did not want to hijack this very important one.

 

[RJBender]

R.J.,

You tell me, I am not sure.

I continued in a new thread - did not want to hijack this very important one.

danke

R.J.

 

[Bertram2]

Well if Kodak stops selling film to us, we can always get it from these german-speaking girls: auction 5821726479 Bertram, whadya think?

I think: There are so many completely GAGA people out there, it's amazing !! 😀

 

[canonetc]

Convenience is important to many people, and this concept is widely used to market everything from food products to cleaning products to automobiles with power-everything. People like convenience, as demonstrated by the sales of this stuff. It can't all be brainwashing driving this behaviour. I really like old rangefinders, but also have a digital SLR. Convenience is an issue for me, but ability to manipulate outputs to the quality I want is also important. To me, digital is a blessing because I no longer have to put up with crappy developing and printing jobs (Yeah, I am darkroom-challenged).


dexdog

The old promise of technology (all tech) was to alleviate work, hunger and disease. I think if we look closely, very closely, at digital OVERALL and as a SYSTEM, can we say it has alleviated those three in our own personal lives? How much time (work) and money (work) have we spent buying a camera, lenses, flash, cards, computer, software, printer, monitor, ink cartridges and paper, and then fuddling around to make the whole thing get you what you want (a TRUE photo quality print and non-pixelated)?

Hunger: the market is designed so we have to want and buy more more more. We make a substantial initial investment...and then suddenly....we need something else. What we have is either satisfactory, or not quite good enough (cause they release the next baddest toy each year. I give you the Canon 5D as an example. Why didn't they release it two years ago?). Personal desire (hunger) is subjective, of course.

Disease: Being fooled by the "Next Big" thing. Kodak played poker until they lost (such as "creating" markets as mentioned above) to the public.

For those who are chemically sensitive or "darkroom-challenged" as mentioned before, then digital is a godsend. Digital tech is good if we use it, and not the other way around. Resistance is not futile.

chris
canonetc

 

[RJBender]

I for one don't want to lose Kodak film. I recently returned to film after a brief and torrid affair with digital. Once the instant gratification wore off, the need for quality took hold. Film is history, film is magic, and I will buy as much Kodak film as I can so they will see someone out there still wants and needs film.
9fingers

I'd like to be able to shoot 12 exposures on a $2 roll of 120, send it to a lab and get twelve 35 mb images on a CD for $8.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

... I just find it interesting how many people feel bitterness towards Kodak and want to 'punish them' for not supporting film. Then they complain that Kodak is laying off employees. Duh....

Bill, I would rather pay taxes to fund programs that re-train laid off workers than buy a product, hoping that some of my money will trickle down to the worker so he can keep his job. CEO bonuses and stockholders will get paid first. Jobs get cut to make the financials look better to the investors.

R.J.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, I would rather pay taxes to fund programs that re-train laid off workers than buy a product, hoping that some of my money will trickle down to the worker so he can keep his job. CEO bonuses and stockholders will get paid first. Jobs get cut to make the financials look better to the investors.

R.J.

Guess what, you do pay taxes to retrain laid-off workers! Most states have taxpayer-funded retraining programs for those who wish to take advantage of them.

Yes, the CEO and the inner circle of executives will get their bonuses - it's a shame that they pay them so much. Shareholders permit it, though. As to shareholders getting paid - well, that's a publicly-traded corporation's fiduciary duty. The officers of the corporation could (theoretically) be arrested for looking to the interests of their customers at the expense of the corporation.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RJBender]

Bill, when you said,

I agree. I just find it interesting how many people feel bitterness towards Kodak and want to 'punish them' for not supporting film. Then they complain that Kodak is laying off employees. Duh.​

who were you referring to?

Yes, I would rather pay more taxes for job retraining of laid off workers than spend it on a company's products to keep the company from laying off it's employees. 🙂

This Bloomberg report said the cut back in film production will be at Kodak's production facility in China:

During the quarter Kodak said it would close its plant making photographic paper in Rochester and cut back film-making capacity in Xiamen, China. It also is shutting a manufacturing plant it bought in its purchase of Creo Inc. in June. ​

Check out this report from China Daily:

Established in 1998, Kodak's Xiamen branch has become the largest production base of imaging materials in Asia and the world's largest one-time-use camera maker.
According to statistics from the branch, the base is currently able to produce 190 million rolls of film and 90 million square meters printing paper every year. Its products are mainly exported to the Asia-Pacific area, Europe and the United States.​

The last 2 Kodak Gold film cartridges that I will ever buy, are not marked "made in China" or "made in USA" . I don't have the box but I'm curious what is printed on the box.

If they're making film in China and they still can't make a profit, something is wrong with this company.


R.J.