CliveC
Well-known
Mine too, but I've been since labeled a pessimist.
Meet the new Kodak Film: Kodak Alaris...
- Thread starter KM-25
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 89
- Views 13K
Mine too, but I've been since labeled a pessimist.
Ranchu
Veteran
Do you have a link that says the non-movie film production is not profitable, or no?
BenJT
Established
From the january 20th article: "Film (still and cinema) remains a profitable business for Kodak"
I don't see why these products would be unprofitable as long as restructuring takes place. Someone else brought up Ilford as a model.
finguanzo
Well-known
Keeping tri x and portra, even thoughi barely shoot color ever, would keep me, and I'm sure many others, happy... 🙂
CliveC
Well-known
My impression is that Kodak's film production facilities are on a bigger scale than that of Ilford. Whereas Ilford is happy enough to pump out small batches constantly, it's not quite as economical for Kodak to produce small amounts.
Does somebody here have more insight on the matter?
Range-rover
Veteran
I just brought two new film cameras, so I'm glad to hear their planning new films.
Range
Range
Aristophanes
Well-known
I don't see anywhere that the physical assets of EK are transferred. I think the Rochester coating plant is to remain in EK hands There are capital and environmental liabilities that go along with that facility, and it can handle all the world's film needs as it stands right now. It coats almost all the world's outstanding motion picture film stock, for example.
This deal is to keep the assets of the film and imaging division (less the motion picture and archival film products) in the hands of the pensioners numbering about 15,000. Their pensions are now dependent on some return from operations.
It is is hard to say if any film production of Kodak is profitable because they were selling hard assets to fund the company...until they ran out of assets and time and then bankruptcy. Realistically if you keep your factory going but lose 99.9% of your market you're losing money per unit or widget. The good part is post-bankruptcy they have no servicing costs. The down part is they probably have to purchase and sell x amount of product from Rochester to keep the lines going, and what has been dragging film use down is partly the rising costs of processing and scanning, not the manufacture of the film itself. The PP costs of film have been a huge issue for consumers because mass production of film requires mass consumption. All the home hobbyists in the world cannot keep those industrial production facilities humming.
Ranchu
Veteran
I believe it's illegal for them to lie about their profitability, plus it would be revealed in their financial disclosures to shareholders.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Cool. Hopefully this is positive news! I love Tri-X, T-Max, and Portra.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Good news. I really did not like the idea of spending 7k+ for a digital Leica.
jenhao
Established
Usually when a company adopts a made up, Greek-sounding name, it's a bad sign that management has their heads in the wrong place (in the clouds). Guess "Kodak Film" just didn't fit their business focus 😱
I hope they prove me wrong.
I hope they prove me wrong.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Their statements demonstrate that they lump all capital assets and sales together regardless of which division they came from. Asset and cost-shifting is not only common it is perfectly acceptable according to GAAP and the SEC. If you look at Kodak's Q statements they consistently show their imaging divisions in huge losses for a decade and a mad scramble to sell hard assets to cover operational losses.
In other words: They sold land to keep the coating machines going.
Or another way of putting it: They sold land to make up for revenues that no longer came in from customers buying film.
That's what the books show. Nowhere does Kodak actually state how many customers they've lost. They provide no units, but the revenue fall has been almost total, as in a near complete obliteration, from billions/year in revenues (in 1980's $'s) to maybe a total asset base of $1 billion and revenues in the low tens of millions of $'s. The last dew Q's before the bankruptcy are hard to gauge because they started shifting divisional responsibilities, the big spin-off being motion picture film which used to account for something like 88% of revenues and now is down to a small % of that.
Kodak went bankrupt because they ran out of assets to sell and had too few other products to make up the loss of film customers.
The real fall in Kodak's film products came from the loss of motion picture film, especially distribution. That product line underwrote most of the coating systems.EK kept that product line. The pension system gets personal B2C products, while B2B and printers and pro imaging stays with EK. Why? Likely no one but the pensioners would buy the still film product division. It's all a shame, really. Fuji managed the transition to digital and could keep some analog products going.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
On my TRI-X carton is a text: made in U.S.A. fabrique aux E.U. Finished in Mexico for Kodak Brasilieira Com The film is, however bought in Germany... If you wonder the rather high price of TRI-X , I guess the emulsion is laid in Rochester, cut and packaged in mexico where it is shipped to Brasil, where it is gray marketed to EU and Germany.
I guess KPP has some rethinking for logistics for future in near program...
I guess KPP has some rethinking for logistics for future in near program...
mfogiel
Veteran
I believe, they could rethink the production mode.
For me, people who shoot film nowadays already know what they want, and they would be reasonably happy to stock up on favourite emulsion once a year or so.
Just like Ilford is doing a once a year on demand run, so Kodak could do a similar thing. After all they own the patents for the emulsions, so it is a matter of being careful with the costs. I imagine, making a batch of B&W film products is pretty much the same procedure on the same machines, only the chemistry varies. They could call in the orders for Panatomic X or Plus X or whatever else, and reserve an option, that they will run the batch only when/if enough orders are present. Then they make the run, and sell the stuff directly to people by mail. This way, not only they would avoid waste, but would also bypass the intermediaries, so there would be no need to increase prices.
The last thought is a bit provocative - why don't they pool with Ilford and Fuji, to buy the patents for Nikon scanners from Nikon, and continue making the CS 5000 and CS9000 on the same, on demand, basis ?
This would really be something.
For me, people who shoot film nowadays already know what they want, and they would be reasonably happy to stock up on favourite emulsion once a year or so.
Just like Ilford is doing a once a year on demand run, so Kodak could do a similar thing. After all they own the patents for the emulsions, so it is a matter of being careful with the costs. I imagine, making a batch of B&W film products is pretty much the same procedure on the same machines, only the chemistry varies. They could call in the orders for Panatomic X or Plus X or whatever else, and reserve an option, that they will run the batch only when/if enough orders are present. Then they make the run, and sell the stuff directly to people by mail. This way, not only they would avoid waste, but would also bypass the intermediaries, so there would be no need to increase prices.
The last thought is a bit provocative - why don't they pool with Ilford and Fuji, to buy the patents for Nikon scanners from Nikon, and continue making the CS 5000 and CS9000 on the same, on demand, basis ?
This would really be something.
furcafe
Veteran
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Couldn't agree more!
Why can't more of us be more forward-looking?
It's too early to talk about profit this and that.
And we -- film users -- are part of the equation.
There is an empty bulk-loader in my closet, I could scour ebay to find an expired Plus-X, but since the new owners who align themselves with the preservation of Kodak films have taken the stand, I think I'll get some T-max 100 to support them.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
Producing film is a little bit different business than collecting orders and then shipping it away. Those master rolls are huge, need ripening period for maybe a year or more. Then they need to be cut and packaged. Do you think people will wait for their orders for a year or more... The European producers, Ilford, Harmann, Maco, Foma, Orwo/Filomotec are producing that stuff all the time. If Kodak England will be the producer, there will be the customs charge on EU stuff to America....
kingqueenknave
Well-known
I seriously have no idea what you're getting with these posts, other than it seems like you really want Kodak Alaris to fail.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
I think the message is to temper our expectations. When the KPP gets its act together, it will concentrate on products that will make the best profit, regardless of what fully depreciated capital assets they may have. This may or may not include the favourite films of a small and shrinking market, i.e. us. Time will tell, but if I were you, I would continue looking for sources of Fuji and Ilford products.
Cheers,
Dez
Cheers,
Dez
kingqueenknave
Well-known
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
