Bingley
Veteran
I appreciate the information, and thank Colleen for starting the thread and answering questions.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Thanks for the clarification Roger...that make more sense.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
So (respectfully) anything you're telling us currently is at the whim of the people who are privy to this information and their decisions are the ones that really count.
Jamie123
Veteran
I think it's safe to assume that someone who does PR for Kodak will not release any kind of confidential inside information. Otherwise she wouldn't be doing her job very well.
Gumby
Veteran
I think it's safe to assume that someone who does PR for Kodak will not release any kind of confidential inside information. Otherwise she wouldn't be doing her job very well.
I'm sure of that, but Keith has a good point -- PR may not be "in the loop" with the decision-makers. I know in my company they are closer than many, maybe even "much closer", but they are not a part of "the inner sanctum" of decision-makers. They know what they know, and they know what to say. I trust that Colleen is a true professional and a straight-shooter. When there is news she can share I'm sure she will.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Precisely ... I have immense respect for Colleen's involvement here and I have no doubts about her personal integrity.
As for her masters ... I wouldn't trust them as far as I could kick them!
Jamie123
Veteran
Yes, what I was trying to say is that there's no point in speculating or even asking Colleen whether or not she is 'in the loop' as her professional integrity requires that she only passes on information that is supposed to be made public. We should just appreciate that we can communicate with someone who actually has the authority to tell us what the official statement is. And that's something that shouldn't be underestimated considering a recent thread where someone spread a rumor based on what a customer service employee said.
Also, at this point I think even the most inner circle of 'decision-makers' could not give us the kind of information we all want, namely what the future holds for the fate of Kodak film. The next relevant decision they will have to make is who to sell to (if they find a buyer). After that it's up to a new group of decision-makers.
Gumby
Veteran
R
rpsawin
Guest
Precisely ... I have immense respect for Colleen's involvement here and I have no doubts about her personal integrity.
As for her masters ... I wouldn't trust them as far as I could kick them!
And wouldn't it feel great to plant your boot up Perez's largess?
Best regards,
Bob
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Colleen -
Could we have a commitment from Kodak not to hit film users with any more price increases for the year that Kodak will try to sell its film division?
What I have noticed - and maybe this is my imagination, but I doubt it - is that Kodak had a serious price increase about a year prior to the bankruptcy announcement, had a 15% increase contemporaneously with the announcement, and has another increase on tap for a couple of days from now. Film now costs 50% more than it did 3 years ago. What's behind this? Demand is declining, prevailing wages have been flat (or have declined), and even though the cost of metallic silver has spiked, film contains very little of it. The money for the Rochester coating plant was sunk well before the bankruptcy. And most importantly, your customers aren't making 50% more than they were 3 years ago. Some are lucky to be working.
The cynic in me questions whether the film division is being milked to support the reorganization - but in a way that is actually destroying the value to the buyer by pushing people away from your film products. I'm not poor - and I could afford to keep shooting film even if it got more expensive - but once you hit a certain price, there are substitutes.
Regards,
Dante Stella
Could we have a commitment from Kodak not to hit film users with any more price increases for the year that Kodak will try to sell its film division?
What I have noticed - and maybe this is my imagination, but I doubt it - is that Kodak had a serious price increase about a year prior to the bankruptcy announcement, had a 15% increase contemporaneously with the announcement, and has another increase on tap for a couple of days from now. Film now costs 50% more than it did 3 years ago. What's behind this? Demand is declining, prevailing wages have been flat (or have declined), and even though the cost of metallic silver has spiked, film contains very little of it. The money for the Rochester coating plant was sunk well before the bankruptcy. And most importantly, your customers aren't making 50% more than they were 3 years ago. Some are lucky to be working.
The cynic in me questions whether the film division is being milked to support the reorganization - but in a way that is actually destroying the value to the buyer by pushing people away from your film products. I'm not poor - and I could afford to keep shooting film even if it got more expensive - but once you hit a certain price, there are substitutes.
Regards,
Dante Stella
Jamie123
Veteran
It may be a bit too much to ask for such a commitment as the probably have other priorities but I think it is quite unlikely that another price hike will occur while they're trying to sell the film division. Once you announce that you want to sell something it doesn't make much sense to change that thing again otherwise buyers have no idea what they're dealing with.
However, it's not unlikely that the (hypothetical) new owner will increase the prices.
RedLion
Come to the Faire
Who wants to catch a falling knife
Who wants to catch a falling knife
The other problem I see with attracting a buyer for Kodak film is that's a shrinking market where no one yet knows where the bottom is. How is a buyer going to know the value of the company when they can't predict where the market is going to be in 2yrs or 5yrs.
Buying the Kodak film division could be like trying to catch a falling knife.
The other huge problem is that they are not promoting the market. No one, except Lomography, is advertising to consumers to try and grow the market. They're just standing there like a deer in the headlights, letting it all slip away as if to say, it's all over. Digital has won, we no longer have any reason to exist, except to serve an ever shrinking number of folks still using their old obsolete cameras and the shrinking number of tourists who use one time use cameras.
Unless someone buys the division who is also willing to risk a lot more to try and stabilize or even grow the market, the only folks I can imagine buying it would be the short term thinking speculators who would buy it cheap, mine it for its existing value without investing in its future, and then sell off the pieces.
Joe
Who wants to catch a falling knife
The other problem I see with attracting a buyer for Kodak film is that's a shrinking market where no one yet knows where the bottom is. How is a buyer going to know the value of the company when they can't predict where the market is going to be in 2yrs or 5yrs.
Buying the Kodak film division could be like trying to catch a falling knife.
The other huge problem is that they are not promoting the market. No one, except Lomography, is advertising to consumers to try and grow the market. They're just standing there like a deer in the headlights, letting it all slip away as if to say, it's all over. Digital has won, we no longer have any reason to exist, except to serve an ever shrinking number of folks still using their old obsolete cameras and the shrinking number of tourists who use one time use cameras.
Unless someone buys the division who is also willing to risk a lot more to try and stabilize or even grow the market, the only folks I can imagine buying it would be the short term thinking speculators who would buy it cheap, mine it for its existing value without investing in its future, and then sell off the pieces.
Joe
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Hi Dante
While I totally agree it would be great to have no price hikes i think we're bound by other economic reasons, costs to manufacture aren't fixed:
I would imagine that during a time of recession precious metals are more attractive, hence the incremental price increases and as the maket for silver and film sales are quite volatile no one wants to take too many risks.
amateriat
We're all light!
Oh, Lordy...Portra, BW400CN and Ektar 100 (in rough order of personal importance) have been my mainstays for a a while. I'll be calmly awaiting word from on high. "interesting" times indeed.
- Barrett
- Barrett
sparrow6224
Well-known
If I'm not mistaken the judge has not made a decision here -- they can't do jack without the court approving it. perhaps the forums could get together and hire someone knowledgeable -- I'm not kidding, it's quite doable and quite common and not at all useless -- to write an amicus (friend of the court) brief to file with the court about the historical significance of the film division, its role in a world with about four other companies still making film, etc etc etc. It's a MAJOR story and quite possibly one only dimly visible to the court. Any lawyers on here?
sparrow6224
Well-known
to expand on above -- I say this because if the film division is purchased by a company not committed enough and skillful enough to keep it going the loss to global culture and art is incalculable.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Now there's a thought ... let's heritage list the film manufacturing business.
A bit late for Efke sadly!
robert blu
quiet photographer
I 100% agree with Joe. The normal consumer is daily confronted with an huge advertising wave from all the various camera companies. And we know the market is the market. I visited a couple of touristic places in the last times and I was looking at so many tourist shooting digital with simple P&S and my thoughts went to how much film companies lost of their sales. And in these times I only met one japanese couple, husband and wife both with an F6 shooting film. We cannot reverse the flow, but in my opinion some promotion from the companies could at least reduce the speed of the change.
robert
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't think any kind of marketing could keep people from switching to digital let alone bring digital users back to film. The most Kodak could've achieved through aggressive marketing would've been to steal market share from Fuji but apart from that I don't think they could've 'grown' the market.
The only thing that would've kept more people from switching to digital is if they had drastically reduced the price but that would've hardly helped their bottom line.