If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:06:32 GMT, friend®
wrote: On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:15:10 -0700, "Mark A" wrote: do not forget Eastman as large chemical company, do not forget other bits and pieces (pharmaceuticals). Fuji manufactures excellent films, better than Kodak, In your opinion... Subaru kicks **** out of similar products from GM or Ford, it has been said already - Kodak's senior management is UTS. Kodak was too big for too long. Remember format 126, 110, Disk, APS? All were big flop. Kodak for too long had unjustified influence over the whole industry, nice to see them going down. In all fairness, Ilford and Agfa's film business is significantly smaller than Kodak and they derive a miniscule (or zero) part of their revenue from color film, which is what is killing Kodak as consumers move toward digital. Fuji is a huge conglomerate that has been taking a beating for years to sell film at cutthroat prices to take market share from Kodak. It may appear to you to be a film company, but Fuji Heavy Industries has many other businesses. They are the owner of Subaru automobile manufacturing as well as aerospace, industrial products, and eco-technology. The other business make up the shortfall if film profits. Fuji also makes digital cameras using their own technology and manufacturing resources, not just resells cameras made by others like Kodak does. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
Stewart Gardiner wrote:
"Mark A" wrote in message ... Really? Film sales in the US were down 10% in 2002. When the 2003 results are in, I bet they show another 15% decline. They can't keep suffering declines like that, which will likely accelerate. Amateurs are flocking to digital in droves. Kodak would still be a big company even if sales of consumer film shrunk to nothing. The motion picture and commercial printing divisions are huge and very profitable. Sales of specialist films to the pro market will be money spinners for many years to come. Unfortunately, the market analysts on Wall Street only report on the more obvious consumer aspects of Kodak business. Some of them even acknowledge that the consumer end of things is less than 50% of Kodak business. When you combine that with investors that only see the consumer parts being reported, then the gut reactions and psychology are easy to understand. IMHO the company would be better off managing decline rather than throwing all of their resources into a desperate gamble developing digital technologies, as Polaroid did. Amazingly, after Polaroid sold off much of their digital assets, they have done well with their film products. While I would be surprised to see them return to being a large growth company, they are surviving under bankruptcy protection . .. . so far. I think if they ever did become too devalued, they might be acquired by Fuji, who currently license Polaroid instant film technology (nice products too). The few remaining years of profits from consumer film should go to shareholder dividends in order to regain some of goodwill. Take a look at the stock reports, and you will find the majority of Kodak stock holdings with institutional investors, and not with individual investors. Once again, when the news is reported, it is easier to focus on complaining individuals, rather than the institutions that run and control the market. And instead of laying off 10,000 workers, why not just freeze recruitment and have an early retirement policy? Is it a surprise they are doing this barely a month after acquiring a large interest in a film making company in China? How long before we see "Made In China" replacing the "Made In USA" script on the Kodak film boxes? Unfortunately the whole boardroom culture in the US goes against anything other than relentless expansion and growth. What CEO is going to come out and say "our business is declining, revenues will shrink from year to year before flattening out but we will continue to be profitable and focus on our core business areas regardless"? Stewart Gardiner I agree with you that it is unfortunate. It is a shame they cannot buy back their stock, become a private company again, and escape the ridiculous quarterly cycle of events. Despite all the negative aspects, they definitely will remain the lumbering giant they have always been. Ciao! Gordon Moat Alliance Graphique Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
"Mark A" wrote in message ... Really? Film sales in the US were down 10% in 2002. When the 2003 results are in, I bet they show another 15% decline. They can't keep suffering declines like that, which will likely accelerate. Amateurs are flocking to digital in droves. Kodak would still be a big company even if sales of consumer film shrunk to nothing. The motion picture and commercial printing divisions are huge and very profitable. Sales of specialist films to the pro market will be money spinners for many years to come. IMHO the company would be better off managing decline rather than throwing all of their resources into a desperate gamble developing digital technologies, as Polaroid did. The few remaining years of profits from consumer film should go to shareholder dividends in order to regain some of goodwill. And instead of laying off 10,000 workers, why not just freeze recruitment and have an early retirement policy? Unfortunately the whole boardroom culture in the US goes against anything other than relentless expansion and growth. What CEO is going to come out and say "our business is declining, revenues will shrink from year to year before flattening out but we will continue to be profitable and focus on our core business areas regardless"? Stewart Gardiner |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
Gordon Moat wrote:
Take a look at the stock reports, and you will find the majority of Kodak stock holdings with institutional investors, and not with individual investors. Once again, when the news is reported, it is easier to focus on complaining individuals, rather than the institutions that run and control the market. Most of the complainers are institutions. Kodak's shareholder base was fairly risk adverse. Now the company wants to go back to being a high tech company. Nick |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
One factor to consider is that digital is only growing so fast in the US
(4/5 of the homes having a computer) Europe is not following that fast. More importantly, emerging markets (Russia and Eastern Europe, China for example) are using much more film than digital mediaas they do not have such prevalent access to computers. Kodak is doing the usual : reduce work force in some regions and increase workforce in other develloping, cheaper markets -- Philippe "Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... Stewart Gardiner wrote: "Mark A" wrote in message ... Really? Film sales in the US were down 10% in 2002. When the 2003 results are in, I bet they show another 15% decline. They can't keep suffering declines like that, which will likely accelerate. Amateurs are flocking to digital in droves. Kodak would still be a big company even if sales of consumer film shrunk to nothing. The motion picture and commercial printing divisions are huge and very profitable. Sales of specialist films to the pro market will be money spinners for many years to come. Unfortunately, the market analysts on Wall Street only report on the more obvious consumer aspects of Kodak business. Some of them even acknowledge that the consumer end of things is less than 50% of Kodak business. When you combine that with investors that only see the consumer parts being reported, then the gut reactions and psychology are easy to understand. IMHO the company would be better off managing decline rather than throwing all of their resources into a desperate gamble developing digital technologies, as Polaroid did. Amazingly, after Polaroid sold off much of their digital assets, they have done well with their film products. While I would be surprised to see them return to being a large growth company, they are surviving under bankruptcy protection . . . so far. I think if they ever did become too devalued, they might be acquired by Fuji, who currently license Polaroid instant film technology (nice products too). The few remaining years of profits from consumer film should go to shareholder dividends in order to regain some of goodwill. Take a look at the stock reports, and you will find the majority of Kodak stock holdings with institutional investors, and not with individual investors. Once again, when the news is reported, it is easier to focus on complaining individuals, rather than the institutions that run and control the market. And instead of laying off 10,000 workers, why not just freeze recruitment and have an early retirement policy? Is it a surprise they are doing this barely a month after acquiring a large interest in a film making company in China? How long before we see "Made In China" replacing the "Made In USA" script on the Kodak film boxes? Unfortunately the whole boardroom culture in the US goes against anything other than relentless expansion and growth. What CEO is going to come out and say "our business is declining, revenues will shrink from year to year before flattening out but we will continue to be profitable and focus on our core business areas regardless"? Stewart Gardiner I agree with you that it is unfortunate. It is a shame they cannot buy back their stock, become a private company again, and escape the ridiculous quarterly cycle of events. Despite all the negative aspects, they definitely will remain the lumbering giant they have always been. Ciao! Gordon Moat Alliance Graphique Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
In article ,
"Stewart Gardiner" wrote: "Mark A" wrote in message ... Really? Film sales in the US were down 10% in 2002. When the 2003 results are in, I bet they show another 15% decline. They can't keep suffering declines like that, which will likely accelerate. Amateurs are flocking to digital in droves. Kodak would still be a big company even if sales of consumer film shrunk to nothing. The motion picture and commercial printing divisions are huge and very profitable. Sales of specialist films to the pro market will be money spinners for many years to come. IMHO the company would be better off managing decline rather than throwing all of their resources into a desperate gamble developing digital technologies, as Polaroid did. The few remaining years of profits from consumer film should go to shareholder dividends in order to regain some of goodwill. And instead of laying off 10,000 workers, why not just freeze recruitment and have an early retirement policy? Unfortunately the whole boardroom culture in the US goes against anything other than relentless expansion and growth. What CEO is going to come out and say "our business is declining, revenues will shrink from year to year before flattening out but we will continue to be profitable and focus on our core business areas regardless"? Stewart Gardiner That would make too much sense,.....at least what you say sounds about the way its supposed to be. -- LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
Stewart Gardiner wrote:
"Mark A" wrote in message ... Really? Film sales in the US were down 10% in 2002. When the 2003 results are in, I bet they show another 15% decline. They can't keep suffering declines like that, which will likely accelerate. Amateurs are flocking to digital in droves. Kodak would still be a big company even if sales of consumer film shrunk to nothing. The motion picture and commercial printing divisions are huge and very profitable. Sales of specialist films to the pro market will be money spinners for many years to come. Don't count on motion pictures being a big part of the film market in a few years, those big reels of film are expensive to produce, and since each one weighs around 15kg and produces around 20 minutes of screen time, and your talking a huge cost for shipping. When they refurb or build a new screen, they are adding DVD technology, expect within 5-10 years those big projectors will not be used anymore. Think about it, a regular courier envelope weighing less then 1lb will be able to hold the entire movie! Digital motion picture cameras are also much smaller and lighter then the big film cameras. Panavision is the biggest supplier of MP cameras, and they are producing digital as well as 35mm cameras, strangley enough the sensor size is smaller then the 35mm frame size. IMHO the company would be better off managing decline rather than throwing all of their resources into a desperate gamble developing digital technologies, as Polaroid did. The few remaining years of profits from consumer film should go to shareholder dividends in order to regain some of goodwill. And instead of laying off 10,000 workers, why not just freeze recruitment and have an early retirement policy? Companies often start with early retirement programs, then find the guys they retired are the only ones who knew what was going on.... IBM did this at one time, hired most of the retired guys back as consultants and pay them three times what they made in salaries. Unfortunately the whole boardroom culture in the US goes against anything other than relentless expansion and growth. What CEO is going to come out and say "our business is declining, revenues will shrink from year to year before flattening out but we will continue to be profitable and focus on our core business areas regardless"? A CEO should do precisely that, business is declining in traditional market areas, but we are looking for new markets, particularily in Asia and Eastern Europe, and should continue profitable, since those markets are hungry for products that they have been unable to obtain previously. The problem is that many American companies think domestically, when they should think globaly. Think Agfa isn't exploring the Eastern European and Middle Eastern markets? Think Fuji isn't expanding into China? W |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
"Stewart Gardiner" wrote in message ... The motion picture and commercial printing divisions are huge and very profitable. These markets are under heavy attack from digital technologies as well. Lucasfilm, for example, now shoots digital and only makes prints for distribution. The film industry is hard at work towards transitioning to digital distribution and digital projection. The time and money they eventually expect to save by distribution electrons to theaters instead of big cans of films is huge. It will also enable theaters to dynamically reallocate their screens based on demand on a show by show basis. A few mouse clicks and a different movie is up on the screen. Kodak presently is in line for very little of that money. Also, Fuji is a major competitor in that market. Similar situations existing in the other commercial markets. Medical imaging is moving to digital as fast as the technology will allow. The advantage of turn around time and image communications is huge. Cat scans and MRIs do not use film nor does ultrasound. X-ray is the only medical film market left and it is loosing share. Kodak can not ensure it's long term survival and prosperity by riding silver based film into the grave in any market. Sales of specialist films to the pro market will be money spinners for many years to come. The pro market is going digital even faster than the amateur market. News is already 99% there. Product and fashion are probably near the 50% switch over point. Routine portraits (school photos, etc.) are also in the midst of a rapid change over. Wedding photographys is well down that path, etc. Finally, Fuji has served the film and paper side of the pro market very well and will continue to take market share of that declining market from Kodak. IMHO the company would be better off managing decline rather than throwing all of their resources into a desperate gamble developing digital technologies, as Polaroid did. Name one long term successful enterprise which has thrived by shrinking ??????? John |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
[Type your reply here]
"Michael A. Covington" wrote: Today's papers report that Kodak is about to reduce its work force worldwide by 20%. People just aren't buying film the way they used to... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ IMHO, Kodak shot themselves in the foot when then quit making THE 2 best films in the world. THE best neg film PHR25 and THE best slide film PKM ..... after these two films were gone from Kodaks line up I switched completely to Fuji.... I really REALLY miss my EkTAR 25/PHR 135-36 ..... Everytime I used that film people thought the images were from a medium format camera. S.Moore SHARR/NEZZ photography |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak to reduce work force by 20%
"John Horner" wrote in message
... Lucasfilm, for example, now shoots digital and only makes prints for distribution. The film industry is hard at work towards transitioning to digital distribution and digital projection. The time and money they eventually expect to save by distribution electrons to theaters instead of big cans of films is huge. This may be true in the US market, but for the next twenty years at least film will continue to be the dominant movie distribution medium in the rest world. I guess that most of the film projectors being replaced in North America are likely to be refurbished and shipped off to India, China, etc. Alongside the big cost of rolling out expensive new technology worldwide, another reason why film is here to stay is the problem of piracy. Anything digital can be duplicated endlessly. Can you imagine Hollywood Studio bosses sending their latest releases to India, China and Eastern Europe on a disk? Copyright violation is big problem for all media companies, one of the strengths of film for the motion picture business is that it is prohibitively expensive to duplicate. Kodak can not ensure it's long term survival and prosperity by riding silver based film into the grave in any market. The pro market is going digital even faster than the amateur market. News is already 99% there. Product and fashion are probably near the 50% switch over point. I don't see what evidence there is for a "tipping point" as you propose here. There is no question that the three years have seen the very rapid advance of digital technology in the lower end of the pro photography market where quality is not so important. But the technology still has some way to go though before it displaces film from the high quality end of the market. Customer expectations drive the pro photographer's choice of gear and materials. Many of the people I work with in publishing see "digital photography" as a byword for poor and uneven quality. Perhaps we have struggled too many times to get decent results from something an author, advertiser or photographer has supplied on disk. Medium format transparancies remain the default requirement for full page bleeds in high quality magazines. From the point of view of an advertiser paying $5K to $20K for a full page magazine spot, film and processing is an almost insignificant component of the total spend compared to F&P for catalogue publishers or school portrait photographers. So far the take-up of digital has been driven by time and cost benefits, and not because it represents a leap forward in image quality. Even if digital technology advances to draw level with film (which I can't see happening for a long time), customer expectations will take time to adjust. I know cases of couples insisting on film for their wedding photographs because they have seen their friends' albums shot on digital and didn't like the results compared to their other friends' shot on film. I personally have never seen a digital photograph that produces skin tones as pleasing as Kodak Porta. Indeed I'd go as far to say that I've never seen a digital photograph that equals the skin tones of even the bottom range of consumer colour film. IMHO the company would be better off managing decline rather than throwing all of their resources into a desperate gamble developing digital technologies, as Polaroid did. Name one long term successful enterprise which has thrived by shrinking ??????? This is logically impossible: thriving and shrinking are antonyms. "Managing decline" is not about "thriving" it is about engineering a "soft landing" for shareholders and staff by recognising that the company is moving from a mass market to a niche market model. But here is an example anyway; in the 1950s Ilford was the equal of Kodak in the U.K. film market, but it never made the leap into manufacturing colour emulsions when colour began to proliferate. Over the years the company has continued to focus on making high quality monochromatic materials. Despite the enormous decline in black and white film sales over the last forty years, Ilford is still here, still bringing innovative new materials to market and still making profits. Kodak could learn something from this. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak CX6200 vs. Old NiMH batteries | Roger Stone | Digital Photography | 6 | June 28th 04 03:39 PM |
Add Kodak Brown to KRST? | Mike | In The Darkroom | 12 | May 5th 04 09:33 AM |
I'm guessing that Kodak will kill Kodachrome within the next 24 months | John Horner | Film & Labs | 17 | December 22nd 03 02:59 PM |
Kodak shifts focus (WSJ article) | David Foy | Film & Labs | 2 | October 1st 03 11:26 PM |