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.

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

"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

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

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

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

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

"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

[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

"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.