earleygallery Posted November 4, 2011 Share #41 Posted November 4, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why would any company want to invest in declining returns that have no perceptible floor? Kodak's film earnings are not declining because of Kodak, but because the market for film is shrinking. Anyone else will likely have to stomach the same decline. Despite the 'fact' that digital is soooooo much cheaper/easier/quicker or whatever than film, there are plenty of us that still prefer film, stupid as that may be, and even more stupid newbies trying it for the first time! I won't mention the nutters who still use film for movies!! 'We' are a market which sensible companies can target and make a profit from, just like Kodak still can. The Market may well decline further, or we may see a few less choices as only the most popular films remain in production, but there is going to be a level of use which will provide enough demand to keep a number of companies in business. There IS a floor and were probably pretty close to it. Can you quote worldwide film sales for the last year? Guess?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here Discussion on Kodak on Radio 4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted November 4, 2011 Share #42 Posted November 4, 2011 It's not that long ago that Ilford were on the verge of going bust... Indeed, but they seem to have sorted themselves out now. I'm going to switch to 100% Ilford film when my freezer tray is emptied. If it's not too late. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafoofan Posted November 4, 2011 Share #43 Posted November 4, 2011 Because the current profits from the film division is more than what most startups make in five years. And most of those go out of business within the first year. Those profits would benefit a smaller company in a huge way. Start-up companies garner investments in capital on the promise of future growth, not current earnings or profits. Kodak's film business is not growing, but shrinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 4, 2011 Share #44 Posted November 4, 2011 Look at poor Polaroid. Went tits up. Then a new company formed and have made new instant film products and are so far managing to survive from the disposable income of another bunch of loonies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 4, 2011 Share #45 Posted November 4, 2011 Start-up companies garner investments in capital on the promise of future growth, not current earnings or profits. Kodak's film business is not growing, but shrinking. I think that's the problem. How do you value a company whose income is in constant decline? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 4, 2011 Share #46 Posted November 4, 2011 I think what may be most pertinent to this forum is that Kodak's "turn around" plan didn't mention film or sensor technology as assets to be further developed or sold. So who knows what the future of those products will be? I am not aware of any Kodak Inc. "turn around" declaration. Please point us to the document, for better or worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 4, 2011 Share #47 Posted November 4, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Because the current profits from the film division is more than what most startups make in five years. And most of those go out of business within the first year. Those profits would benefit a smaller company in a huge way. But you are not considering what it costs to buy the division from Kodak. If it is still making Kodak some money, why would they sell it off cheap? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 4, 2011 Share #48 Posted November 4, 2011 But you are not considering what it costs to buy the division from Kodak. If it is still making Kodak some money, why would they sell it off cheap? Confused.com !!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 4, 2011 Share #49 Posted November 4, 2011 Because the current profits from the film division is more than what most startups make in five years. And most of those go out of business within the first year. Those profits would benefit a smaller company in a huge way. Just so we can can put it aside as a Given, how about a citation of "what most startups make in five years". The real point is that Kodak is a public company and is considered in whole, as-is by the stockholders who live from quarter-to-quarter reports. Startups are saved from that specific judgment by the ownership structure or some kind of buyer evangelism so that the virtue of 'current' profits is replaced by 'promise'. You see, most of the popular/apparent (a PR metric) of start-ups don't have a history. Kodak could have spun-off film - unless it served as some kind of positive input to their 1/4 report. Now that does not mean that Kodak is making so much from film, but possibly loosing less from film than it has other divisions. Call in the bean-counters and make THEM accountable. I'm done with this silly thread. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 5, 2011 Share #50 Posted November 5, 2011 If not sell it off, have it run under the umbrella as separate corporation??? Umbrella? Regardlesss, read back in this thread. It's already been suggested a few times. Turn on your impressionistic stabilizer, too, and stop embarrassing the rest of us with your self-contradictions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 5, 2011 Share #51 Posted November 5, 2011 I am not aware of any Kodak Inc. "turn around" declaration. Please point us to the document, for better or worse. Here it is... one last desperate hope it seems. But I don't know if Wall Street is buying it. Sorry to be so blunt but what else can you take away from this. No mention of film or sensors for the future or plans for selling those assets. It remains to be seen if they can pull it off. One broker at the end of the second article gives them a chance. Kodak Hires Adviser For Turnaround Plan - Web Log - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/business/losses-grow-at-kodak.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 5, 2011 Share #52 Posted November 5, 2011 Start-up companies garner investments in capital on the promise of future growth, not current earnings or profits. Kodak's film business is not growing, but shrinking. How about a company that's already selling film such as Maco? Or any other film company for that matter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 5, 2011 Share #53 Posted November 5, 2011 Umbrella? Regardlesss, read back in this thread. It's already been suggested a few times. Turn on your impressionistic stabilizer, too, and stop embarrassing the rest of us with your self-contradictions. Yes, a corporate umbrella... A masterbrand that provides structure for and lends credibility to other brands belonging to the same corporation. The corporate umbrella drives consumers' purchase decisions and transfers brand value to new products and services. Read more: Corporate Umbrella Definition I was suggesting Kodak sell their film differently that's all. "Or" sell it off. Even if it's already been suggested. I'm sorry if I seemed contradict myself in some way. I did forgot to put the word "or" in my original post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.poulton Posted November 5, 2011 Share #54 Posted November 5, 2011 'We' are a market which sensible companies can target and make a profit from' date=' just like Kodak still can.[/quote'] Exactly my thoughts - we must be nearing the bottom now for film sales. I even see a future, albeit small, for colour film! Christian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 5, 2011 Share #55 Posted November 5, 2011 Exactly my thoughts - we must be nearing the bottom now for film sales. I even see a future, albeit small, for colour film! Christian I don't know why you think we are nearing a bottom or if there will eventually be some kind of plateau. The indication from Kodak is that film sales declined another 10% in the last quarter. But this 10% drop resulted in a 46% loss in revenue. Some of this was attributed to higher costs of raw materials. At some point the economy of scale will be gone and the overhead will remain. Eventually this market may be so small that film and processing will have to cost more for companies to justify maintaining production. But higher prices, increased hassles of getting film, dealing with film at airports etc, getting film processed, and future improvements in digital cameras, will turn even more film users toward digital. Additionally, I bet the demographics of film users is skewed pretty far toward older people who won't be replaced much as they age and stop shooting. And motion pictures will be using much less film in 5-10 years. It is not clear to me (and I don't know if this is clear to anyone) what size would be "appropriate" for the current Kodak film manufacturing division for the next 10 years or so and how profitable such a business could be. It isn't like selling software which can be scaled up and down as needed. There is a large dedicated chemical and manufacturing structure in place and it may not be cost effective for anyone to buy this and try to streamline it or run it differently somehow. Just as buying a large car company and associated factories for a limited production vehicle would not make sense. So a big problem may be that nobody has an idea of the bottom and what market will be left at that point. So planning for that market will be quite challenging for anyone considering buying Kodak's film and chemical assets. Some of the smaller current manufacturers seem to be able to survive in a very small niche. But we don't know if their sales are in decline too and if they can remain profitable below a certain point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 5, 2011 Share #56 Posted November 5, 2011 Yes, a corporate umbrella... [... snip helpful stuff - see post ..] I was suggesting Kodak sell their film differently that's all. "Or" sell it off. Even if it's already been suggested. I'm sorry if I seemed contradict myself in some way. I did forgot to put the word "or" in my original post. Ach, the bad is on me. It's not you. I was responding in general. It's my angst showing. Checked my portfolio and thank goodness, I can find no obvious Kodak related investments, however it is often hard to find links between companies, subtle inter-dependencies... Oh, umbrella - Like this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 5, 2011 Share #57 Posted November 5, 2011 Oh AlanG give it a rest will you! Why would anyone who wants to shoot digital still be sticking with film? Those of us who remain unconvinced are sticking with film and it would take a lot to change that for me. So, one could assume that we are at the bottom of the curve. Lomo people tend to be the young and trendy, they're shifting lots of cameras and film! I just popped to my local Jessops and bought some 120 B&W. They don't stock much of it, but they still sell it. This is a mini store selling mostly cheap digicams. I'm off in the morning to use the rolls of 120 in a couple of 1903 Kodak box brownies at the London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally. Thank god not all of us think like you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 5, 2011 Share #58 Posted November 5, 2011 Oh, umbrella - Like this? Eastman Gelatin. Not only that, it's "the POWER of Eastman Gelatine." Yes! That's very interesting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 5, 2011 Share #59 Posted November 5, 2011 I'd pay money to see someone use a gelatine umbrella Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafoofan Posted November 5, 2011 Share #60 Posted November 5, 2011 Why would anyone who wants to shoot digital still be sticking with film? Those of us who remain unconvinced are sticking with film and it would take a lot to change that for me. So, one could assume that we are at the bottom of the curve. For one thing, you are not accounting for the increasing cost of film. As the market shrinks and less film is made, prices will go up. More and more film users will shift to digital as the expense of purchasing and processing film increases. We each have our tipping point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.