Kodak film - here today, somewhere else tomorrow?

[Taqi]

Not sure whether this would be good news or bad...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 343516.ece

Could be a good business though if these figures are to be believed:

"Sam Doctor, a JPMorgan analyst who covers Kodak, estimates that the company’s traditional film business will make sales of about $3.4 billion in 2007, declining to about $2.7 billion in 2008."

I would guess though that the least profitable bits will be sacrificed first, and I suspect Super 8 doesn't make that much money, if it is relatively low volume. Shame Bollywood doesn't use much Super 8 (any Bollywood scriptwriters out there? if so start writing nostalgic, flashback interludes, the sort of family memory captured on home movies...)

[reflex]

This is where things get interesting. The analysts are able to report that Kodak's traditional film sales are in decline, but Kodak does not split out and report the profitability of its film products.

My guess is that film remains highly profitable: Kodak is still the top brand for film, and they are able to command a premium price. You don't sell a high-margin product line (even one in decline) unless you have something to replace it because you'll quickly run the company out of cash. The sale would adversely impact the company's bottom line and stock price, because even "analysts" are astute enough to note that Kodak doesn't have much other market-leading high margin technology.

The only reason for Kodak to sell their film assets would be to raise much-needed cash for R&D in the digital realm. Of course, the question remains: who would pay top dollar for a declining business?

As for Super 8, it is simply a miniscule byproduct of Kodak's 35mm film business. it vanishes as soon as:

(a) it fails to turn a reasonable profit, or
(b) Kodak discontinues production of the emulsions that are cut down to manufacture Super 8.

[Taqi]

Yep, I would love to see a breakdown of cost/margin by emulsion or format, but I guess you need to be a serious player to get that sort of info. Anyone up for a consortium Hell we could pretend we were a hedge fund.

[Angus]

Super 8 will vanish whek Kodak no longer wishes to manufacture the cartridges.

[filmamigo]

Not splitting out stills vs motion picture makes for a very distorted view.

Kodak apparently sold more MP film last year than ever before.

Kodak have also stated that most of their Super 8 market is low-budget filmmakers (as opposed to home-movie makers)-- so I am sure they see Super 8 as a "gateway drug".

I know some folks have worried about the current leadership at Kodak, vis-a-vis film and digital. But to date they have been quite supportive. After all, how much 4x5 sheet film can they be selling? That's not a volume market. Even 120 film must be pretty low volume. But they have the emulsions, why not sell to these niches?

[wado1942]

Kodak is deliberately hiding everything about film from the public eye so that they don't appear "archaic" to the general consumer. Kodak admits their biggest profits come from film though but they're really pushing to promote only digital products. This will be their end eventually because while they're ahead of the game in film, they're behind in digital technology which is way behind film anyway as far as quality is concerned. At any rate, if Kodak stops making super-8 film, it's no big deal because there's always aftermarket slitters.

[reflex]

Kodak is deliberately hiding everything about film from the public eye so that they don't appear "archaic" to the general consumer.

Actually, they withhold these details in their financial statements as well. Their annual and quarterly reports fail to properly split out the numbers for investors. As a result, "analysts" are forced to guess about the true state of operations.

Kodak isn't alone in this, of course. Most of the financial reports issued by large corporations to meet SEC regulations are similarly vague. It's done in an effort to mask the internal operations of companies from competitors. Of course, this also prevents investors from knowing what's going on.

At any rate, if Kodak stops making super-8 film, it's no big deal because there's always aftermarket slitters.

But only Kodak makes the cartridge. Everyone buys it from them and it would be extremely expensive to duplicate the design and manufacture a cost-effective number of them.

[Actor]

If I'm reading the story correctly Kodak wants to sell off its film business to fund its digital business. IMHO this is a mistake. Kodak is the preiminent film manufacturer in the world. I don't think Kodak can compete in the digital world against the likes of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. Digitally they will be just another wannabee, probably ranked somewhere behind Samsung.

Film is a product that is consumed and/or used up, like groceries, medicines and toilet paper. Cameras are durable items that last for years. My $400 Pentax 35mm SLR is 13 years old and still works as good as the day I got it. Now obviously there is money to be made in the production of durable goods as evidenced by the existance of companies that make washing machines and microwave ovens but Kodak's expertise is in a consumable product: film.

(BTW, automobiles are not durable goods. True, it takes about a decade to really use one up but a car is more akin to a roll of toilet paper than a camera. I just had to throw that in. :twisted: )

Film is in decline but the demand for it will last for decades. There are simply too many SLRs out there (and SLRs are still being manufactured). Also, the niche market for large format sheet film, medium format roll film and movie film will continue.

Kodak and Fuji and Ilford and Foma, etc. can still make money even if the market is declining. Unfortunately, there is a widespread mind-set that money can only be made in "growth" industries.

[wado1942]

It's really a sad state of affairs. The thing is Kodak KNOWs digital aquisition, intermediary and especially projection are very lacking. But they're worried about their public image. So what? People call me archaic for recording audio on tape but I get a fair amount of business because everybody else has sold off their decks and are using computers. My medium is much more stable, easier to use and sounds better. So I'm making money because I'm in a niche market. Nothing wrong with that. At any rate, film, when properly handled can last hundreds of years. Digital anything on the otherhad is obsoleted so fast that even if they ever invent a stable digital medium, nobody will be able to use it in 10 years. Because of this fact, Technicolor's 3 strip process has been reintegrated for archival purposes as they don't fade or warp nearly as fast as color negative film. And digital ink prints are horrid too so photopaper can be a great asset even in the digital world. I was in a movie shot a couple of years ago on 16mm and I have some original still rints on black & white paper. They look fantastic (the prints, not me) but the digital prints made from the same movie are already falling apart.

[Taqi]

...a car is more akin to a roll of toilet paper than a camera....

Man you must be driving the wrong sort of car; a fine automobile should be used to lay down the skid marks, not to clean them up.

[T-Scan]

I've been predicting something like this lately. Film is still here, and there will always be people that want to use it over digital, in still or MP. There is also plenty of room for film to still make more technological advances. Unfortunatley in the corporate world, everything is based on growth... and the film market is receding. I think it is essential for the film division to break off from the corporate monster and just be itself in a smaller company that will always serve a market that will always be there, and grow from that. The irony is that any smaller company that serves an everlasting nitch film market will most likely far outlast whatever digital monster Kodak is striving to be.

[Angus]

I think it is essential for the film division to break off from the corporate monster and just be itself in a smaller company that will always serve a market that will always be there, and grow from that. .

Tell that to the people who once worked for Agfa........

[wado1942]

Why? What happend to Agfa?

[T-Scan]

I think it is essential for the film division to break off from the corporate monster and just be itself in a smaller company that will always serve a market that will always be there, and grow from that. .

Tell that to the people who once worked for Agfa........

They were still competing against kodak and fuji... eventually the film market will be condensed enough to support at least one company much smaller than what is now, but can be a succesful company non the less.

[Angus]

Why? What happend to Agfa?

The camera film part of the company was "spun off" and died within two years.

Try finding Agfa products these days...any left on the shelf are old stock.

....same for Tura...and Konica just ceased producing film...