View Full Version : Kodak Q4 Earnings
bmasonoh
01-26-2011, 05:58
Anyone else see their earnings announcement?
I was under the impression that film sales had begun to stabilize. However, after looking at the release I'm beginning to wonder if they're still on the decline.
Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group sales dropped 25% to $439 million, and the unit swung to a loss of $3 million. The results were primarily driven by industry-related declines in volumes and higher raw-material costs, partially offset by cost reductions across the segment, Kodak said.
oftheherd
01-26-2011, 06:10
Interesting, but I would have liked to see film and photofinishing broken out.
charjohncarter
01-26-2011, 06:13
Yes, a break down would be nice. I don't think film sales have dropped 25% in 2010 Q4. But maybe they, if so I'm in trouble.
A $3M loss seems like it is a really small percentage of that division's sales.
Darkhorse
01-26-2011, 10:46
So what I'm reading is that Kodak's net income is down 95%, it lost a patent suit and thus its only cash cow is suddenly in jeopardy. Kodak makes digital cameras that no one wants, and its film sales are consistently stagnant. Yeesh. What a mess.
Pickett Wilson
01-26-2011, 10:51
Quarter after quarter, year after year, Kodak film sales drop like a rock. But every quarter, the "defenders of film's future" come out and proclaim that film is doing just fine and will be around forever. The king is dead, long live the king. :)
Make hay while the sun shines.
There is no point in stopping using film just because it might die sometime in the future. Shoot film as long as you can so you won't have any regrets when its not there.
Lets cross the bridge when we get there, until then there is plenty of cheap film around.
Tim Gray
01-26-2011, 11:20
I don't know if film sales have stabilized or not. But if they have doesn't mean profit can't drop at the same time. The price of silver has gone through the roof for one thing.
Fuji just released a new Film camera..
What ? What am I missing here ? I heard of X100 but no film cameras at all...
Jamie123
01-26-2011, 11:52
Didn't Fuji release a 120 folding camera several months ago?
Well, I guess it's almost a year ago now..
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/press/news/display_news?newsID=879818
p.
They recently released a wide, non-folding version of that camera. Both are actually manufactured by Cosina. Only the label is Fuji.
Oh, well, you're right... I remember I had seen 1 1/2 yr ago but I didn't think at it at all... I found the X100 much more groundbreaking than the GF670...
I've never needed to add anyone on RFF to my ignore list before - like ever. Wasn't even sure how to do it on this forum. One of the posts earlier in the thread earned a five-star ban.
They're still advertising...
84289
The cost of Silver is up.. so the cost of making film has gone up. Kodak is not a well run company. It once was one of the Dow Jones Industrials and was on the decline long before loosing it's standing, and long before digital cameras were big on the consumer market. I wouldn't predict the future of film solely on how Kodak is doing. Ilford was in serious trouble several years ago. Once they were purchased by their German parent, they were back in the black in a matter of months. Adox is buying the old Agfa coating gear and rehiring the former employees who ran the paper operation. These other companies wouldn't be spending their money if they didn't see a profit in their future. Fuji just released a new Film camera.. Deardorff is still making camera parts and I understand, plans to begin selling cameras again.. so, Kodak may go away or get smaller.. I can mix D76 from scratch or buy some Ilford chemistry.
Wiki:
Eastman Kodak Company is removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average) index on April 8, 2004; having been listed for the past 74 years.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak#cite_note-dow_jones_indexes-24)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/26/news/companies/kodak/
And are just about to release a camera that looks like a film camera but records it's images digitally ... there's a messaage in that action IMO and the message is not good for film users!
Roger Hicks
01-26-2011, 12:10
Quarter after quarter, year after year, Kodak film sales drop like a rock. But every quarter, the "defenders of film's future" come out and proclaim that film is doing just fine and will be around forever. The king is dead, long live the king. :)
And quarter after quarter, year after year, there are those who proclaim the death of film, often with malevolent glee and absurd hyperbole ('like a rock'). But with zero accuracy so far.
Cheers,
R.
I am probably wrong, but if sales in dollars have gone down 25% it is due to (a) less film is sold, (b) film is sold cheaper, (c) the us dollars is stronger than last period.
Price of silver, high cost of other raw materials, cost of workers etc does not affect the decline in sales. It will affect the earnings but not the sales in dollars.
The message I get is that there is a profit to be made in both markets. If there were no profit.. making the cameras and any film would be foolish.. and Fuji would have unhappy stock holders. I think they are in good shape as a company. I don't think Fuji would task their engineering staff and marketing people to produce products that are going to lead to their demise.. do you? It's not complicated .. it money. I use both digital and film camera equipment and find both useful. The film vs digital argument is getting a bit old. If film goes away.. it goes away.. If earth suffers another Carrington Event.. the digital users won't be taking pictures..
But if what we read about Fuji, (ie) film being a couple of percent of their total turnover is true, then axing that small part of their output is hardly going to send them to the wall.
Didn't they make a big push into pharmaceuticals a while ago ... that industry is enormous with some very big players.
If Kodak has $439M in revenue, what would fuji and ilford add to total industry sales?
It's still a $billion industry.
.
Frontman
01-26-2011, 15:15
To have lost "only" $3 million in the 2010 economy is not such a bad thing, many manufacturers of other products fared far worse. Kodak's main problem (and that of other manufacturers) is the weak dollar, which has increased the cost of commodities and materials, particuarly those which are imported from outside the US.
Well if what you say is correct.. maybe they should have done this long ago.. have you considered running their business? Maybe you should write to them and point out the err in their ways.. Buy some stock and attend the next Board Meeting and speak to their poor management of funds.
I don't understand your sarcasm here? ... I'm just saying that Fujifilm is a big company who will diversify as they see fit to keep the bottom line where they want it. They've already removed several films from their lineup and may continue this trend as their push into digital with the X100 gathers momentum.
Who really knows?
J J Kapsberger
01-26-2011, 21:18
Quarter after quarter, year after year, Kodak film sales drop like a rock. But every quarter, the "defenders of film's future" come out and proclaim that film is doing just fine and will be around forever. The king is dead, long live the king. :)
There's hardly enough information in the article to know what's going on really with Kodak's film sales. The three million dollar loss: does that include non-cash charges? If so Kodak might still have positive cash flows from film, etc. Cash flows is what it all boils down to.
And with a bit of proper rationalizing, Kodak's film division might prove viable in the long term. (But who can tell what the gang running Kodak might or might not do.)
Furthermore, just because Kodak does a balls-up job of marketing film doesn't mean the film industry is doomed.
Kodak is a turnaround story. See:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/95c9c8aa-0c6d-11df-a941-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1CDXA133W
My personal view is that there's one too many major players in the analog film industry right now. I also think that Fujifilm will chicken out sooner or later. There's writing on the wall if you care to read it.
That move will give Kodak enough breathing space I think. They might sell out the film division one day but that would not mean a catastrophe for us users.
There's still Ilford, Foma, Efke, Adox etc. for us b&w shooters. I'm not worried at all.
surfer dude
01-26-2011, 23:33
And are just about to release a camera that looks like a film camera but records it's images digitally ... there's a messaage in that action IMO and the message is not good for film users!
Keith would you mind explaining your rationale here? It doesn't make any sense to me. If someone releases a digital camera that looks like a film camera, how is that a not good message for film users?
They have also left the pro digital SLR market with no further design work on the next Sx Pro Variant. So I think you must really know much more about all this than I do.. got any Stock Tips?
Maybe they think the market's not in unwieldy DSLR's but high quality high tech compacts like the X100 so why develop a new model in the Pro range?
You seem to have a sarcastic come back for any theory I put forward so how will you go with this one? :D
Keith would you mind explaining your rationale here? It doesn't make any sense to me. If someone releases a digital camera that looks like a film camera, how is that a not good message for film users?
Make a die hard film shooter feel a little more comfortable about actually moving to the dark side by giving him/her a camera they can realate to physically? Then you take their film away when you think they won't notice ... while they're playing with the new toy you've just given them!
Ok ... so I pulled that theory out of my hat ... but it sounded good at the time! :p
surfer dude
01-26-2011, 23:52
... as do most good theories!
The X100 is interesting because, until now, it is just a pretty face and a bunch of specs. Theories of it taking the photography world by storm may be a little premature...
Besides which, Leica also makes a digi camera or two that look a little like film cameras, but they still make film cameras (OK, I know - please don't quote sales numbers back at me!)
... as do most good theories!
The X100 is interesting because, until now, it is just a pretty face and a bunch of specs. Theories of it taking the photography world by storm may be a little premature...
Besides which, Leica also makes a digi camera or two that look a little like film cameras, but they still make film cameras (OK, I know - please don't quote sales numbers back at me!)
We're really getting off track here but what the hell! LOL
I think Leica believe that film is on the way out ... of course they're still offering us a film camera but they're also trying very hard to convince us that the future is digital IMO.
My hat is full of such theories I warn you! :D
surfer dude
01-27-2011, 00:02
... and, going by your avatar picture, it's a big hat!
Sorry, now what were we discussing....?
... and, going by your avatar picture, it's a big hat!
Sorry, now what were we discussing....?
That's right .. Kodak!
How could we forget the people who took our kodachrome away!
:angel:
They have also left the pro digital SLR market with no further design work on the next Sx Pro Variant. So I think you must really know much more about all this than I do.. got any Stock Tips?
Hasselblads are now mostly Fuji designed and manufactured (Fujiblad?) and are sold as Fuji in asia.
.
Whoah just about to add my second ignore - just on the basis of this thread alone! Amazing what a lot of totally ignorant bullsh*t digital fanatics can 'pull out of their hat'.
Film is still a billion-dollar business, as someone else pointed-out earlier. If you google 'Kodak and bankruptcy' or 'death of film' you'll get thousands of hits dating back ten or more years.
So - sorry guys - I know many of you are LONGING for film to die. I realize it's annoying that people are out there taking better pictures with their forty-year-old equipment than you can manage with your brand-new $10k digital kit. But you're just gonna have to wait a bit longer.
And btw - what's REALLY dying is the semi-pro DSLR market. Soon all those sweet cameras you've been buying every year or so are gonna be history. Hope you enjoy using your phonecam in 3 or 4 year's time - it's gonna be the only new digicamera you can buy. :D
Roger Hicks
01-27-2011, 04:05
Whoah just about to add my second ignore - just on the basis of this thread alone! Amazing what a lot of totally ignorant bullsh*t digital fanatics can 'pull out of their hat'.
Film is still a billion-dollar business, as someone else pointed-out earlier. If you google 'Kodak and bankruptcy' or 'death of film' you'll get thousands of hits dating back ten or more years.
So - sorry guys - I know many of you are LONGING for film to die. I realize it's annoying that people are out there taking better pictures with their forty-year-old equipment than you can manage with your brand-new $10k digital kit. But you're just gonna have to wait a bit longer.
And btw - what's REALLY dying is the semi-pro DSLR market. Soon all those sweet cameras you've been buying every year or so are gonna be history. Hope you enjoy using your phonecam in 3 or 4 year's time - it's gonna be the only new digicamera you can buy. :D
Why? I'm not arguing: it's just not an argument I'd heard before, and it intrigues me.
Cheers,
R.
I miss Bill Mattocks.
Rob
Luddite Frank
01-27-2011, 04:56
Film still seems to be alive in the motion-picture industry...
We just went to see "True Grit" the other week, at a local 20-screen modern cineplex that prides itself on its digital screening rooms ( one of which regularly screens the Metropolitan Opera's digital simul-casts ), but the print of "True Grit" that we enjoyed, was on good-old 35mm film.
Perhaps not completely releveant to this thread, but if major film studios are still using the stuff...
So - sorry guys - I know many of you are LONGING for film to die. I realize it's annoying that people are out there taking better pictures with their forty-year-old equipment than you can manage with your brand-new $10k digital kit. But you're just gonna have to wait a bit longer.
I don't think that is case, the resentment towards film comes from the fact that film is hard work, something that people don't like. Its human nature to want everything the easy way.
Not to say that there are no lazy film photographers, I mean shooting a 24 roll in a month is no hard work either.
chris00nj
01-27-2011, 05:52
Back to the OP,
The CEO on the earnings call blames the cost of silver for the unprofitability of the film segment. A question was asked "My first one is on the Film business. Can you talk a bit about how we should think about that business trending from a margin standpoint?"But the CEO didn't really answer that part of the question and just said "We managed this business for cash."
Kodak is certainly going to die unless something changes. This is divorced from any idiotic film vs. digital debates. They simply fail to compete, like GM over the last thirty years, and like that company they will die. Anyone ten years ago predicting it would happen in a year or five years was not thinking straight. It was simply too big a company for that. Again like GM, it's a long death spiral.
But it beggars belief to blithely have faith that a company can sustain operational losses quarter after quarter forever.
antiquark
01-27-2011, 06:23
So - sorry guys - I know many of you are LONGING for film to die.
You'd think the death of Kodachrome would have satisfied their bloodlust a little tiny bit. But no, they want MOOOORRREEE!!!! :p
I miss Bill Mattocks.
Rob
I'd agree with this statement... :D
But seriously, Bill is quite the scholar in this area and I always appreciated his persective.
Hey Anti; There is surely a pathology here that I only guessed at in the past. But, it's clearly visible. Why would anyone waste their time scrutinizing how another takes pictures, with other than digital capture. Beyond the profit incentive, if you're in the digital or film biz. Why anti-film folks (sorry for the "anti" bit) care about this stuff is beyond me. If I were to lean on my old Psych. 1A class of years gone by, I would guess that it's a comfort level that is missing. It's like being a non drinker in a bar. Any topic relating to film brings them out.. I use digital gear at work and film gear for my personal snaps.. when people see me with a film camera they want to know why I'm using a film camera. I reply - I like it. That's usually not enough. I think some of them think they are doing something wrong.. I don't get it.. who cares?
Like most of these dumb technology arguments, both sides stoke it and then play like they're getting attacked. On this particular forum, the target audience being what it is, there is at least a 20-1 ratio of "digital sucks! it's worthless and it's for lazy idiots blah snort snorgle!" to "film is for old people! get with the times burp blorp sneeze!"
The usual sequence on RFF is someone points out an incontrovertible fact about, say, how Kodak is being run into the ground and film options are dwindling, and then a bunch of silly, silly people take it personally and start bloviating about the foolishness of digital. This thread is a prime example.
On other forums it's the reverse.
Pickett Wilson
01-27-2011, 07:21
I don't resent film. I've shot film for 50 years. I shoot digital professionally, and mostly medium format and 4x5 for fun. Still, it's pretty hard to deny that film is dying. Sure, they still make buggy whips, but do you own one?
Mr. Wilson, it appears that you are really "invested" in this argument. Please enlighten me. I don't understand the passion (if that's the correct term) behind the point of view. Do you really care if people use film cameras. I too use digital capture at work, there's a Phase on a 4 x5 Sinar in the studio and I generally use both FX and DX formats. I don't have any trouble with old or new technology. I scan my film and print digitally, but may again print my b+w wet. I just don't get it. Do you feel that people with film cameras are a threat to some sort of digital movement? Please fill me in. p.
Sigh. Just, sigh.
Sure, they still make buggy whips, but do you own one?
Does a riding crop count?
Does a riding crop count?
Only if it ever leaves the bedroom. Okay, the house.
hipsterdufus
01-27-2011, 07:44
Only if it ever leaves the bedroom. Okay, the house.
RFF just got sexy! :eek:
I think you've seen much more of this than I have. I'm really hoping for an honest answer - though I think your earlier statement may have explained the "system" of the argument. I'm not one to beat a dead horse.. Just thought I would troll for a honest response. I get these questions from people I work with all the time.
Okay, but you didn't get that question ("ew, why do you still use film?") or anything similar from any of the people you were berating. Unless I overlooked it. So why bring it up?
Chriscrawfordphoto
01-27-2011, 10:42
I don't resent film. I've shot film for 50 years. I shoot digital professionally, and mostly medium format and 4x5 for fun. Still, it's pretty hard to deny that film is dying. Sure, they still make buggy whips, but do you own one?
I would if I owned horses. Here in Indiana, there is a huge Amish community and they ride horse-drawn carriages, or they ride horses to get places. Also there are three companies operating horse-carriage tours of downtown Fort Wayne. Out in New Mexico there were no Amish, but a lot of people owned horses and rode them in barrel races and other equine sports. They used the riding crops mentioned by someone earlier. One of my clients out there sells tack, including buggy whips and riding crops too and they sell pretty well.
Lots of obscure things are still made that have smaller markets than the hobbyist and artist film market. Kodak and Fuji probably will leave film making in the next few years, but there are smaller companies that can produce film in small quantities profitably, just as there are small companies making obscure art supplies like egg-tempera paint (the stuff used in fresco painting. Who on earth does THAT? Someone must, because there are a couple of companies making the paint.
robbeiflex
01-27-2011, 11:32
Kodak's problems are larger than declining film sales: "For the quarter, Consumer Digital Imaging Group's revenue were $731 million, a decrease of 40%."
This is not about film vs. digital, death of film, etc. It's about a company that is in decline, and unfortunately it's the one that provides TMax, Tri-X, and M9 sensors. If you read the whole transcript you'll see that Kodak has serious issues to deal with across their whole business, but they tell us: "Our cash balance provides us with the ability to continue to make the investments necessary to complete our transformation."
Can we believe them? I'll keep my judgement to my self thanks. I do financial analysis often enough at work and don't feel like doing more in my spare time. However, if you want to read the whole transcript and make your own judgement instead of arguing over quotes taken out of context, then you'll find it here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/248838-eastman-koda-ceo-discusses-q4-2010-earnings-call-transcript?source=thestreet
Cheers,
Rob
PS: Above quotes are from the linked page.
Lots of obscure things are still made that have smaller markets than the hobbyist and artist film market. Kodak and Fuji probably will leave film making in the next few years, but there are smaller companies that can produce film in small quantities profitably, just as there are small companies making obscure art supplies like egg-tempera paint (the stuff used in fresco painting. Who on earth does THAT? Someone must, because there are a couple of companies making the paint.
I am in total agreement on this point. Furthermore, even if Kodak were to get out of the film business entirely, I would be very surprised if the well known brands like Tmax etc were not simply sold to another manufacturer. The Tmax and TriX names will be around for a long time to come.
antiquark
01-27-2011, 12:36
This classic comic explains everything about this thread...
http://xkcd.com/386/
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
antiquark
01-27-2011, 12:40
The Tmax and TriX names will be around for a long time to come.
I can see it now... "Introducing the new Casio Tri-X, the easy to use point-and-shoot! Its amazing art filters will give your digital snapshots that old-fashioned black-and-white look!" :)
Poor Kodak. Film is the only product (consumer or pro) that Kodak offers that has any real value. It's the only product that has a user base that actually falls over itself to acquire it. It's the only product that Kodak makes that when they discontinue a product, users actually go into mourning. There is so much value in the phrase 'Kodak film', and for years they treated it like it was a pox on the company.
I shoot both film and digital, and I will never understand how anyone who has ever shot a roll of Tri-X and souped it in D-76 or some other solvent developer could ever walk away from that kind of magic--and then to pray and long for its demise (?!). That's proof that pure evil does exist in this world. :cool:
edit: I offer this as proof of magic (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=54738).
/
Roger Hicks
01-27-2011, 13:26
I am in total agreement on this point. Furthermore, even if Kodak were to get out of the film business entirely, I would be very surprised if the well known brands like Tmax etc were not simply sold to another manufacturer. The Tmax and TriX names will be around for a long time to come.
I would. In fact I'd be astonished. Talk to any emulsion/coating specialist and they'll tell you that it's virtually impossible to replicate an emulsion, even inside the company, if you change coating lines. Normally, they take this opportunity to incorporate improvements (such as on-line hardening so that Tri-X didn't reticulate any more). Of course, sometimes they incorporate only 'improvements' (note quotation marks).
Besides, who would buy the 'Tri-X' name? Ilford, when they already have a competing product? Foma, whose films have their own 'look'? Conceivably Gevaert, but I doubt it. And I don't think anyone who is capable of making itwould want the name T-Max.
Cheers,
R.
I must say I'm confused by this.. a little any way: So: Fuji makes-owns Hasselblaud.. ? that owns or is owned by Imacon? , that uses Kodak sensors in it's equipment.. I know that Nikon is a Mitsubishi company.. and that Fuji and Nikon are on very friendly terms..So what is Nikon's involvement in the making of Hasselblauds? Nikon now has it's own FAB.. What is Sony's involvement in all this? The Friday Clubs must be interesting .. are there a lot of Swedes attending? What do they drink? Roger.. do you know about any of this corporate-Friday Club stuff, Re the above?
They have also left the pro digital SLR market ...
...then they have not?
.
berlincontemporary
01-27-2011, 14:32
Anyone else see their earnings announcement?
I was under the impression that film sales had begun to stabilize. However, after looking at the release I'm beginning to wonder if they're still on the decline.
Ironically, film still is the profitable part of KODAK.
Lots of obscure things are still made that have smaller markets than the hobbyist and artist film market.
Isn't that the place of "art & craft", when commercial photographers and the snaps shooters are stripped away?
How often are people impressed when you say that a picture is from film, without any photoshopping?
The highest value product of any art or craft is hand-made and not machine-made. (If you doubt, just add, "and he did that on film!" to a description of any great picture.)
.
It certainly looks that way.
I'm suggesting that Fujiblad would not want to compete with themselves. It's a much narrower market - down to 2 1/2 players now and you wouldn't want to cannibalize.
berlincontemporary
01-28-2011, 10:50
I was told a couple of years ago that it was their most profitable division. I don't know if any of that is current or was true.
As far as I know Kodak still makes a profit with film and they made profit with licensing their name. They were less succesful with anything digital.
Film still seems to be alive in the motion-picture industry...
We just went to see "True Grit" the other week, at a local 20-screen modern cineplex that prides itself on its digital screening rooms ( one of which regularly screens the Metropolitan Opera's digital simul-casts ), but the print of "True Grit" that we enjoyed, was on good-old 35mm film.
Perhaps not completely releveant to this thread, but if major film studios are still using the stuff...
I read somewhere ( APUG I think ) that if the movie industry shot film at 40 or 48 frames a second instead of the 24 fps, the quality is just stunning - but more expensive.
As far as I know photographic film is just a "tidbit" of film produced for movie industry, every roll is a fraction second of a 2 h and more pizza roll. I think until Kodak will be producing film for movie industry, we're relatively safe. When Hollywood will move totally to digital, well, that is another story.
btw I agree with bigeye when stating how more impressed are people when they realize you didn't pp a great film picture! I know several people here who have never seen a film camera!
I grew up in Rochester. The assets are going to be hard to unload. An exit doesn't seem likely. But this is ominous
"But further cuts, particularly in Kodak's traditional film business, seem assured as Perez said there would be "aggressive cost restructuring ... given the decline" in sales."
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110127/BUSINESS/101270338/1001/business
Long time Kodak employee Robert Shanebrook has some insight on it all, not entirely good:
http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Y63d
I am in the process of shedding about 14K in gear to put money in the bank and buy enough film, paper and chemistry to last at least 10-15 years.
sepiareverb
01-29-2011, 13:22
I think Kodak was too big to adapt to a smaller film market when they should have 5 years ago, and the move they made by consolidating the lines was not done in such a way to sustain the smaller runs necessary now. That they threw away so much of the complimentary product line (B&W chems and paper) can only be adding to their own demise.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.