Stupid Kodak...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/09/28/kodak-quits-printer-business/1600265/

Kodak getting out of printer business. But...

The struggling printing and imaging company on Friday said that it would shift its focus in 2013 on ink sales to printers it has sold, the most profitable part of that business, and stop selling printers, where competitive forces narrow margins considerably.

The company has long talked about profits in desktop inkjet printers being in so-called consumables, such as the ink, and Kodak says that getting out of the printer business "will significantly improve cash flow in the U.S. beginning in the first half of 2013."

So...they quote that they want to be in the ink and consumables business, but they're stopping production of the product that uses those consumables.

WTF????????????????

It's obvious Kodak management hasn't got a clue what to do with this business. Kodak is a dinosaur, and it's been a walking dead company for years. They should just liquidate it, give the investors back as much as possible, and get on with burying it.

Where's Larry the Liquidator when you need him?

EDIT: OMG, In watching the below clip, it's amazing how closely New England Wire & Cable = Kodak.





Post edited by Neechoo Cheeska at 9/29/2012 11:43:41 AM

Kodak has value in its brand name and thats about all, I could see them being purchased by a digital camera maker just for use of their name in some cheaper products.

I think Kodak still had value in its brand say 10 years ago, but not today. Failing to adjust to the digital age, being too closely associated with film, bankruptcy, and the general incompetence of the management, has reduced the value of its goodwill/brand asset to zero, in my opinion. I'm sure they still assign a positive value to it for accounting purposes, but in the "real world" I think it's zero.

There's no way if I purchased any Kodak assets would I keep the Kodak brand on them. "Kodak" is now too toxic as a brand. I think even if somebody were to purchase what's left of Kodak, they'd integrate everything into their own brand and not keep the Kodak brand.

I think within 5 years from now, Kodak as a brand won't be around.

Originally posted by: Neechoo Cheeska
I think Kodak still had value in its brand say 10 years ago, but not today. Failing to adjust to the digital age, being too closely associated with film, bankruptcy, and the general incompetence of the management, has reduced the value of its goodwill/brand asset to zero, in my opinion. I'm sure they still assign a positive value to it for accounting purposes, but in the "real world" I think it's zero.

There's no way if I purchased any Kodak assets would I keep the Kodak brand on them. "Kodak" is now too toxic as a brand. I think even if somebody were to purchase what's left of Kodak, they'd integrate everything into their own brand and not keep the Kodak brand.

I think within 5 years from now, Kodak as a brand won't be around.

I agree that their assets are not worth being branded as Kodak, I'm simply saying it wouldn't be too difficult for a camera producer thats known for quality to buy them up and slap their name on lower-end products of their own. That would give someone known for high end professional cameras some distance from branding on lower end, lower quality products branded with Kodak instead of (XYZ camera company).

If done right, I think there is still some value in the nostalgia factor that Kodak has with many older Americans.
Post edited by Coba|t at 9/29/2012 12:22:27 PM

Not surprised. Bought one their printers for my business and it started fuckin up. Called on the warranty and they shipped out a new one and I shipped the old one back.

Found out after that one took a shit that the replacement printer only had a 3 month warranty on it.

Wont ever buy another one again even if they stayed in the printer business.

Originally posted by: Coba|t

If done right, I think there is still some value in the nostalgia factor that Kodak has with many older Americans.

I agree nostalgia can be used to good advantage. If I were going the nostalgia route, I'd look for Polaroid, however. With all the current rage about Instagram, and making photos look "old" (which I don't get myself, but hey whatever floats peoples' boats...) I'd reintroduce Polaroid land cameras and instant film, if the costs to produce the instant film packs wasn't too high.

Kodak is a good case study of a large business that had a cash cow but was not able to see market changes and adapt.

however, it's not always the case that you have to make the product your other product is for. see oil companies. they don't make cars, just the shit that goes in them and makes them go zoom. they do fine. auto parts suppliers don't build cars, but they make their money selling steering wheels, mufflers, windshield wipers or whatever. food companies that sell branded food products don't own supermarkets but they sell the stuff that goes in them. other food companies don't make a branded and finished food brand/item, but they sell the ingredients that go in them. etc, etc.
Post edited by Pixel at 9/29/2012 3:42:53 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: Pixel
Kodak is a good case study of a large business that had a cash cow but was not able to see market changes and adapt.

however, it's not always the case that you have to make the product your other product is for. see oil companies. they don't make cars, just the shit that goes in them and makes them go zoom. they do fine. auto parts suppliers don't build cars, but they make their money selling steering wheels, mufflers, windshield wipers or whatever. food companies that sell branded food products don't own supermarkets but they sell the stuff that goes in them. other food companies don't make a branded and finished food brand/item, but they sell the ingredients that go in them. etc, etc.

Yes, but if they're going to be in the consumables market, but not produce products that use them, that means they have to make consumables for other companies' products. Such as ink or ink cartridges for HP, Canon, etc, printers.

Since they probably cannot manufacture replacement cartridges for other companies' products without violating patents or being sued, that leaves them with making ink refill kits.

I'd bet most people don't use ink refill kits, they just buy new cartridges from the same manufacturer who made their printer. So now their target market just got smaller. And even people who do buy refill kits have other companies to choose from, so it's not like they won't have other established competition.

I just don't see it as a viable business strategy. I don't think their management has a clue how to save that company, if it even can be saved (I don't think it can).

It's like xerox. Two Japanese companies cough cough make all their products now. Xerox just slaps their label on stuff
_______________________________________________________________
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making it easy for them in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it" Ben Franklin