Kodak
Justiceiro
Registered Users Posts: 1,177 Major grins
OK Wxwax, in order to avoid hijacking the other thread, I am going to put my ideas about Kodak down here. Kodak is my favorite photography related company. I love it, but I love it in the way that one might love one's child if they were slightly mentally handicapped, and had a tendency to veer off course by robbing liqour stores, knocking up the neighbors daughter, and passing out drunk in church. In short, I have a reservoir of good will, but that reservoir is capable of being drained to the point of exhaustion.
Kodak is a huge, sprawling company that dominated the traditional film market (at least in the United States) from the early 20th century until the present. The decline of film can, in a large sense, be tracked as parallel with the decline (morally and commercially) of Kodak as a company.
Not all of this is the fault of Kodak. Kodak started out in the 1880s as the Eastman Dry Plate company. Chemistry was the digital tech of the late 19th and early 20th century; seeming as miraculous and ever changing then as computers do now. And eastman was cutting edge. It started out principally in the Chemical industry, and remained, essentially, a chemical oriented company until the divestment of Tennessee Eastman in 1994.
When George Eastman got started, photography, limited to glass plate based film, was purely a business of professionals. Eastman's first reakthrough was the develoment of roll film in 1883. Once Eastman had saturated the not overly large market for film of this type, he began to look for was to expand the market. In 1888 he introduced the first box camera for a mass audience, with the phrase "you push the button, we do the rest." The development of this camera was done purely to increase film sales. the development of two concepts made Eastman great- 1 was flexible cellulose (and later acetate) based film. The second was bringing it to the people.
Eastman's strengths were always, principally, in the chemical tech. And once it had achieved two breakthroughs in the more "photographic" side of the business, it sort of stopped moving ahead (similar to Leica). Eastman Kodak even resisted the intro of 35mm film, prefering to stick with the roll film, up until the 1950s. contrary to popular belief, it wasn't Leica that popularized 35mm film, it was Argus. The cheap Argus brought the convenience of cartridge film, again, to the masses. This threatened Eastman, who picked up their traditional business mode of operation; wait until someone else breaks into a new market, then follow them and use your vast chemistry expertise and size to crush them.
Eastman was a ruthless competitor. But it was a great company to work for. And, after time, actual photography became less important to the company than chemicals as an industry.
Tennessee Eastman, established in the 1920s to replace ethanol and acetate supplies cut off from the US by WWI, eventaully sold more than "Kodak" in rochester, since 1934 it had been more profitable than its parent.
Being a chemical company, it was science and mass production oriented. It built chemical towns, and before even the japanese, gave its workers an iron rice bowl. Whenever Kodak flubbed (like with 35m, APS, polaroid, etc.) the deep pockets of the chemical side would rescue the company and pull it back from the brink.
And the photographic products, though not cutting edge, were always quality.
But in the 80's all that began to change. Eastman Kodak began to market crap, like APS and the disc system, and it began to lose its way, even as photgraphy was set for the biggest change since Eastman had introduced roll film 10 years earlier.
Eastman, never really run by photographers, had at least been run by chemists. It began to be run by MBA's and thus began it's fall.
Kodak's history of bad business decisions stretches back well over a decade- although it may make good business sense at this point to abandon certain chemical processes now (like black and white paper), this is only because Kodak destroyed its basis for leadership in this field back in 1994 when it divested Tennessee Eastman (now known as the Eastman Chemical Company). Since Kodak is no longer basic in chemistry, what advantage does it have over other companies, such as Fuji in terms of film, or Ilford in terms of paper?
At one point Kodak actually did have an advantage in the new tech-digital.
Eastman invented the digital camera, more or less. It produced the world's first 1 megapixel CCD. It produced a 6 megapixel SLR, in 1995! Not as fast as the Nikon d70, or as portable, but it used nikkor mount and had the same rez 9 years earlier! Why isn't eastman grinding the face of Nikon and Canon into the dust, even today?
Because it became a victim of its own tactics. It failed to realize that digital photography, in the beginning, was like dry plate photography in the 1880s. Expensive and professional. It was thus scared away. It looked for quick cash. It failed to realize that high end research was the only way to sustain mass production. I'm not saying that people buy a coolpix only because the d200 is cool. But part of it is because of that, and part of it is because the tech that goes into a d200 eventually makes its way to a coolpix.
If your marketing plan doesn't sustain a high to low end pipeline, you will be displaced, even if you are a tech leader. This is what happened to Eastman. Incidentally, it's also why folks who love Nikon and claim that "marketing doesn't matter" ought to think twice, if they really love Nikon.
Eastman had begun to treat the photo market like it was the butyrate market. A sort of "McDonalds" approach. Sell a bunch of crap, as much as you can. make profits now. Bottom line is more important than quality. This is why, in 94, to get out from under the polaroid debt, they sold the chemical division. The most profitable division that they had. And them without the cash cow, they tried to enter the digital market.
A lot of this had to do with the rise of corporate rapists like, at Eastman, Earnie Davenport. Last year, for the first time in ts 120+ year history, Tennessee Eastman reported a decline in profits. The execs got the biggest bonus in corporate history.
It didn't use to be like that. I remember when working for Kodak was similar to, well, what I imagine working for Leica must have been like. Less of a business, more of a family. My dad was a chemist at Tennessee Eastman for over 30 years, and everyone in my hometown also worked for the company. I don't even think they sold Fuji film anywhere in my county. Eastman was a culture.
Developing a business environment like this may reinforce quality, but perhaps it leads to conservativism and a resistance to innovation. Perhaps there is a link between the decline of Kodak and this.
We all felt the divestment as a sort of "stab in the back." Nevertheless, I view the decline of Kodak with severe dismay. I still have a great deal of residual loyalty- they did indirectly pay for my education after all. I remember back in the late 70's and early 80's they seemed to be an invincible empire. And not only were they an empire, they made good products, and they stood by their customers. Sad.
Kodak is a huge, sprawling company that dominated the traditional film market (at least in the United States) from the early 20th century until the present. The decline of film can, in a large sense, be tracked as parallel with the decline (morally and commercially) of Kodak as a company.
Not all of this is the fault of Kodak. Kodak started out in the 1880s as the Eastman Dry Plate company. Chemistry was the digital tech of the late 19th and early 20th century; seeming as miraculous and ever changing then as computers do now. And eastman was cutting edge. It started out principally in the Chemical industry, and remained, essentially, a chemical oriented company until the divestment of Tennessee Eastman in 1994.
When George Eastman got started, photography, limited to glass plate based film, was purely a business of professionals. Eastman's first reakthrough was the develoment of roll film in 1883. Once Eastman had saturated the not overly large market for film of this type, he began to look for was to expand the market. In 1888 he introduced the first box camera for a mass audience, with the phrase "you push the button, we do the rest." The development of this camera was done purely to increase film sales. the development of two concepts made Eastman great- 1 was flexible cellulose (and later acetate) based film. The second was bringing it to the people.
Eastman's strengths were always, principally, in the chemical tech. And once it had achieved two breakthroughs in the more "photographic" side of the business, it sort of stopped moving ahead (similar to Leica). Eastman Kodak even resisted the intro of 35mm film, prefering to stick with the roll film, up until the 1950s. contrary to popular belief, it wasn't Leica that popularized 35mm film, it was Argus. The cheap Argus brought the convenience of cartridge film, again, to the masses. This threatened Eastman, who picked up their traditional business mode of operation; wait until someone else breaks into a new market, then follow them and use your vast chemistry expertise and size to crush them.
Eastman was a ruthless competitor. But it was a great company to work for. And, after time, actual photography became less important to the company than chemicals as an industry.
Tennessee Eastman, established in the 1920s to replace ethanol and acetate supplies cut off from the US by WWI, eventaully sold more than "Kodak" in rochester, since 1934 it had been more profitable than its parent.
Being a chemical company, it was science and mass production oriented. It built chemical towns, and before even the japanese, gave its workers an iron rice bowl. Whenever Kodak flubbed (like with 35m, APS, polaroid, etc.) the deep pockets of the chemical side would rescue the company and pull it back from the brink.
And the photographic products, though not cutting edge, were always quality.
But in the 80's all that began to change. Eastman Kodak began to market crap, like APS and the disc system, and it began to lose its way, even as photgraphy was set for the biggest change since Eastman had introduced roll film 10 years earlier.
Eastman, never really run by photographers, had at least been run by chemists. It began to be run by MBA's and thus began it's fall.
Kodak's history of bad business decisions stretches back well over a decade- although it may make good business sense at this point to abandon certain chemical processes now (like black and white paper), this is only because Kodak destroyed its basis for leadership in this field back in 1994 when it divested Tennessee Eastman (now known as the Eastman Chemical Company). Since Kodak is no longer basic in chemistry, what advantage does it have over other companies, such as Fuji in terms of film, or Ilford in terms of paper?
At one point Kodak actually did have an advantage in the new tech-digital.
Eastman invented the digital camera, more or less. It produced the world's first 1 megapixel CCD. It produced a 6 megapixel SLR, in 1995! Not as fast as the Nikon d70, or as portable, but it used nikkor mount and had the same rez 9 years earlier! Why isn't eastman grinding the face of Nikon and Canon into the dust, even today?
Because it became a victim of its own tactics. It failed to realize that digital photography, in the beginning, was like dry plate photography in the 1880s. Expensive and professional. It was thus scared away. It looked for quick cash. It failed to realize that high end research was the only way to sustain mass production. I'm not saying that people buy a coolpix only because the d200 is cool. But part of it is because of that, and part of it is because the tech that goes into a d200 eventually makes its way to a coolpix.
If your marketing plan doesn't sustain a high to low end pipeline, you will be displaced, even if you are a tech leader. This is what happened to Eastman. Incidentally, it's also why folks who love Nikon and claim that "marketing doesn't matter" ought to think twice, if they really love Nikon.
Eastman had begun to treat the photo market like it was the butyrate market. A sort of "McDonalds" approach. Sell a bunch of crap, as much as you can. make profits now. Bottom line is more important than quality. This is why, in 94, to get out from under the polaroid debt, they sold the chemical division. The most profitable division that they had. And them without the cash cow, they tried to enter the digital market.
A lot of this had to do with the rise of corporate rapists like, at Eastman, Earnie Davenport. Last year, for the first time in ts 120+ year history, Tennessee Eastman reported a decline in profits. The execs got the biggest bonus in corporate history.
It didn't use to be like that. I remember when working for Kodak was similar to, well, what I imagine working for Leica must have been like. Less of a business, more of a family. My dad was a chemist at Tennessee Eastman for over 30 years, and everyone in my hometown also worked for the company. I don't even think they sold Fuji film anywhere in my county. Eastman was a culture.
Developing a business environment like this may reinforce quality, but perhaps it leads to conservativism and a resistance to innovation. Perhaps there is a link between the decline of Kodak and this.
We all felt the divestment as a sort of "stab in the back." Nevertheless, I view the decline of Kodak with severe dismay. I still have a great deal of residual loyalty- they did indirectly pay for my education after all. I remember back in the late 70's and early 80's they seemed to be an invincible empire. And not only were they an empire, they made good products, and they stood by their customers. Sad.
Cave ab homine unius libri
0
Comments
I grew up in Rochester, NY, the home of EK. The George Eastman House is a jewel. Highly recommended for all.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Thanks for the history lesson, I had no idea. I can only relate in one way. The company that paid for my education, ITT, is a sliver of its former, multinational coporate self.
In today's world, giants become minnows in the blink of a decade. Just look at Sony's struggles. Canon's booming, Nikon was in danger of fighting for relevancy. Felled Goliaths lay all around us.
Thanks for the Kodak story, I find this sort of thing very interesting.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Thanks for a great post, and an tremendous effort.
Sam
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Sorry to get so maudlin about a company, particularly one that I haven't worked for since I was a teenager.
The world changes, and not only for the better. I think about the experiences that I had as a kid, that my kids will never have the opportunity to have; growing up in a "company town" for example. Do such things even exist anymore? Sure, it had sort of a "peyton place" social sameness and even a bit of oppresiveness to it. But nobody locked their doors at night, and everybody's parents had jobs- and always would. As long as they showed up to work, work was available. Good work too, the kind of work where a guy with an 8th grade education could make enough to send his kid to college.
Or being on a farm. It shocks me when I meet people in New York who have never actually been anywhere rural, or wild. Unfortunately, if my kids (when I have them) ever see "nature" it will only be as a tourist. I hated it as a kid (I once spent 6 weeks pulling fist sized rocks out of a field) but looking back it was a beneficial formative experience for me. Particularly now that my life is so urban.
It seems today that folks shuttle from one job to another, and one place to another. Always skating right in front of the latest huge industy shift and wave of layoffs. Everything disappears eventually, to be replaced by something else.
This is interesting to me as a photographer. The other day I was going through my hard drive, doing my annual cleanup (delete some, archive others) and I thought that perhaps it was a mistake to erase some "boring" shots. Sometime I wonder why I took a particular shot. It seems as if some of them are just folks doing normal, uninteresting stuff (some folks might say all my pictures are like that
But then I think back to some of my favorite "historical" photographs. Like some of the WPA shots from the 30s of farm labor. Pretty pedestrian stuff, for the time. But now that this way of life is almost completely gone, the photographs become fascinating. Photography and film can be a way of connecting us to our past that is even more powerful than text or documentation of other kinds. Photography, in a way, can prevent the past from being lost, or buried.
Last year when I was testing out a "new/old" lightmeter that I had purchased, I took my Pentacon out and took some shots of a local powerplant. I wasn't trying to do anything artistic, just looking for good exposures. This is a scan of one of the resutling pictures-
Nothing special here, just a square frame filled with a building. But a few months ago, they began "renovation" of the power plant to turn it into some sort of convention center (IIRC). It's covered with scaffolding and junk at the moment, and will eventually be beautified, probably erasing a great deal of its character.
Soon even I will forget what it looked like in its last incarnation as a power plant, albeit an abandoned one. But if I look at this photo, I can remember every detail.
So don't throw those boring photos of the past away. They may be far more interesting 20 years from now, or even next year.
What has this got to do with Kodak? I don't really know. Thinking about Kodak gets me to thinking about the decline of great American firms in general, and the decline of American life in the past few decades. I'm not a total pessimist, and I hope that something better even than the past will emerge from current turmoil. But even if the future is better, the past, though past, has characterstics that (though modified and modernized) can never truly be replaced. You can never step into the same river twice.
I've enjoyed reading your maudlin rant
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Hell, I'll give ya one, but it would be cool to sell one. It would be my first sale on smugmug
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I think it became common knowledge that Fuji's film tech advanced beyond Kodak's. It didn't matter, we still couldn't buy it:D
Change is change, and change is inevitable. The last time we had a long drought without change we labelled it the Dark Ages.
Interesting how Kodak was run by chemists for so long, and then run by MBA's that quite possibly started its decline. It goes to show that you can't run a business if you don't understand that business itself.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I think that's why Kodak never was a leader in actual Cameras (or at least not in living memory). As a science oriented company I think they understood photosensitive chemicals better than they did photographic equipment. Then again, they did lose their edge in film to Fuji.
I imagine that Kodak will bounce back, and even thrive. The name simply has too much clout and built up consumer loyalty to disappear. Also, I have used thier photo stations for test prints, and they are really not bad. Positioning them in Target's and CVS's is a smart move. But I imagine that their days as a premiere film house are numbered. First, because the days of film itself are numbered, secondly because the chemical division has no inherent tie to photography anymore. They are more into doing things like developing acceptable plastic bottling material for beer.