Arkady Renko Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 That's quite a long list of excuses you are making. Tell that to the people being laid off. I was reminded today of one of my favorite quotes by one of the founders of Xerox Palo Alto Research Center: "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" Kodak had the capability to do that, and they bombed. 387840[/snapback] Tell that to the people being laid off? I have been questioning the layoffs this entire time and you have been supporting them. People have been assuming the management must be right this time while blaming them for being wrong in the past. I question the layoffs because they have been cutting R&D jobs which is where they have the possibility to "invent" the future as you say. The fact of the matter is that Kodak has had success in digital photography (you keep on ignoring the fact that they have the largest market share in the United States) but no matter how good Kodak is, the fat profits of the film industry won't be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Tell that to the people being laid off? I have been questioning the layoffs this entire time and you have been supporting them. People have been assuming the management must be right this time while blaming them for being wrong in the past. 387946[/snapback] Kodak has 7,500 manufacturing employees at Kodak Park, almost all devoted to film production. If film sales are falling like a rock, what jobs are these folks expected to perform? It's sad to see long-time manufacturing employees laid off, but the expenses have to be justified by revenues and they're not. The problem with past management was its incrementalism--cutting 2,000 to 2,500 workers every few years when the number should have been 4,000+. Thay dragged their feet doing the unpleasent but necessary restructuring. Perez is taking the painful, but necessary steps, IMO. I question the layoffs because they have been cutting R&D jobs which is where they have the possibility to "invent" the future as you say. 387946[/snapback] R&D expenditures will remain at 6% of sales through 2007. If they've been cutting Rochester R&D jobs, it's likely they've added R&D headcount elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Thank you. Coudln't have said it better myself. Some people don't understand economics. If a company isn't making enough money selling film, it makes sense to cut film production. If cutting film production requires fewer employees, is Kodak obligated to employ it's current number of employees? It's so friggin simple it's laughable, yet some people think Kodak should still keep employment numbers where they are for the hell of it. I'm sorry, but you have to be really effen stupid to think that way. Kodak has 7,500 manufacturing employees at Kodak Park, almost all devoted to film production. If film sales are falling like a rock, what jobs are these folks expected to perform? It's sad to see long-time manufacturing employees laid off, but the expenses have to be justified by revenues and they're not. The problem with past management was its incrementalism--cutting 2,000 to 2,500 workers every few years when the number should have been 4,000+. Thay dragged their feet doing the unpleasent but necessary restructuring. Perez is taking the painful, but necessary steps, IMO. R&D expenditures will remain at 6% of sales through 2007. If they've been cutting Rochester R&D jobs, it's likely they've added R&D headcount elsewhere. 388073[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 But, she said she believes the local economy is improving enough that “if people are willing to work hard, and for a different company, and for a lower salary, there will be things available386532[/snapback] That is just what a 50 something worker with 25 years in a company and kids in college wants to hear. How friggin compassionate and understanding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Todd: You say at times that this is all Kodak's fault for not thinking ahead. But then you say that the job cuts would have been necessary anyway? Those two positions do not reconcile themselves to each other but it has been helpful to your posting by being able to swing back and forth to be in the right. I never said that they should be maintaining the current staffing levels in manufacturing and to suggest otherwise is pretty effing stupid. You can make straw men all you want, but doing so is not a substitute for being right. Sound n Fury: The current layoffs focus on manufacturing. When I have been referring to layoffs, I have been referring to the layoffs that have been going on for a long period of time. Recent past job cuts have focused on R&D and at removing spending on longer range R&D efforts. Longer term research does little to help out the bottom line now, but reducing it risks success in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Oh my. Yes, the decline of film would have necessitated the level of staffing in the film segment. However, if Kodak had thought ahead, they might not actually be #1 in the US for digital, they would be #1 in the WORLD. Maybe if they thought ahead, the ofoto and Kiosk businesses would have been dominating the market they way they did with film for so many years. Maybe they would be making the best CCD sensors in the world, rather than Canon. Maybe they would be players in all digital camera segments, instead of having to cancel their professional line of cameras. Maybe they would be able to compete in the market of high-end consumer cameras such as the Canon G6 - instead Kodak doesn't even have a camera that competes in this segment. For that matter, maybe Kodak would have been able to have a camera to compete with the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D, or the Digital Rebel. Imagine the revenue! Imagine the market dominance! If you look at it that way, all you can see is lost revenue. I look at potential, you don't. Instead of creating and leading, Kodak ended up spending the first 5 years of the digital revolution simply reacting and playing catch-up. Maybe instead of layoffs, Kodak could easily have kept the same staffing levels by shifting the focus to digital earlier, requiring higher staffing levels in that area. It IS Kodak's fault for not innovating and thinking ahead. Clearly. With a strong brand image like Kodak, if they had actually recognized the INEVITABLE switch to digital earlier and used their considerable R&D & manufacturing capability to capitalize on that they wouldn't be screwed like they are now. The shift of employment ratio away from film would have been inevitable, but compensating for that with better digital performance might have allowed for attrition in film and even higher staffing in support digital. Todd: You say at times that this is all Kodak's fault for not thinking ahead. But then you say that the job cuts would have been necessary anyway? Those two positions do not reconcile themselves to each other but it has been helpful to your posting by being able to swing back and forth to be in the right. I never said that they should be maintaining the current staffing levels in manufacturing and to suggest otherwise is pretty effing stupid. You can make straw men all you want, but doing so is not a substitute for being right. Sound n Fury: The current layoffs focus on manufacturing. When I have been referring to layoffs, I have been referring to the layoffs that have been going on for a long period of time. Recent past job cuts have focused on R&D and at removing spending on longer ranger R&D efforts. Longer term research does little to help out the bottom line now, but reducing it risks success in the future. 388103[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 All right, well I suppose my position was unclear from the outset and for that I apologize. My main bone of contention is that Kodak is at some level making the same mistakes now as they did in retrospect in not looking ahead and not improving its ability to innovate as much as they should. I was defending past actions not to say that Kodak has been acting intelligently at all times, but to point out that conventional wisdom on the right move was not as settled as it is now. I was doing that to say that while manufacturing losses now may have been a painful necessity, other cuts that Kodak is doing may be a mistake and that this fact may not be revealed right away just as Kodak's assumption about the film industry was not clearly revealed to all right away. If it has seemed like I think this is not largely management's fault outside of the inevitable cuts in the film sector, then I apologize for not being clear. I also was maybe incorrectly seeing people say that large companies are doomed to failure. I believe otherwise and it looks like you feel that Kodak could be more successful than it is right now despite its size. My criticism for Kodak mainly comes from what I hear from people in R&D, a place where they have cut a lot of people recently. Not only did they hurt morale by decimating their unit, they mainly focused on cutting people who were not doing things that were coming to market immediately. I feel that pressure from Wall Street is making Kodak too focused on immediate cost savings and immediate payoffs from R&D to their future detriment. Just like it was easier to live off the fat film profits 10 to 5 years ago rather than planning and sacrificing for the future, the easy thing and the wrong thing to do in R&D is to focus on short term gains in reducing payroll and reducing long-term research. To others who are upset for these families and for the economy in WNY, I am not happy about the manufacturing cuts however necessary they might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 And to add, I agree with you about the large brand value that Kodak had and still has to a large extent. Due to this and due to some intelligent people they have working at different levels of the company, I feel that their future is not doomed if they are smart and plan for the future. I was not trying to say that they do not have a huge room to improve in the digital market, but only that their current level of success in it indicates that all is not lost for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 My criticism for Kodak mainly comes from what I hear from people in R&D, a place where they have cut a lot of people recently. Not only did they hurt morale by decimating their unit, they mainly focused on cutting people who were not doing things that were coming to market immediately. I feel that pressure from Wall Street is making Kodak too focused on immediate cost savings and immediate payoffs from R&D to their future detriment. 388150[/snapback] Perez's background at HP is driving this. His whole philosophy is that the product life cycle is compressed into months rather than years and long-term innovation is not something that fits well with this model. I don't necessarily agree, but that's what his approach is going to be. If R&D spending is going to be maintained at 6% of sales, it would suggest that there'll be more hiring of cheaper/younger researchers to do more short-term projects. They may also be increasingly based outside of Ra Cha Cha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Been having those lions, and tigers, and bears hallucinations again, Todd? Oh my. 388125[/snapback] Sorry, I saw an opening and ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts