Kodak to stop making digital cameras

[Alan Browne]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/02/09/business/09reuters-kodak.html?ref=business
or - http://tinyurl.com/7fc5nzs

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-09/kodak-phasing-out-digital-camera-picture-frame-division-under-bankruptcy.html
or - http://tinyurl.com/88kq392

Trying to sell patents...
Trying to license its brand...

Will focus on printers (they are 6th in the market ... what did Jack
Welch used to say...).

I suppose they're still selling large sensors to Hasselblad and perhaps
others.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

[Noons]

On Feb 10, 10:05 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/02/09/business/09reuters-kodak.ht...
> or -http://tinyurl.com/7fc5nzs
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-09/kodak-phasing-out-digital-ca...
> or -http://tinyurl.com/88kq392

>
> Trying to sell patents...
> Trying to license its brand...
>
> Will focus on printers (they are 6th in the market ... what did Jack
> Welch used to say...).

sad...
...and to think all they had to do was add value to their traditional
offers.
but they threw all that out the window years ago, in the name of the
almighty digital camera profit...

[RichA]

On Feb 9, 6:05 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>

wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/02/09/business/09reuters-kodak.ht...
> or -http://tinyurl.com/7fc5nzs
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-09/kodak-phasing-out-digital-ca...

> or -http://tinyurl.com/88kq392

>
> Trying to sell patents...
> Trying to license its brand...
>
> Will focus on printers (they are 6th in the market ... what did Jack
> Welch used to say...).
>

They are in serious trouble if they think printers are a going
concern.

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Browne writes:

> Trying to sell patents...

What will happen after all the patents are sold?

The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without
competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

> Trying to license its brand...

Why would anyone want to license the brand of a company that is going
bankrupt?

> Will focus on printers (they are 6th in the market ... what did Jack
> Welch used to say...).

They might as well focus on notebook paper. Nobody gets rich making printers
these days.

> I suppose they're still selling large sensors to Hasselblad and perhaps
> others.

So why aren't they making money?

[Robert Coe]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:19:20 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Feb 9, 6:05 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>

The fact that Kodak is in serious trouble is hardly news to anyone.

Bob

[tony cooper]

Not anyone here, perhaps, but do one of those "nospam" market tests
and go down to your local chain drugstore and ask the first 100 people
to name ten American companies that are successful and I'd bet you'd
find Kodak on the list of many responders. There are many people who
don't follow business news like this.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Mxsmanic]

tony cooper writes:

> Not anyone here, perhaps, but do one of those "nospam" market tests
> and go down to your local chain drugstore and ask the first 100 people
> to name ten American companies that are successful and I'd bet you'd
> find Kodak on the list of many responders. There are many people who
> don't follow business news like this.

Maybe that's why they want to license the brand. Soon we'll have Kodak
keychains, caps, and coasters.

[Mxsmanic]

John A. writes:

> Then again, they did sell off the sensor division.

So what divisions does the company still have left?

[William Hamblen]

I've already seen Kodak Christmas tree lights. This was not a recent event.

Bud

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-10 12:57 , William Hamblen wrote:

> I've already seen Kodak Christmas tree lights. This was not a recent event.

I recall Polaroid VHS tapes. These were contract manufactured and
branded Polaroid.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <76GdnXJ6puOfwqjS...@giganews.com>,

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2012-02-10 12:57 , William Hamblen wrote:
>
>> I've already seen Kodak Christmas tree lights. This was not a recent event.
>
>I recall Polaroid VHS tapes. These were contract manufactured and
>branded Polaroid.
>

I have a Polaroid LCD (analog not hidef digital) TV/Monitor. There's probably
still "Polaroid" products being made today. And I have confidence there
will still be "Kodak" prodacts in the future.

It's even possible "Kodak" will become an important company. If I recall
the process, today's "AT&T" was originally RBOC Bellsouth (nee Southern Bell)
which bought out the floundering original AT&T and adopted its name because
the name tested so well.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-10 01:04 , John A. wrote:

> Then again, they did sell off the sensor division.

> http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Image_Sensor_Solutions/Kodak_Image_Sensor_Solutions.htm

Ah well...

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
> Alan Browne writes:
>
>> Trying to sell patents...
>
> What will happen after all the patents are sold?
>
> The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without
> competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.

Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of their
value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm not
sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their bites.
Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

>> Trying to license its brand...
>
> Why would anyone want to license the brand of a company that is going
> bankrupt?

The "brand" still has carrying power - it is highly recognized.

>
>> Will focus on printers (they are 6th in the market ... what did Jack
>> Welch used to say...).
>
> They might as well focus on notebook paper. Nobody gets rich making printers
> these days.

Disposable shaving blade model.

>> I suppose they're still selling large sensors to Hasselblad and perhaps
>> others.
>
> So why aren't they making money?

Appears I was in error - already sold off that business according to John.

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Browne writes:

> Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

If they are owned by the corporation, yes. I'm not sure if that's true for
patents owned by individuals, I think it depends on the jurisdiction.

> Disposable shaving blade model.

The problem is that there are strong competitors already using that model, and
there's no reason at all why Kodak would have any special chance of outrunning
them.

[Alan Browne]

Old news, unfortunately.

To be fair Kodak did try to change the model by putting more value in
the printer and less in the ink. In principle the printers are more
expensive and the cost per printed sheet a lot less (v. hp, Epson,
Canon, etc.). I have no idea if that's how it works out in the real world.

[PeterN]

Kodak made a big mistake when they didn't hire you as a consultant.

--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

PeterN writes:

> Kodak made a big mistake when they didn't hire you as a consultant.

Kodak is a world leader in big mistakes.

[nospam]

In article <4f35c9e3$0$18729$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

yes they did. it would have kept him busy and he wouldn't have time to
post here.

[Alan Browne]

[re-posted - I don't see the post on my newsreader]

On 2012-02-10 11:23 , Chloe wrote:

> On 10/02/2012 9:05 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Will focus on printers (they are 6th in the market ... what did Jack
>> Welch used to say...).
>>
>> I suppose they're still selling large sensors to Hasselblad and perhaps
>> others.
>>
>

> Re-inventing the wheel has never been a brilliant business plan.
> Especially when your rivals already lead the field with innovative
> products.

I believe Kodak had a brilliant chance to lead, but they took several
missteps. The rest ...

> Concentrating on printers makes perfectly good sense for a company who's
> history has always been about selling stuff to make pictures with.
>
> I remember way back when my mother (May she forever lie in peace) took
> me to town to buy me a darkroom kit for my 12th birthday. For many years
> after that I always bought from the Kodak shop. Paper, Chemicals dishes
> and various darkroom tools.

My first exp. in a darkroom was with a friend who's parents helped him
get started.

> For my 15th Birthday she once again went to the Kodak shop. This time to
> buy me a Kodak Retinette 1A camera. My first 35mm camera. In all the
> film I shot with this camera were some of my most memorable photographs.
> Family history of long gone, cherished relatives. My first of many
> things recorded forever on Kodak film. Printed on Kodak paper and
> developed in Kodak chemicals.
>
> The camera was far from being a shining example of greatness. The
> Voiglander I bought when I started work as a cub photographer was so
> superior to the Kodak in every way, I often wondered why Kodak ever
> bothered making cameras.

Their largest film markets were in selling family memories, not catering
to photographers. So the cameras had to be both cheap and simple. Good
enough for the market buying the film.

> How ironic that a lifetime later, making cameras has sunk the company.

Over reliance on the printer market did that.

> Now it they just get the cost of their wide format paper and packaged
> photo paper under control and actually concentrate on being competitive
> in the market place, They might just survive.

Hopefully.

> BTW... Is there any valid reason for cross posting to similar groups
> when everyone reads those groups too? Looks more like newsgroup spam
> than legitimate news... As if there is anything newsworthy in the stuff
> that get posted in these cross posted messages. More like plagiarism in
> to eyes.

I've been a member of these and other photo NG's for well over 10 years.
I'm not a prolific x-poster, but I do x-post where I believe there
will be interest in it.

Chloe, I hope you participate in the current shoot-in, due this Sunday.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_u

Cheers,
Alan

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 10/02/2012 00:05, Alan Browne wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/02/09/business/09reuters-kodak.html?ref=business
> or - http://tinyurl.com/7fc5nzs
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-09/kodak-phasing-out-digital-camera-picture-frame-division-under-bankruptcy.html
> or - http://tinyurl.com/88kq392
>
> Trying to sell patents...
> Trying to license its brand...
>
> Will focus on printers (they are 6th in the market ... what did Jack
> Welch used to say...).
>
> I suppose they're still selling large sensors to Hasselblad and perhaps
> others.

Nope, they sold their image sensor business to Platinum Equity back in
November

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577024464175394328.html>


--
Illegitimi non carborundum

[Mxsmanic]

Joe Kotroczo writes:

> Nope, they sold their image sensor business to Platinum Equity back in
> November

Platinum Equity? Sounds like a chop shop. Which means that you can kiss that
business goodbye.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-11 12:16 , Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 00:05, Alan Browne wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/02/09/business/09reuters-kodak.html?ref=business
>>
>> or - http://tinyurl.com/7fc5nzs
>>
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-09/kodak-phasing-out-digital-camera-picture-frame-division-under-bankruptcy.html
>>
>> or - http://tinyurl.com/88kq392
>>
>> Trying to sell patents...
>> Trying to license its brand...
>>
>> Will focus on printers (they are 6th in the market ... what did Jack
>> Welch used to say...).
>>
>> I suppose they're still selling large sensors to Hasselblad and perhaps
>> others.
>
> Nope, they sold their image sensor business to Platinum Equity back in
> November

So I've been told...

[Pete A]

On 2012-02-10 22:04:20 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2012-02-09 19:56 , Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Alan Browne writes:
>>
>>> Trying to sell patents...
>>
>> What will happen after all the patents are sold?
>>
>> The idea behind patents is to be able to manufacture new inventions without
>> competition for a brief period. Just selling patents is a dead end.
>
> Not selling them while the company disappears robs shareholders of
> their value. OTOH, at the rate they're disappearing (equity wise) I'm
> not sure there will be any cash left over after creditors take their
> bites. Can creditors make claims on the patents and sell them (?).

I'd been wondering about the patents issue. Sorry this is long-winded,
but it suggests to me that it depends on the outcome of the ruling on
bankruptcy protection:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725>

> [...]

[Alan Browne]

Seen other similar articles. (NYT/Bberg/ etc.)

I really don't get why Citigroup has given them a $1B LOC - do they have
first dibs on patent sale revenue?

As usual, shareholders are the ones who get the least - in this case
activist sh's are trying to get organized:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71623871

As to the patents, there does not seem to be a long line of people
lining up. Valuations vary between 2.4 and $2.75B - though Kodak
believe it has "higher strategic value" to the right suitor (whoever the
hell that is - eg: wishful).

[Pete A]

As so often happens, the value of things is determined by only a
handful of people, most of whom are very ignorant of the details - they
just happen to be good at dealing with the stresses of "dealing"!

The pecking order of creditors is something that seems to be surprising
denizens of the UK this year - the purchaser of faulty goods from a
failing company is so low on the list that "consumer rights" have flown
out of the window. Few even know how to make a claim through the Small
Claims Court, let alone have the resources to undertake the task.
However, the court does not have the power to alter the pecking order.
"Buyer Beware" isn't yet an obsolete phrase - strangely, investors have
more sway than the consumers who fund their investments.

The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead
wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for
no other reason than...

[Eric Stevens]

Its not the dickhead who has the influence. Its the people with real
knowledge who most effectively swing the share prices, and I'm not
necessarily talking about insider knowledge.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

Yup! That sounds like a Romneyesque "I like to fire people" operation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Pete A]

It's both (hence my ending with ...) - feedback and control theorists
plus statistisions have demonstrated many times why our economic
systems are inherently unstable. The current economic problems in
Europe are caused by a total failure to understand the principles
(which are counterintuitive).

[Alan Browne]

Consumers do not fund investments, they provide cash flow, margin and
profit while imposing liabilities on the company (warranty, delayed
service, etc.).

> The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes
> up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no
> other reason than...

The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop,
stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market is
rational - at least in "steady" times.

[Alan Browne]

Why the Citigroup LOC attracts curiosity.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:06:57 +0000, Pete A

All of which sounds very impressive but generally has nothing to do
with the dickhead's decisions on monday morning. Nor has it anything
much to with the detailed company knowledge of financial analysts.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Pete A]

As many in business say "If it wasn't for the customers my job would be
much easier."

Non-consumers tend to bleed a country to death so I strongly suggest
that it is only consumers that directly or indirectly fund investment.

>> The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes
>> up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no
>> other reason than...
>
> The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop,
> stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market
> is rational - at least in "steady" times.

Expectation often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the way
the system works.

Most systems are stable during steady times. A car with no shock
absorbers is stable on a flat road.

[Pete A]

Hmm. Then it must be the Tooth Fairy f'ing up most of the global economy.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:32:44 +0000, Pete A

Which has what to do with "The main reason that shares fall in value

is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell

shares in company xyz for no other reason than...".

Or do you have a different idea of what constitutes a dickhead than I
do?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

I thought it was non-producers that tend to bleed a country to death.

>
>>> The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes
>>> up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no
>>> other reason than...
>>
>> The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop,
>> stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market
>> is rational - at least in "steady" times.
>
>Expectation often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the way
>the system works.
>
>Most systems are stable during steady times. A car with no shock
>absorbers is stable on a flat road.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Joe Kotroczo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_Equity


--
Illegitimi non carborundum

[Savageduck]

So?
Just another predatory leverage buyout machine.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Mxsmanic]

Joe Kotroczo writes:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_Equity

Suspicion confirmed. Companies like this are a pox on society.

[Mxsmanic]

Savageduck writes:

> Just another predatory leverage buyout machine.

Just more destruction of American productivity in exchange for extreme
short-term gains.

[Pete A]

On 2012-02-12 03:55:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

> Pete A wrote:
>> [...]

>> Hmm. Then it must be the Tooth Fairy f'ing up most of the global economy.
>
> Which has what to do with "The main reason that shares fall in value
> is because some dickhead wakes up on a Monday morning deciding to sell
> shares in company xyz for no other reason than...".
>
> Or do you have a different idea of what constitutes a dickhead than I
> do?

Yes.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-12 00:35 , Chloe wrote:

>
> This Tony Polson fellow you attribute the photography to, is probably
> dead. In 2007 he subscribed to a medical group where he described fairly
> accurately the incurable disease he had.

He's quite alive using the posting name "Bruce".

When he created the "Bruce" google account, his real name was all over
it. Indeed his posting style (tone, verbiage, etc.) are unmistakably
"Tony". He's never denied it.

But, it's boring talking about others ... please do submit a photo to
the "U" shootin, Chloë.

[Alan Browne]

It's a tongue in cheek expression, but no real businessman believes it
unless they want to be out of business in the soon to be.

>
> Non-consumers tend to bleed a country to death so I strongly suggest
> that it is only consumers that directly or indirectly fund investment.

Question of definition. Investors provide capital to establish or
expand a business. Customers are the reason (usually) to make the
business work and provide a return.

>
>
>>> The main reason that shares fall in value is because some dickhead wakes
>>> up on a Monday morning deciding to sell shares in company xyz for no
>>> other reason than...
>>
>> The only reasons to sell are because of an expectation of a drop,
>> stagnation or a need for cash for something else. Overall the market
>> is rational - at least in "steady" times.
>
> Expectation often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the way the
> system works.

The system worked over the past decade or more by ignoring prudence
(usually in the form of the risk assessment heads of large finance cos.).

>
> Most systems are stable during steady times. A car with no shock
> absorbers is stable on a flat road.

Financial geniuses have been driving the system at maximum "efficiency"
sacrificing stability. Black Swans emerge. There is nothing "new"
about this - it's been predicted often and well enough over the early
2000's through to the "crash" in 2008. A good read is "The Big Short"
to give you an idea about insanity that a few could see (and profited by
it).

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-11 22:56 , Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:21:39 +0000, Pete A
> <pete3....@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>> Non-consumers tend to bleed a country to death so I strongly suggest
>> that it is only consumers that directly or indirectly fund investment.
>
> I thought it was non-producers that tend to bleed a country to death.

Greece in particular (and not alone).

[Alan Browne]

It's part of the general capitalist "creative destruction". In the long
term it definitely works. It does not exclude vultures anymore than
nature does.

[Pete A]

Thanks for your reply, Alan. I shall order a copy of "The Big Short".

[Kenneth Scharf]

On 02/10/2012 04:19 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article<76GdnXJ6puOfwqjS...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-10 12:57 , William Hamblen wrote:
>>
>>> I've already seen Kodak Christmas tree lights. This was not a recent event.
>>
>> I recall Polaroid VHS tapes. These were contract manufactured and
>> branded Polaroid.
>>
>
> I have a Polaroid LCD (analog not hidef digital) TV/Monitor. There's probably
> still "Polaroid" products being made today. And I have confidence there
> will still be "Kodak" prodacts in the future.
>
> It's even possible "Kodak" will become an important company. If I recall
> the process, today's "AT&T" was originally RBOC Bellsouth (nee Southern Bell)
> which bought out the floundering original AT&T and adopted its name because
> the name tested so well.
Just as the brand "RCA" is still around, but it's attached to Chinese crap.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:10:03 -0500, Kenneth Scharf <wa2...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

And a provincial wannabe bank in North Carolina bought the California-based
Bank of America, just so they could plunder its name.

Bob

[Mxsmanic]

Robert Coe writes:

> And a provincial wannabe bank in North Carolina bought the California-based
> Bank of America, just so they could plunder its name.

The same thing happened to Pan Am.

But IMAX is different: the original owner of the trademark is the one that is
destroying it.

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Browne writes:

> It's part of the general capitalist "creative destruction". In the long
> term it definitely works.

Unfortunately, no society survives over a long-enough term to see that.

[Alan Browne]

Greece is seeing it right now and will likely survive.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:36:27 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Joe Kotroczo writes:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_Equity
>
>Suspicion confirmed. Companies like this are a pox on society.

You should read the Wikipedia article again:

"Platinum Equity was founded in 1995 by Tom Gores. Platinum Equity’s
first acquisition was LSI, a company that generated computer
graphics to re-create accidents for courtroom testimony. Tom Gores
purchased LSI for $200,000, then focused on servicing existing
customers and returning the company to profitability."

They seem to have had this objective with all of their companies.

"The firm employs an investment strategy that it has trademarked,
"M&A&O", which integrates traditional M&A with operational
expertise. Throughout the transaction, transition and ownership,
the firm’s in-house teams apply operational guidance and resources
in order to maximize value.[16] This unique strategy means the firm
often acts more like a strategic buyer of companies than a
financial buyer. After an acquisition, Platinum Equity often
invests in additional businesses, equipment, people and facilities
that give its holdings a stronger position for the long haul."

Their approach seems to be to buy the skeletons of burned out
companies, flesh them our and get them working profitably again, often
as part of a team. Fewer companies would vanish if more people did
this. I don't think they are a pox at all.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Browne writes:

> Greece is seeing it right now and will likely survive.

Depending on how you define survival, and whether or not the rest of Europe
will cave and bail Greece out of its own stupidity, incompetence, and
corruption.

[Mxsmanic]

Eric Stevens writes:

> Their approach seems to be to buy the skeletons of burned out
> companies, flesh them our and get them working profitably again, often
> as part of a team.

Being profitable and being productive are two very different things.

> Fewer companies would vanish if more people did
> this. I don't think they are a pox at all.

Many companies do not vanish, but are turned into zombies, focused exclusively
on generating profits each quarter.

[PeterN]

On 2/12/2012 4:19 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Eric Stevens writes:
>
>> Their approach seems to be to buy the skeletons of burned out
>> companies, flesh them our and get them working profitably again, often
>> as part of a team.
>
> Being profitable and being productive are two very different things.
>

And?

>> Fewer companies would vanish if more people did
>> this. I don't think they are a pox at all.
>
> Many companies do not vanish, but are turned into zombies, focused exclusively
> on generating profits each quarter.

And are providing employment, pumping money back into the economy, while
generating profits. Some even are doing research to provide future
growth and even more profits.



--
Peter

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:19:02 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens writes:
>
>> Their approach seems to be to buy the skeletons of burned out
>> companies, flesh them our and get them working profitably again, often
>> as part of a team.
>
>Being profitable and being productive are two very different things.

A company can't be profitable if it isn't productive.

>
>> Fewer companies would vanish if more people did
>> this. I don't think they are a pox at all.
>
>Many companies do not vanish, but are turned into zombies, focused exclusively
>on generating profits each quarter.

But wasn't that the objective of the original shareholders?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Alan Browne]

It is all about two weevils.

[Mxsmanic]

PeterN writes:

> And?

And society (as well as the companies in question) suffers from the emphasis
on profit alone.

> And are providing employment, pumping money back into the economy, while
> generating profits.

But they are not doing anything productive.

> Some even are doing research to provide future growth and even more profits.

Only a very small minority. R&D does not improve the bottom line, at least in
the eyes of those who cannot see beyond the current quarter.

[Mxsmanic]

Eric Stevens writes:

> A company can't be profitable if it isn't productive.

Sure it can. You can sell the same junk that everyone else sells and make a
profit. You just aren't contributing anything useful to society.

> But wasn't that the objective of the original shareholders?

Yes, but it damages society as a whole.

[PeterN]

On 2/12/2012 6:38 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> PeterN writes:
>
>> And?
>
> And society (as well as the companies in question) suffers from the emphasis
> on profit alone.
>

So you are saying that profits are not the first step in promoting
corporate growth?

>> And are providing employment, pumping money back into the economy, while
>> generating profits.
>
> But they are not doing anything productive.
>

So providing employment and stimulating the economy is never productive?
Please define productive, as you use the term.

>> Some even are doing research to provide future growth and even more profits.
>
> Only a very small minority. R&D does not improve the bottom line, at least in
> the eyes of those who cannot see beyond the current quarter.

What industries, in what country are you talking about.

Are you eliminating:
Automotive;
technological;
Health care;
Transportation;
Oil & Gas?
Major appliances?




Look at the US:
<http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=120303,00.html>



--
Peter

[PeterN]

How.
I suppose the "junk" just appears out of thin air. It is never manufactured?

--
Peter

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:39:17 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens writes:
>
>> A company can't be profitable if it isn't productive.
>
>Sure it can. You can sell the same junk that everyone else sells and make a
>profit. You just aren't contributing anything useful to society.

If people buy it, it is useful to them. It meets some need they have
even if you don't agree the need is there.

Even if the company sells "junk", the company is providing employment
to someone. That's useful.

>> But wasn't that the objective of the original shareholders?
>
>Yes, but it damages society as a whole.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:38:05 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>PeterN writes:
>
>> And?
>
>And society (as well as the companies in question) suffers from the emphasis
>on profit alone.

So what's wrong with that? It means they are better off at the end of
what they were doing than at the start.

>
>> And are providing employment, pumping money back into the economy, while
>> generating profits.
>
>But they are not doing anything productive.

What on earth do you 'productive' if its not not making
bejeezelwackers, providing employment, pumping money back into the
economy, while generating profits?

>
>> Some even are doing research to provide future growth and even more profits.
>
>Only a very small minority. R&D does not improve the bottom line, at least in
>the eyes of those who cannot see beyond the current quarter.

That seems to include you. It doesn't include most of the motor
industry or electronics or pharmaceuticals, to name just a few.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:39:17 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens writes:
>
>> A company can't be profitable if it isn't productive.
>
>Sure it can. You can sell the same junk that everyone else sells and make a
>profit. You just aren't contributing anything useful to society.

You seem to use words in a different way from most of the rest of us.
What do you mean by 'productive'?

>
>> But wasn't that the objective of the original shareholders?
>
>Yes, but it damages society as a whole.

How?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Mxsmanic]

PeterN writes:

> So you are saying that profits are not the first step in promoting
> corporate growth?

Not when you distribute them to shareholders instead of reinvesting them in
the company.

> So providing employment and stimulating the economy is never productive?

Not nearly as productive as providing a useful product or service at a
reasonable price.

Companies need to have a purpose other than making maximum profit for
shareholders in order to be truly productive.

> What industries, in what country are you talking about.

All of them. Nobody wants to invest in something that won't produce a
substantial return by the end of the next quarter.

[Mxsmanic]

Eric Stevens writes:

> What on earth do you 'productive' if its not not making
> bejeezelwackers, providing employment, pumping money back into the
> economy, while generating profits?

Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.

[Mxsmanic]

PeterN writes:

> How.

It eliminates products and services that are not highly profitable, no matter
how useful or essential they are to society.

For example, a certain large oil company bought out a slightly smaller oil
company. The smaller company had long taken pride in producing special
lubricants for extremely narrow niche markets, such as NASA. When it was
absorbed by the larger company, all of these special lubricants were
discontinued, not because they were unprofitable, but because they were not
profitable _enough_. This left all the customers who required the lubricants
dead in the water, since there were no other sources for them. But all the oil
company cared about was maximizing profits.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:24 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>PeterN writes:
>
>> So you are saying that profits are not the first step in promoting
>> corporate growth?
>
>Not when you distribute them to shareholders instead of reinvesting them in
>the company.
>
>> So providing employment and stimulating the economy is never productive?
>
>Not nearly as productive as providing a useful product or service at a
>reasonable price.

You seem to be working with a definition of "productive" that not many
other people use. A product that is not useful may not be beneficial,
but the company that makes it could be productive.

Productivity has nothing to do with usefulness. Price has nothing to
do with productivity.

>Companies need to have a purpose other than making maximum profit for
>shareholders in order to be truly productive.
>
>> What industries, in what country are you talking about.
>
>All of them. Nobody wants to invest in something that won't produce a
>substantial return by the end of the next quarter.

[Mxsmanic]

tony cooper writes:

> You seem to be working with a definition of "productive" that not many
> other people use.

Most people are interested only in money, and don't care about the good of
society.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:54:01 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the definition of
"productive".

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:24 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>PeterN writes:
>
>> So you are saying that profits are not the first step in promoting
>> corporate growth?
>
>Not when you distribute them to shareholders instead of reinvesting them in
>the company.

So you are really saying not distributing all the profits is the first
step in promoting corporate growth.

>
>> So providing employment and stimulating the economy is never productive?
>
>Not nearly as productive as providing a useful product or service at a
>reasonable price.

Is it possible to make profits without providing a useful product or

service at a reasonable price
>

>Companies need to have a purpose other than making maximum profit for
>shareholders in order to be truly productive.
>
>> What industries, in what country are you talking about.
>
>All of them. Nobody wants to invest in something that won't produce a
>substantial return by the end of the next quarter.

That's not correct. There are a number of companies with a 'no
dividend' policy. Most companies only pay limited dividends.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:57 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You have to do that to stay in business. The failure to meet that
objective is why Kodak is in the state it is now.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:57:12 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So all those who really needed the special lubricants would be able to
get them if they were prepared to pay more.

Those who didn't really need the special lubricants would be able to
get by, by re-engineering their products so that they didn't need the
special products. In fact, my experience is that if you can no longer
get product 'A' there is always a product 'B' which will do the same
job even though it may be more expensive.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:00:46 +1300, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:57 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens writes:
>>
>>> What on earth do you 'productive' if its not not making
>>> bejeezelwackers, providing employment, pumping money back into the
>>> economy, while generating profits?
>>
>>Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.
>
>You have to do that to stay in business.

That's somewhat debatable. All a company has to do is convince some
of the public that the product is useful or desirable and offered at a
reasonable price.

Most of us own or have purchased something that turned out not to be
useful or desirable and over-priced for what we got.

>The failure to meet that
>objective is why Kodak is in the state it is now.

I think that Kodak made useful products and priced them reasonably,
but competitors made products that were more useful or more reasonably
priced. A Kodak camera is useful and they were reasonably priced.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:17:19 -0500, tony cooper
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:00:46 +1300, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:54:57 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens writes:
>>>
>>>> What on earth do you 'productive' if its not not making
>>>> bejeezelwackers, providing employment, pumping money back into the
>>>> economy, while generating profits?
>>>
>>>Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.
>>
>>You have to do that to stay in business.
>
>That's somewhat debatable. All a company has to do is convince some
>of the public that the product is useful or desirable and offered at a
>reasonable price.
>
>Most of us own or have purchased something that turned out not to be
>useful or desirable and over-priced for what we got.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. In other
words, the word gets around if you make overpriced junk and people
resist buying from you. As I am about to say, that's why Kodak is in

the state it is now.
>
>>The failure to meet that
>>objective is why Kodak is in the state it is now.
>
>I think that Kodak made useful products and priced them reasonably,
>but competitors made products that were more useful or more reasonably
>priced. A Kodak camera is useful and they were reasonably priced.

... and reasonably unattractive. Hence people bought other cameras.

Sales didn't bring in enough revenue to support the costs.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Trevor]

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ogrij7hqp4jp884sr...@4ax.com...

>>>Providing useful products and services at reasonable prices.
>>
>>You have to do that to stay in business.
>
> That's somewhat debatable. All a company has to do is convince some
> of the public that the product is useful or desirable and offered at a
> reasonable price.

"Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are made
by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies can
do that for decades. Others only a short time.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a33jj7hseps06lr8r...@4ax.com...

> You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
> some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

And as every politician knows, you can fool most of the people most of the
time, and that is enough!

Trevor.

[Eric Stevens]

You sound like a cynic telling yourself that all those other people
are suckers to buy 'that' thing at 'that' price.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-12 18:39 , Mxsmanic wrote:
> Eric Stevens writes:
>
>> A company can't be profitable if it isn't productive.
>
> Sure it can. You can sell the same junk that everyone else sells and make a
> profit. You just aren't contributing anything useful to society.

There is no requirement that a profitable company be "useful to
society". OTOH companies that employ people, or result in wealth being
invested elsewhere, are always useful to society.

In the 20th century we _have_ come to realize that some companies
benefit from the commons out of proportion to the price and provide no
maintenance or renewal to the commons. This will become increasingly at
issue in the 21st century:

ranchers using government land at near 0 cost
forestry co's (some cost)
water withdrawals (eg: Ogallala)
fisheries
polluters (esp. air and water).
oil companies
etc.

All (almost) of these activities could be conducted in a sustainable
undamaging way - in exchange for a much higher cost of goods sold.

>> But wasn't that the objective of the original shareholders?
>
> Yes, but it damages society as a whole.

Socialist drivel.

Even companies providing ignoble products and services play a positive
role in the economy.

If companies had to pass a "value to society" test the result would be
worse than the worst possible combination of dictatorship and religion.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-13 18:05 , Trevor wrote:

> "Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are made
> by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies can
> do that for decades. Others only a short time.

Where there are free markets there is ample room for suckers to learn
better as competitors provide alternatives.

Otherwise a lot of buying is emotionally driven which is why there is a
whole industry called "Advertising".

[Trevor]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message

news:cr8jj71k6s030236j...@4ax.com...

>> "Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are
>> made
>>by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies
>>can
>>do that for decades. Others only a short time.
>>
> You sound like a cynic telling yourself that all those other people
> are suckers to buy 'that' thing at 'that' price.

History shows many of them are. But capitalist consumerism is about creating
a market and supplying that market at the biggest possible profit you can
manage. Some companies manage very big profits indeed, and still have their
customers coming back for more. In that case both would appear to be happy,
and what I think is irrelevant to either of them.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:J7-dncJTApbAMKTS...@giganews.com...

>> "Reasonable price" has nothing to do with it! The biggest profits are
>> made
>> by selling products at *unreasonable* prices to suckers. Some companies
>> can
>> do that for decades. Others only a short time.
>
> Where there are free markets there is ample room for suckers to learn
> better as competitors provide alternatives.
> Otherwise a lot of buying is emotionally driven which is why there is a
> whole industry called "Advertising".

Exactly, and since the advertising costs must be added to the sale price, it
just further proves "reasonable price" is not a prime requirement as was
suggested.

Trevor.

[John McWilliams]

OMG! Of course, you are different; otherwise you'd not be making this
point.

So where do you get your stats on "most people"??

[Eric Stevens]

Of course its a prime requisite. But so too is knowing that the
product exists and what it's claimed to do.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:05:58 +1100, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:

>

I am often extremely baffled by the meaning some people in this group
attach to some words. A price is reasonable if the *buyer* decides it
is reasonable. What I think you are referring to are prices based on
what you think to be excessive mark-up over cost.

The reasonableness of the price has nothing to do with the cost to
manufacture and distribute the product in relation to the selling
price. Something is reasonably priced if you feel it has value to you
at the price. A Lamborghini may be reasonably priced to some people.

The biggest profits can come from large mark-ups over cost, but it can
also come from small mark-ups over cost if volume is high.

What I consider to a reasonably priced product may be entirely
different from what you consider a reasonable price. Not because of
the amount involved, but because of the desirability of the product
and my perceived need for the product.

[tony cooper]

He travels a lot by airplane and visits Starbucks. These seem to be
the places the uninformed and misinformed come up with their
projections.

[tony cooper]

You wouldn't be able, for example, to buy a bar of soap for 10 cents
if wasn't for advertising. Without the market for the brand of soap
created by advertising, and volume sales, a bar of soap would cost
several dollars.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-02-13 22:21 , tony cooper wrote:

>
> You wouldn't be able, for example, to buy a bar of soap for 10 cents
> if wasn't for advertising. Without the market for the brand of soap
> created by advertising, and volume sales, a bar of soap would cost
> several dollars.

Some products don't need advertising. My father used to say "If your
product is good, you don't need to advertise." I think he realized that
was a bit naïve, but it went to the notion that really good products
sold themselves by reputation, word-of-mouth, etc.

I think Apple adverts are not aimed at getting new customers but at
reinforcing behaviour with customers who have just bought the latest
iGadget. (Certainly most automobile advertising is aimed at those who
most recently bought the cars so they'll tout it to their friends and
family as well as come back next time).

[nospam]

In article <0kkjj7p2ejs7o1sbu...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> He travels a lot by airplane and visits Starbucks. These seem to be
> the places the uninformed and misinformed come up with their
> projections.

obviously, you think it's a cool idea. why else would you continually
bring it up out of the blue? maybe you're pissed you didn't think of it
first. and i don't do starbucks.

it turns out that my projections are spot on. so much for uninformed or
misinformed.

looking at what real people are actually using in the real world is the
*best* way to get a pulse on what an industry is doing, any industry,
not just computers.

[nospam]

In article <DPednZVz8tulR6TS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > You wouldn't be able, for example, to buy a bar of soap for 10 cents
> > if wasn't for advertising. Without the market for the brand of soap
> > created by advertising, and volume sales, a bar of soap would cost
> > several dollars.
>
> Some products don't need advertising. My father used to say "If your
> product is good, you don't need to advertise." I think he realized that
> was a bit naïve, but it went to the notion that really good products
> sold themselves by reputation, word-of-mouth, etc.

the best products do sell themselves, while crap products tend to rely
on shills and deception.

> I think Apple adverts are not aimed at getting new customers but at
> reinforcing behaviour with customers who have just bought the latest
> iGadget. (Certainly most automobile advertising is aimed at those who
> most recently bought the cars so they'll tout it to their friends and
> family as well as come back next time).

long ago, apple's ads used to appeal to existing apple customers. now
their ads attract new customers.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:51:19 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2012-02-13 22:21 , tony cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> You wouldn't be able, for example, to buy a bar of soap for 10 cents
>> if wasn't for advertising. Without the market for the brand of soap
>> created by advertising, and volume sales, a bar of soap would cost
>> several dollars.
>
>Some products don't need advertising. My father used to say "If your
>product is good, you don't need to advertise." I think he realized that

>was a bit naīve, but it went to the notion that really good products

>sold themselves by reputation, word-of-mouth, etc.

That's fine for local products. A restaurant, for example, can be
very successful without spending a dime for advertising. Likewise a
dry cleaners or some types of local service providers. Products that
are nationally distributed, though, are not going to do well without
advertising.

>I think Apple adverts are not aimed at getting new customers but at
>reinforcing behaviour with customers who have just bought the latest
>iGadget. (Certainly most automobile advertising is aimed at those who
>most recently bought the cars so they'll tout it to their friends and
>family as well as come back next time).

I don't think automobile advertising is intended to sell the car based
on features and benefits. It is intended to sell a perception.
Automobile ads attempt to make the viewer think that they are the type
of person that should be driving this type of vehicle, or that they
could be the type of person that would drive this type of vehicle.

[Mxsmanic]

John McWilliams writes:

> OMG! Of course, you are different; otherwise you'd not be making this
> point.

No, otherwise I'd be rich. But my conscience is too strong.

[Mxsmanic]

Eric Stevens writes:

> So you are really saying not distributing all the profits is the first
> step in promoting corporate growth.

It's one potential step.

> Is it possible to make profits without providing a useful product or
> service at a reasonable price

Yes, especially for natural monopolies.

> That's not correct. There are a number of companies with a 'no
> dividend' policy. Most companies only pay limited dividends.

How is their stock price performing? They need to have either rapidly
increasing stock prices or dividends in order to attract investors, although
companies don't really need investors once they've bought the stock.

[Mxsmanic]

Eric Stevens writes:

> You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
> some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

Either of the first two will keep you in business.

> Sales didn't bring in enough revenue to support the costs.

Management most likely concentrated on cutting costs rather than increasing
revenue, which is always the (fatal) path of bad managers trying to increase
profits.

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Browne writes:

> Some products don't need advertising. My father used to say "If your
> product is good, you don't need to advertise." I think he realized that

> was a bit naďve, but it went to the notion that really good products

> sold themselves by reputation, word-of-mouth, etc.

He was right. Did you buy your last washing machine or roll of paper towels
based on advertising?

A huge amount of advertising is simply ignored. Can you remember the last five
advertisements you saw?

[Mxsmanic]

tony cooper writes:

> That's fine for local products. A restaurant, for example, can be
> very successful without spending a dime for advertising. Likewise a
> dry cleaners or some types of local service providers. Products that
> are nationally distributed, though, are not going to do well without
> advertising.

Sure they will. As long as it's on the shelf, it can sell; it doesn't matter
whether or not it's on other shelves a thousand miles away.

> I don't think automobile advertising is intended to sell the car based
> on features and benefits. It is intended to sell a perception.
> Automobile ads attempt to make the viewer think that they are the type
> of person that should be driving this type of vehicle, or that they
> could be the type of person that would drive this type of vehicle.

Advertising and sales are mostly intended to persuade people to buy things
that they don't already want and don't need. When people need or want
something, it doesn't have to be advertised or sold--all you need is someone
to take the orders.

[Mxsmanic]

Eric Stevens writes:

> So all those who really needed the special lubricants would be able to
> get them if they were prepared to pay more.

No, that's just it: the company decided to stop making them, period.

[Mxsmanic]

Alan Browne writes:

> There is no requirement that a profitable company be "useful to
> society".

There's a moral and ethical obligation, but no law. In the U.S. in particular,
anything legal is assumed to be moral, and anything illegal is assumed to be
immoral, but in reality these do not always coincide.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:11:17 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens writes:
>
>> So you are really saying not distributing all the profits is the first
>> step in promoting corporate growth.
>
>It's one potential step.
>
>> Is it possible to make profits without providing a useful product or
>> service at a reasonable price
>
>Yes, especially for natural monopolies.

But Kodak has never been a natural monopoly.

>
>> That's not correct. There are a number of companies with a 'no
>> dividend' policy. Most companies only pay limited dividends.
>
>How is their stock price performing? They need to have either rapidly
>increasing stock prices or dividends in order to attract investors, although
>companies don't really need investors once they've bought the stock.

If they have stock they already have investors.

Regards,

Eric Stevens