Post of the Day
April 02, 1998

From our AOL
Eastman Kodak Board

Subject: BS is BS!   Author: KCandLW

Dagnabbit! Maybe I need to re-read the story of how Hercules cleaned the Augean Stables.

I said MOT seemed to start stumbling only AFTER Fisher left, and now all of a sudden, an EK problem is Fisher's attempt to instill the "dismal failure" of a Motorola culture at EK. C'mon! Think up your own reasons for Kodak's trouble. And surely you can do better than THAT. When Fisher left Motorola, they were hitting on ALL cylinders. As goes the CEO goes the company - that IS the working theory I heard around here isn't it?

As for Fisher being a CLONE of the team now running Motorola?? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, I agree with you, you DON'T know him. The hilarity is that I think a big reason Fisher LEFT Motorola was his very lack of Galvin DNA, and the obvious grooming of the young Galvin (Chris) to be the future CEO sooner than George was going to be ready to go.

And for heaven's sake, if you doesn't like the management of either EK OR MOT, you ought to be asking yourself why, Why, WHY in heaven's name it is that you own them, rather than their competitors!



Subject: Enough!    Author: DeerLvr595

Kodak has one of the most recognized brand names in the WORLD and the quality to back it up - what happened that the company has no growth anymore given this fact? Let's guess: It's the whiny self-centered employees who haven't had a raise for years who did it? The WTO decision? The strong dollar? Fuji building in the US? As you have mentioned, there are at least 50 reasons why George Fisher shouldn't be blamed for all Kodak's ills, I can come up with 50 why he needs to stop pointing his finger at everything else and look in the mirror! When he came to Kodak it was was "himself". Mr. Wonderful, Mr. Huge Ego.

NOW, finally, late last year when they warned about earnings problems it was WE. Oh, so now it was everyone's problem and not his. Good CEO's know everything isn't their fault but they don't go around blaming everything else. They stand up and admit that they've made poor management decisions and will do whatever they can to correct them.

It took GF five years to finally do that and only because the rubber finally met the road.

When Kodak shows some growth (not likely), I may consider buying into it, but until I see some significant progress why bother! I like making money on my stock and getting a warm fuzzy feeling that the company is doing good things and progressing nicely, not seeing my money sit there and drift in a narrow trading range for months and months and months. Good companies/CEO's lead the charge to be at the top and stay at the top. Kodak hasn't done that and probably never will. They need someone who can stay one step above the competition. I don't see that now. They have cried wolf so many times recently that no one listens anymore. What a joke!


Subject: Posts    Author: Ziebro

Well, I have to say that the debate is heated here, but let's face it, the company's excuses are getting old. It is the Japanese, it is the world, it is not fair,.......

CEO's are paid to perform. Performance speaks for itself. Although I bought into this company around $58 or so a share, I still am having a hard time with this joker Fisher. The guy has given every excuse in the book and done everything other than perform. His leap into the consumer Digital Photography market was way to premature.

Most people that take a lot of photographs are aging (i.e., their grandkids, graduating children, etc.) These people are not the most technologically savvy. If Kodak's main target market was 18-35 year olds only, than digital photography is the way to go. The output of the digital photo market is still expensive as well. Trying to print out a photo on a standard inkjet is nowhere near the quality it needs to be. While Thermal Dye Sublimation Print Technology exists (it can create better than photographic results), it is very expensive. Kodak makes a Thermal Dye Sub Printer, they should know that it is expensive, looks as if no one went through a critical thought path with that mistake, nor does it appear that Fisher knows the photo market very well.

If the arguement is that Fisher was great at Motorola, let him go back to Motorola, I own stock in Kodak, not Motorola, what has he done for me lately? Pagers and Cell Phones are different than photography and medical imaging.

Kodak, in it's current state, reminds me of the auto industry in the early 80's. They blamed everyone except themselves, the Japanese, American Consumers, etc. etc. Kodak needs to produce a quality competitive product at a competitive price and stop whining. I personally stopped buying Kodak film (before I was a shareholder) because the price was much higher than a competitors product. In consumer photography, price is the key.

Fisher does not turn this company around in the next quarter or so, then he should be hung from the highest oak tree in town. But this is a few billion dollar company, it will not blow away, and the US Government won't let them go bankrupt (remember Chrysler and their pending doom of the 80's?)

Buying , owning, and holding a DOW Dog has it's downsides, but it also has potential rewards. Every company experiences a downturn (although Kodak's has lasted longer than most).

Best of luck to all.

Go To Eastman Kodak Board

The Post of the Day may be edited for readability or length, but never for content. The opinions expressed in the Posts are those of their authors, and not necessarily The Motley Fool. We make no claim or warranty as to the veracity or accuracy of any post, and present this feature only as an example of what may be found on our message boards. Don't take the Post of the Day, or anything else here, as gospel and, as our seventh grade English teacher, Mrs. Peacock, used to say, do your own homework, and avoid run-on sentences.