The New York Times article focuses primarily on Kodak Apparel, a licensee of the Kodak name in South Korea Photo: Kodak Apparel An article in the New York Times draws attention to the way the Kodak brand is being used, now that the company itself has left the consumer photo market.
It gives an interesting insight into the value of legacy photo brand names in a time when online retail is flooded with near-infinite choice and seemingly ephemeral branding.
Eastman Kodak, these days primarily an industrial printing business, licenses the classic Kodak name and branding to 44 different companies. Its name is now used on everything from clothing to eyeglass lenses (via RayBan maker, EssilorLuxottica), solar panels to camera straps, TVs and paint.
In the camera space alone, its name is used by JK Imaging, which makes Kodak-branded PixPro digital cameras (having previously used 'GE' branding). Prinics and C + A Global, which make Kodak-branded instant cameras for different markets, Meta Imaging, which makes 35mm film compacts and Reto Production, which makes the Kodak Ektar-branded half-frame film cameras.
The risks of licensing
And while this may sound like the company is just lending its name to anyone with a checkbook, there's a risk to picking the wrong partners. As it identified in the 'risks' section of its annual report, any harm to its brand or reputation can damage the company's bottom line. As it points out: "Consumers and the public may view the products and activities of brand licensees as the products and activities of Kodak. "
The Kodak Thrust UAV Riot sport drone, launched in conjunction with an education company, wasn't even Kodak's most ill-judged licensing exercise of 2018.
Photo: Kodak
This is a far cry from when the company arguably let the name be used too broadly, including a Kodak-branded photography-IP blockchain and associated cryptocoin, and a separate bitcoin mining scheme, that the company rapidly distanced itself from. By contrast, some of the Kodak Apparel looks pretty interesting and in keeping with the brand's heritage.
How licensing contributes
Look at the company's figures and it starts to make sense why Eastman Kodak casts its net so wide. In terms of revenue, Eastman Kodak's 'Brand' division, responsible for licensing, seems small. It generated $20M in 2024, making up just 1. 9% of sales for a company with revenues of around $1BN. However, since there are very few costs associated with this income, Brands contributed $17M to the company's earnings, before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization: 65% of the annual earnings associated with its different divisions.
The recently released Kodak PixPro C1, a $99 compact with a Type 1/3 (4. 8 x 3. 6mm) sensor and a fixed 26mm equiv lens. Licensing the name to companies such as JK Imaging, which makes the PixPro range, generates more income for Eastman Kodak than manufacturing photo film does.
Image: Kodak / JK Imaging
And, although it's not possible to pull out exact figures, it's worth noting that Kodak Alaris, the company that owns the former Eastman Kodak photo film business, tends to make up around 34% of the revenues of the 'Advanced Materials and Chemicals' division, which contributed a similar $17M to EBITDA. In other words, allowing the brand name to be used on all those clothes, USB drives and digital cameras generates somewhere around three times more income for Eastman Kodak than manufacturing photo film does.
Heritage, misfires and zombie brands
To us, Kodak Apparel looks like a thoughtful way to use the brand without undermining its heritage, which isn't always the case. So we're planning to look at a few other grand (and not-so-grand) names from photo history that are still being used today. Let us know if you've seen any especially ill-judged bits of branding, or examples of zombie brand names that are inexplicably still being reanimated.
. dpreview.com2025-7-2 00:11
