TheStreet.com media critic Marek Fuchs wonders why business journalists have continued to give Kodak positive coverage despite its problems.
Fuchs wrote, “Are a lot of journalists photo buffs and sentimental fools for Kodak? It sure looked that way, because, as I catalogued, tons of headlines ran about Kodak swinging to a profit as more sales shift to digital. In fact, here was the puke-eminent example from The Wall Street Journal: ‘Kodak Swings to Profit As More Sales Shift to Digital Areas.’
“The headlines set my shutter speed aflutter, but then I actually read the earnings report. Hardly anyone highlighted the fact that the one-time sale of a health-care division contributed greatly to results. That digital victory? Ehh. Digital sales were up 3%, which is nothing to dismiss, but nothing that is going to save a giant, troubled company that is getting by at this point on a wing, prayer and cost cuts.
“Then came Thursday, a day that brought more evidence of Kodak’s overly favorable standing in the eyes of the business media. Any big, fatty operation like Kodak can cut costs for a long time. But you are almost never going to see evidence of a decisive, lasting comeback until revenue starts moving. That’s because, while you can cut jobs and much else for a long time, you can’t do it forever. At some point, you need revenue to rise. And if revenue stays stagnant, profitability tends to be fleeting.”
OLD Media Moves
Kodak given benefit of the doubt — again
November 2, 2007
Posted by Chris Roush
TheStreet.com media critic Marek Fuchs wonders why business journalists have continued to give Kodak positive coverage despite its problems.
Fuchs wrote, “Are a lot of journalists photo buffs and sentimental fools for Kodak? It sure looked that way, because, as I catalogued, tons of headlines ran about Kodak swinging to a profit as more sales shift to digital. In fact, here was the puke-eminent example from The Wall Street Journal: ‘Kodak Swings to Profit As More Sales Shift to Digital Areas.’
“The headlines set my shutter speed aflutter, but then I actually read the earnings report. Hardly anyone highlighted the fact that the one-time sale of a health-care division contributed greatly to results. That digital victory? Ehh. Digital sales were up 3%, which is nothing to dismiss, but nothing that is going to save a giant, troubled company that is getting by at this point on a wing, prayer and cost cuts.
“Then came Thursday, a day that brought more evidence of Kodak’s overly favorable standing in the eyes of the business media. Any big, fatty operation like Kodak can cut costs for a long time. But you are almost never going to see evidence of a decisive, lasting comeback until revenue starts moving. That’s because, while you can cut jobs and much else for a long time, you can’t do it forever. At some point, you need revenue to rise. And if revenue stays stagnant, profitability tends to be fleeting.”
Read more here.Â
Media News
WSJ’s Tucker: Gershkovich shows importance of free press
March 28, 2024
Media News
Read-a-thon recognizes one year in jail for WSJ’s Gershkovich
March 28, 2024
Media News
Rosen departs Business Insider for a new opportunity
March 28, 2024
Media News
Why Evan Gershkovich’s case is so important
March 28, 2024
Media News
Taylor joins Bloomberg’s municipal finance team
March 28, 2024
Subscribe to TBN
Receive updates about new stories in the industry daily or weekly.