7 ms·
The chemical division of Kodak, Eastman Chemical, was spun off in 1994 and is doing well. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eastman-kodak-idUSTRE7BN06B2011122
by cuecrkofhdbe 8y ago
The chemical division of Kodak, Eastman Chemical, was spun off in 1994 and is doing well.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eastman-kodak-idUSTRE7BN06B20111224 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eastman-kodak-idUSTRE7BN0...
- simonh 8y agoSo they divested themselves of the profit making part of their business and doubled down on the generic, modularised part of the business based on technologies they had no advantage in. Nice!
- warrenm 8y agoSounds like HP spinning-out Agilent, doesn't it?
- emiliobumachar 8y agoWhat makes Eastman the spinoff and Kodak the "they" in your statement? The name? That should be 100% a branding decision, and presumably the Kodak name was more valuable attached to the mostly B2C camera business than to the mostly B2B chemical business. If not the name, then what is the token of "genuiness" that stayed with Kodak?
- simonh 8y agoI’m going by the article. “Eastman Kodak spun off its chemicals business to help pay down debt.” At the time the CEO was quoted “Mr Whitmore, who has been under pressure to restructure Kodak, said Eastman Chemical would be spun off as an independent public company...”.