Games People Play: The Eastman Kodak Edition

In late January, I was invited to attend a mystery-product intro by Eastman Kodak in New York City. Budget and bandwidth limitations precluded me from accepting Kodak's summons to what ended up being the unveiling of the company's first consumer inkjet printers, the EasyShare All-In-One 5100, 5300 and 5500. Kodak's pitch turned the traditional printer 'razor and blades business model' upside-down, with higher printer prices than competitors but much lower claimed consumable costs. Quoting from the press release:

Low-Cost Premium Inks Save Customers up to 50 Percent on Everything They Print….The KODAK EASYSHARE AiO Printers use Kodak’s premium, pigment-based ink, priced at $9.99 for a cartridge of black ink and $14.99 for a five-ink color cartridge (US MSRP). For every $15 spent on color ink and $10 spent on black ink, consumers can print the same number of pages at half the cost of other consumer inkjet printers. When the KODAK Photo Value Pack is purchased, a 4 x 6-inch photo costs as little as 10 cents per print.

On March 19, I got an email from Kodak PR's representatives at Ketchum, inviting me to review an EasyShare AiO, followed by a prompt reply from Ketchum to my reply accepting the invitation. Here's where things get strange. The EasyShare 5300 arrived….on a FedEx Freight semi truck….on March 27. Two days later, before I even opened the box, I got a frantic phone message from Ketchum indicating that I'd inadvertently received a pre-production unit, and requesting that I get in touch right away to arrange return shipping at Kodak's expense (along with a promise to send me a production unit at a later date). On the one hand, this jived with what I'd earlier been told….that my review unit wouldn't ship until April 2 and, that since it'd ship 'ground', I shouldn't expect to get it before April 9. On the other hand, though, the printer I'd gotten was in full retail packaging….it sure didn't look pre-production to me.

Whatever. I emailed Ketchum back, indicating that I'd be happy to send the printer back for replacement and that I was awaiting further instructions. The next day, on a Friday afternoon at 4:45PM and after no further communication received from Ketchum, a very confused FedEx Freight truck driver once again showed up on my curb, indicating that he'd been told I had a package for him to pick up but not knowing what it was or where it was going. I deduced that this was the return of the Kodak printer, filled out the paperwork, and sent him on his way. I heard nothing further from Ketchum, in spite of several emails I sent them over the past few weeks inquiring as to the status of the replacement review printer….until yesterday, when I received a bill for $245.58 from FedEx Freight in the mail.

This bizarre situation began to sort itself out when, last night, I read the summary of Popular Photography's review of the 5300. Here are a few relevant quotes:

According to Executive Technology Editor Michael J. McNamara, the Kodak EasyShare 5300 All-In-One printer ($199, street) turned out only 165 borderless color photos from an $18 package of paper and ink that is billed as producing 180 photos. "That's about 11.5 cents per print," said McNamara. "But more importantly, the quality of the prints was so low in color saturation that they could be deemed no better than ‘draft' quality by professional or lab-print standards." To get what photo enthusiasts would judge "lab-quality" prints, says McNamara, requires more expensive Kodak paper, which boosts the cost to more than 35 cents each.

What we have here, with apologies to Charles Dickens, is the Tale of Two Possible Situations. One the one hand, Ketchum could have sent both Popular Photography and I pre-production units, which PopPhoto reviewed and published before getting word from Ketchum (thereby explaining the low-quality results PopPhoto saw). But:

1) Wouldn't PopPhoto have published a retraction by now?
2) And considering that the 5100 and 5300 are now for sale at Best Buy, shouldn't I have a production review unit in my hands by now? Or at least some regular communication from Ketchum?

Call me cynical, if you wish, but here's the other distinct possibility I see (I'll report back if I end up being wrong):

1) Kodak stretched semantics with its press release and other promotional materials. Note that it never explicitly said that you'd get a premium-quality 4 x 6-inch photo for 10 cents, and it focused on ink cost while saying little to nothing about paper cost.
2) The company shipped out production units to myself and other reviewers. PopPhoto probably got one of the first, which is appropriate given its targeted audience.
3) Early feedback from PopPhoto and other reviewers indicated that Kodak had a problem on its hands (begging the question of how Kodak could have ever deluded itself into thinking it wouldn't? I digress…), so
4) It ordered its PR agency to lie, claiming a 'pre-production' slip-up, in order to recall as many printers pre-review as possible
5) Kodak has no intention of sending me a replacement unit and hopes that, if it ignores my emails and phone calls, I'll just 'quietly go away'.
6) And it's trying to stick me with the return shipping charge (don't worry, it won't succeed).

Great job engendering long-term credibility with the press, Kodak.

Ever notice that a movie sometimes gets released to theaters with no (credible) published reviews? That scenario's a good indication that the studio realized it had a 'stinker' on its hands and decided not to do an advance screening for reviewers, figuring that no coverage was better than bad coverage and that slick pre-promotion might be enough to snag at least an opening weekend's worth of gullible ticket holders before word got out of how bad the flick was. I 'spect Kodak's trying to pull a similar no-advance-screening trick. Don't be fooled, folks.