Imation sells off the family jewels Imation, now run by activist investor Clinton Group people, is selling the Memorex trademark – and two trademark licences associated with it – for $9.4m, while also disposing of its corporate headquarter facility in Oakdale, Minnesota, for $11.5m. "Both sales are consistent with the (our) stated restructuring, wind down …
"Imation sells off the family jewels: Memorex brand goes for $9.4m."
Although I've tried several times, I am pretty sure that I have never successfully burned a DVD using Memorex media. So in my estimation, whoever bought the Memorex brand for $9.4m overpaid by, in round numbers, $9.4m.
As I commented elsewhere, their TDK license (for consumer media) was already ended late last year, so it won't be included in that $9.4m.
Can't see TDK themselves returning to that market, but given that it would have cost them $7.5m in shares to get use of their name back (at the current price of $1.13 per share for 6.5 million shares) I'd assume it might get re-licensed..?
Imation was created when 3M decided they wanted nothing more to do with floppy discs and tape, but wouldn't like seeing residual money from a spinoff. history will show that 3M cleared the warehouse just in the nick of time.
nobody has bothered to paint over the sign on the side of I-694 yet. actually, a bulldozer would be more like it, and could be finished and back on the hauler in an hour. just the kind of thing investment weasels would be pleased to do.
"nobody has bothered to paint over the sign on the side of I-694 yet. actually, a bulldozer would be more like it, and could be finished and back on the hauler in an hour. just the kind of thing investment weasels would be pleased to do."
The Clinton Group is unaware of the sign as that information is on a floppy with CRC errors. Besides, it's colder than a titch's wit this week, why make some poor bulldozer driver suffer?
The sale of the Memorex brand and claims they want to get rid of "legacy" businesses seems to explain their decision to give up the TDK brand license in exchange for some concessions last autumn. (They'd acquired the right to use it on consumer media when they bought out TDK's recordable media business in 2007.)
Removable media in general seems to be in serious decline in the consumer market. In particular, blank BD-R recording has been around for quite a while now, is pretty cheap (under 30p a disc) yet doesn't seem to have come close to where DVD-R was at this stage, and the latter seems to have passed its peak.
I suspected it was a combination of Imation's focus moving away from that declining market- where TDK's name held the most cachet (and even that was more in the magnetic tape days)- and possibly TDK's desire to get full control of their name back if Imation were willing to return it on favourable terms.
That said, while being able to use their name in the consumer market without hindrance (#) might be marginally useful, TDK themselves seem to be more focused on business-to-business components these days and I can't see them returning to the consumer media business (except possibly by re-licensing the brand). Big name in their day, but things have moved on and if there were good reasons they got out of that market in the first place, they probably apply even more now.
(#) I'm assuming there were terms that restricted TDK themselves using their own name in areas that would compete with Imation's licensed use of the name.
I have become increasingly annoyed over the years as more and more big brands sell their names for use by others, thereby deceiving consumers purchasing goods on the strength of name alone, or even worse, brands like Kodak still on the market when the original company producing photo related gear is toes up. Tell me, is there a list somewhere that I can consult before I buy, which will warn me about these false brands?
Note: Twenty-five years ago I bought a Ray Jeff depth sounder thinking I was buying Raytheon quality, but upon opening the package I discovered an enclosed note warning me not to contact Raytheon for any matter because there was no connection between the two companies. It was only in my mind, which is apparently exactly what they wanted me to think.
You're right that it's pretty misleading for companies to license their name to third party companies. While rebadging third-party products was never uncommon for products outside a company's field of expertise, it takes that a step further to not even have the original company behind that process (nor accept responsibility for it). That's not new- as you point out- but it does seem to be much worse these days.
FWIW, Kodak *is* still the original company, albeit somewhat pared down since it was forced to sell of parts of itself before and during bankruptcy (which they came out of). That said, depending on how far they're forced to go, they could end up as little more than a brand licensing operation anyway, regardless of their legal status.
Polaroid, OTOH, did completely go under, and the "new" Polaroid is a different company. Well, actually, the "new" Polaroid itself went belly-up, so we're on Polaroid #3 now, and a lot of the "Polaroid" products you see out there are just generic tat with third party distributors licensing the name from the "Polaroid" company which isn't the original Polaroid anyway.
TDK licensed their name to Imation (until very recently) when the latter bought out their recording business; I don't know how long they continued using TDK's old plants, but I'm pretty sure the random consumer tat the name was slapped on latterly had sod all to do with them.
I actually bought one of the Polaroid android tablets. It was very cheap (on sale run out model) cheaper than a "Pendo pad".
It is quite solidly built and as a testament to its build quality... I accidentally dropped it in a bucket of water (Tablet balanced on top of some other stuff and I tripped and of course the only thing around that could pose a risk was a bucket of water. Murphys law...) I picked the tablet out of the bucket and saw that it had shutdown :(. I thought it was a write off as there was water spilling out of the SDcard slot, Micro USB socket and power socket and there were visible areas of water trapped inside behind the front glass. I left it about a week looking at it each day and noticing that the "wet" patches inside the LCD screen were shrinking. When the patches were no longer visible I fired it up and it started. A couple of areas were a bit "sticky" but after another week or so it was working perfectly.
Licensing the brand can work if the correct controls are maintained. Although I would never have thought I would have a Polaroid android tablet because I associate Polaroid with instant film cameras.
The problem is, good tablet or not, that was probably more by luck than design.
Remember that the actual seller is likely just some random third-party distributor (and little more) that licensed the name. Chances are they slapped it on a generic tablet design from China and it's quite possible- if not probable- that the next "Polaroid" tablet model from them could be based upon an entirely different device from an entirely unrelated OEM manufacturer to the one that made your tablet.
In fact, it's quite possible that the "Polaroid" tablet-branding license can- and will- expire at some point and in future be held by a completely different company with entirely different sourcing arrangements.
In other words, the name is essentially meaningless. Especially as such low-rent, short-term distribution deals will encourage no sort of concern about protecting the brand. A few years back, there were loads of Polaroid-branded LCD televisions getting consistently lousy reviews on epinions and the like.
Currently, ASDA have the rights to the Polaroid brand in the UK for audiovisual equipment. Don't know how long *that* deal will last, but it puts it on the level of Technika and Matsui.
"Currently, ASDA have the rights to the Polaroid brand in the UK for audiovisual equipment. Don't know how long *that* deal will last, but it puts it on the level of Technika and Matsui."
I bought a quite cheap Polaroid branded Bluetooth external speaker from ASDA, as I was interested on something portable that I could use as a hands-free kit. I'd seen Jawbone products, but they were more expensive than I wanted to pay.
I didn't know Polaroid was a licensed brand so I guess I was a little "hoodwinked" into thinking it was a quality brand...hence why they want to sell the Memorex brand - as some people will recognise the brand name and make a purchase as a result. Having said that, the item I got works as well as I need so, no problems there.
And let's be honest - it's a lot cheaper (in marketing terms) to buy an "off the shelf" brand name, than to come up with a NEW name and get it "recognised" around the world.
so many honored companies have just licensed their name, and while there may be winces as the occasional bomblet hits the market and blows a hole, they really don't freaking give a damn. as long as the quarterly checks don't bounce, hey, WonHungLo LLC PTY M-O-U-S-E whatever, let's go for an offsite.
The Connected Data team is now running Imation. All Nexsan execs were let go, including the VP of Marketing, Sales, Engineering, and Support, and replaced by Connected Data people who don't understand the Nexsan products. Out of a 40+ marketing team from Nexsan, 2 are left. Yes, Imation is just a shell...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
