Over the past 10 years, the firm's share price growth had lagged the growth in the broad market indexes. From 1986 to 1995, Polaroid's compound annual sale growth rate was 3.6 percent in nominal terms and, after adjusting for inflation, virtually 0. Earnings losses appeared in 1988, 1993, and 1995, and were associated with both declines in operating profit, and restructuring costs (consisting of both severance payments and write-offs.) The sales and earnings results reflected the growing maturity of the instant photography market in the United States, and the absence of major new-product introductions. Consistent with the perceived maturity of their market segment, Polaroid's price/earnings (P/E) ratio of 12.1 fell well below the market's P/E of 15.2 in 1995.
The concerns over profitability and the lack of strong sales growth in camera and film were also echoed in the comments of analysts following the firm. One analyst described Polaroid's challenge:
Instant photography is a razor-blade business. Cameras are sold at low margins to encourage film sales. The company's instant film's sales are its primary margin product. Expanding the "installed base" of camera enhances the opportunities to sell film. The "burn rate" of film on newly purchased camera, as might be expected, is highest and trails off in a reasonably predictable pattern thereafter. This correlation allows the company to make reasonable estimates of film unit sale volume. It also, obviously, means that there is a strong emphasis on selling cameras.
The patents the company held protected it from any significant competition domestically in the field of instant photography. In international markets, Polaroid's only competitor was Fuji, which had a film and instant-camera product it marketed in Europe and Japan. However, even in Japan, Polaroid enjoyed a dominant marketed share. Thus, in the consumer market, Polaroid's sales derived primary from the use of instant photography for identification purposes (e.g., ID badges), and other applications in medicine and law enforcement. Increasingly the expansion of digital imaging threatened to erode the firm's base of users, as customers shifted from instant photography to digital solutions. In recent years, Polaroid's Commercial Group accounted for approximately half of its total sale and one-third of instant-film sales. In the digital area, Polaroid faced stiff competition from many well-capitalized technology companies, such as Xerox, 3M, and Sony. To date, Polaroid's development efforts in digital imaging had entailed heavy start-up costs.
Norwood acknowledged many of the same concerns, but felt that the analyst community had taken a shortsighted view of Polaroid's potential. Echoing its past, the firm continued to be "engaged primarily in one line of business, the design, manufacture, and sale of instant photographic imaging products worldwide," with photographic products accounting for 90 percent of the film's revenues in 1995. Norwood said, "The basic business is low growth; but it's an incredible annuity." Second, sales to international markets had strong growth potential.
In many emerging-market countries, no infrastructure existed to develop 35-mm film. With rising standards of living worldwide, there was a large untapped market for instant photography, and Polaroid's cameras were in high demand. Exhibit 2 illuminates the growth in international revenues. The percentage mix of U.S versus international sales had almost precisely reversed from 1993 to 1995. This reversal reflected steady growth in the international segment of between 3 and 8 percent per year. In contrast, sale in the United States had fallen 2 percent in 1994 and 12 percent in 1995. Sales to Russia alone accounted for 9 percent of total sales in 1995.
Exhibits 3 and 4 give the latest years' income statement and balance sheet for Polaroid.