Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Will Red ever go public?

Matt Hall

Matt Hall

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I've been wondering for a while if Red Digital Cinema will ever go public. Obviously, there are a number of advantages in being a private company, but if they ever need to raise a ton of capital for R&D for example, it could be the way to go.

Maybe it'll never happen. Arri's been privately owned for nearly a century.
 
There are a lot of really good reasons to stay private.

There are a lot of really good reasons to go public... with some nasty side effects.

Who knows what the future will bring?

Jim
 
I'm with you, George. That's one thing that I absolutely love about Red. Jannard cares. No way a board of directors are going to respond to individual customers.
 
And you thought the whining was bad when they announced the last price decreases...
 
Frankly speaking, if RED goes public, then there will be more questions from shareholders. For eg. the kind of questions that RED faced for decreasing the price of EPIC, will have to be faced. I don't think RED fears that. There are people in the forum who are dismissive of the concerns of people. It is important to engage in discussions and give a patient hearing. There will be difference of opinion. It is upto the management to deal with it. That will define how good a company is. The good thing is that RED has a forum so people discuss here. Else, they would have started facebook and other social media groups and campaigned.

I were Jim then I would definitely make it public so that it positively impacts shareholders. He is doing all the right things by talking about "Made in America", job creation etc. May be contest for President of USA. :) Well I don't understand politics in USA, so please don't flame me.

At some point of time, the company will need to put in much more resources and make things successful. For eg. the 3k for 3k had fired up the imagination of many people. I may be wrong, however, I feel if enough resources were devoted for that, then it could have been a reality. What ever fan following BMC got, that was originally attached to RED. You need much more resources than a couple of mad scientists and a charismatic albeit visionary CEO.

I feel RED has to take another giant leap to really achieve its dreams (or whatever I interpret as the vision of Jim). There are many many case studies of pioneers not becoming market leaders. In the early phase of business, a small close knit team is the answer. Later on the needs grow. I am sure Jim will evaluate the options and as usual lead from the front.
 
Red is likely the most successful camera company startup of the last 20 years if not the history of the industry. Unless they changed their philosophy in a major way to go after the mass consumer market, I don't see much benefit to going public.
Red seems organized more like a mutual insurance company where the "stockholders" are the camera owners and the benefits of lower costs and product improvements are constantly passed back to current and future customers rather than lining the pockets of investors with no real interest in anything but short term profits.

The public stock market has become less about real capital investment in long term stable successful company building than speculative market manipulation to extract short term cash.
 
I think private is best for a company like RED. Decision by committee often results in poorly focused results. On the other hand a boatload of capital can open a lot of doors and skip some intermediary steps. Luckily with Jim you have both. ;)
 
David Rasberry said:
Red is likely the most successful camera company startup of the last 20 years if not the history of the industry. .
Click to expand...

possibly, although GoPro is on fire.

It's interesting to hear that you are contemplating the possibility, Jim. Five years or so ago, when this question cropped up, it was an emphatic no.

Everything is subject to change. I imagine it is tough to resist the offers you must be getting.
 
Two things my grandfather could not abide were banks and share traders. He ranked them with footpads and street thieves as an unproductive incubus, harvesting upon those who worked hard for a living. Ticks and fleas were another part of his vocabulary on this topic. Float on the stock exchange and immediately you have to devise all manner of tricks and strategy not to become eaten. That in itself costs heavily and diverts energy from the primary task.

It is probably the only way however. The man himself and any other principal investors eventually may want to get out so they can move into a nursing home, have one built around them on their own terms or want to embark on one last great adventure, maybe spaceflight or a new metropolis in Antarctica, banking on climate change and new lifestylers to grow the market.
 
Going public can be a bit tricky and risky.
What would hapend to the Red users if a concurent invest in Red shares just to kill it on the short term?
We saw that before in the history of industry.
Just my 1 cent.
B.
 
What for?

What for?

If RED went public, it would be to get more resources and let the business grow even faster, is this right?. Please correct me if I am wrong. My questions is why fix what is not broken?
I think that if RED went public, RED, would lose control of everything that makes it unique.
Jannard's legacy is that he innovates and releases the best technology available at all risks necessary. His drive is not money. He has money. His drive is personal satisfaction. He is a maverick and his bravery certainly benefits us all in the industry. Public companies dont do what Jannard does.
Public companies cut risk to increase profit. This slows down development of new technology and it cripples its release. That is not good for our industry. That is ultimately the big difference between RED and Sony.
I do not even own a RED, at least, not yet, so maybe my say means absolutely nothing here. But I deeply hope RED stays RED so innovation can always be a priority and an option for us people who love to see technology be released and not decreased.
Choosing personal satisfaction over profit is something worthy of learning in this life and the next. Jannard not only seems to be capable of that, he masters it by kicking ass and making lots of money while doing it. Mr. Jannard, please continue. Stop never.
 
From a business standpoint, there's no reason for RED to go public unless Jim just doesn't want to do it anymore at that point. If RED did go public, I can see it ending up as a hostile takeover situation where their competitors have a go at the RED pie. The best thing about RED is that they are not constrained by directions. They can go wherever the science and ideas take them. Sony and Panasonic simply cannot do that without taking a huge shit on their product lines and customer base because every product they have is built on what came before with the idea of incremental improvements over radical change and ground-breaking designs.
 
Hah. I think I've told this before.

Back in 2006-2007 timeframe, I first became aware of RED. I had no use for a cinema camera at the time, so I didn't put down a deposit - although I was tempted, on general principles!

However, my wife is a Wall St. fund manager; what I DID do is, once I found out what you were doing and who was involved, is tell my wife to buy the *company* - bonds, stock, whatever was available.

Of course, she rapidly found it was privately held.

Whatever way you decide to take things, good luck; we're just along for the ride.

Mike
 
Good quote Mike.

'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother.
Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame.
For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'
 
NO I hope not!

I love that Jim has a vision and ideas and he can just execute! Once you add a board and stockholders there are way too many voices to not take risks and to just maximize profits.... I realize a few companies can avoid this like Apple, but their products are expensive and they are an exception not the norm.

I believe we have a great visionary at the helm at Red and would not want him tied down or hindered in any way.

My 2 cent,
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top