Kodak Moments Now a Thing of the Past: The Rise and Fall of a Great American Company

A/V 59 Views
Kodak Files for Chapter 11

Kristie Bertucci is an L.A.-based writer, who can't live without her MacBook Pro. When she's not writing, she's either reading or shopping (online, of course) and loves lazy days so she can catch up on her DVR-recorded shows and movies. She's definitely a Mac girl, she loves music and is currently on a mission to to have an insane and enviable iTunes library.

3 Comments to Kodak Moments Now a Thing of the Past: The Rise and Fall of a Great American Company

  1. Kokak should have learnt from Reuters! It was another 19th century company that ruled the world. In the last quarter of the 20th century, it innovated and launched information products for the business world — not its core competence. Reuters actually earned a lot of money from it, but its editorial management remained dominated by classical “general news” writers, who disdainfully, often with allegations of a racist bias, crushed the aspirations of non-British talent that provided the bread-and-butter stories for the financial community that brought the bulk of the revenue. Then came Bloomberg. A nimble and agile company that knew exactly what the top-end clients wanted. Reuters reacted to it the way Kodak greeted the digital camera. Bloomberg focused on bankers, who had a huge appetite and paying capacity for analytical tools, while Reuters believed that newspapers were all that mattered, and that financial clients would obviously choose “the world’s oldest and largest information provider”. Bloomberg provided data and tools for analysis, while news for an add-on. If Reuters broke news, B’berg would honestly attribute it. Today, banks still have the money to pay for the product they loved — the Bloomberg terminal. Newspapers, which Reuters cherished, are closing down all over the world. Reuters itself has been acquired by a provider of cheap data — Thomson. But even after the acquisition, Reuters’ is still dominated by high-profile, high-cost gangs of graduate trainees who make sure they get prized postings, often replacing local staffers at five times the cost and one-fifth the productivity. 

  2. Kodak’s failure to become a mainstay in digital photography was not from lack of resources. Starting in 1994, they sold off every asset that wasn’t directly connected to imaging and poured the proceeds from these sales and all of the considerable profits from film into digital imaging. Today, they have exactly squat to show for it. This was all predictable. Kodak never was good at profiting from consumer electronic devices. Cameras were sold near cost to drive film sales. Unlike the film market, there was plenty of competition in the digital camera business. Nobody makes much profit (if any) selling digital cameras. If Kodak had kept Eastman Chemicals and the blood analyzers and the pharmaceuticals and several other smaller businesses and if they had refused to enter the digital camera business, they would be a thriving company today. 

  3. Kodak can turn their situation around in that timeframe.  They have just released products that are cutting edge , but I wish they dove into the SLR market.  I have purchased a few Kodak digital cameras and for the point and shoot, I am satisfied with them as they have a great price point.  The same with their C310 printer.  I set it up in seconds on my network wirelessly and I had one problem with Windows 7 only to find, through their support that it wasn’t the printer, but Windows 7 was hanging on to my old Lexmark drivers.

    Great products, great support.  As long as they can stay the course on their printers and get serious in the cameras, they will be fine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>