|
whose engineers invented the digital camera in 1975.” Being passed over by the consumer in favor of Sony, Canon and other Japanese imports, Kodak brought on board former Motorola powerhouse CEO,
George Fisher, who also struggled in keeping Kodak afloat. “... much will be written about the company's blindness to digital cameras and then smart phones ... Kodak knew the future was digital as far back
as the 1970s and, with Mr. Fisher at the top, began hiring managers with deep digital knowledge.” Karlgaard continues in pointiing out “Even in its decline, the company's film business produced outrageous
profit.” which funded Kodak’s bungled foray into the digital industry. Other commentators as recently as this year placed the blame on Kodak’s marketing capabilities. Kodak practically invented the industry
and the movie business by pioneering new film technologies. Kodak never was anything but a maverick at marketing. Forbes’ magazine Avi Dan titled his piece “Kodak Failed by Asking the Wrong Market-
ing Question”. Dan nails part of the problem Kodak may have faced in his statement “instead of marketing the new technology [digital cameras], the company held back for fear of hurting its lucrative film
business ...”
And then Dan goes on explaining his perception of the problem never realizing once his core argument contradicts the chief reason he gave for Kodak’s failure. Dan titled his piece headlining Kodak’s bad
marketing moves not realizing that the decision to hold back on the commercial exploitation of a patent or invention is not part of the marketing team responsibility. The decision to hold back on digital cam-
eras may have been strategic or stipulated by the board for any number of unknown reasons. Any number of fairy tale reasons may have been leaked out by the Kodak public relations team. In Forbes
Magazine Dan cites Kodak’s “blind faith in marketing ability ...” as its achilles heel.
At the Wall Street Journal Karlgaard made references to location, the city of Rochester, and compared it to other venues as playing a vital role in the rebirth of a giant corporations. Karlgaard then goes on to
cite the story of Intel’s rebirth in Silicon Valley as a testimonial to his theory, putting some of the blame on the city of Rochester. People being laid off is easier in Silicon Valley. “People were laid off. That
was, and is, easier to do in Silicon Valley, where the laid-off can more readily find new jobs, than in a small city like Rochester, whose population is now at 210,000 plus.” Karlgaard does not realize the in-
dustrial might and density of the entire West Coast is more like the prairie when compared to the East Coast. Xerox picked up and left Rochester to resettle in Stamford decades ago when relocation was
tougher and those laid off had to manage. Publicly-traded companies rarely think with their hearts and more with the NYSE index and the Standard & Poors Index.
|
