Kodak’s failure analysis

TAG» /  News/ 2012-01-12

Australian site TheConversation Thursday published a signed for David Gelang Si (David Glance) of

the article said, Kodak ready for bankruptcy protection, the real reason for its decline is not

innovation failure, failures of transition, the rise of mobile phone cameras, etc. factors, but did not

understand the purpose of taking pictures of people: the purpose of taking pictures of people now

have the memories from a simple change of use of communication media, social network sharing.

has a 131-year history of the “yellow giant” Kodak to prepare for bankruptcy protection. For a long

time, they always wanted to seize any kind of viable business as a straw in order to maintain company

operations. some commentators have attributed the Kodak brand’s recent demise of the following

reasons:

– innovation failure.

– from analog cameras to digital cameras, the transformation fails.

– can not compete with the gradual rise of the mobile phone camera.

In fact, the above analysis is not the real reason for the decline of Kodak. Kodak’s failure is that

consumers do not understand the use of photographs and pictures were taken after completion of

treatment.

in the analysis of the purpose of consumer photographs and Kodak committed a big mistake, we look

at other media Kodak given the failure of two reasons: the cell phone camera has been replaced by

independent functional camera, and Kodak innovation failure.

special camera is dead

U.S. technology blog ReadWriteWeb technology columnist John Paul Rorty Mierlo (John Paul

Titlow) said, Kodak due to the failure of the dominant mobile phone camera. Dier Luo use the chart as

a basis. He photo-sharing site Flickr, for example, shows the Apple iPhone camera for several

advantages of digital and SLR cameras.

Apple iPhone 4 has become the most popular shot on Flickr tool

However, this chart does not it all, I downloaded the Flickr data, and in the past year, several popular

cameras and mobile phones by uploading to Flickr photos were analyzed. The results show that all the

photos on Flickr, the use of cell phone camera pictures occupy only about 3%. Actual figures may be

slightly higher, because Flickr does not fully confirm the cell phone camera photographs, but the

proportion is still very small.

mobile phones to take pictures only a small fraction of the total Flickr photo

Another point worth noting , the Kodak camera photo taken with the Flickr photo account for only 6%

of the total, Canon and Nikon in the field occupy the dominant position.

Kodak camera photographs the small number can not be compared with the Canon and Nikon

must be admitted 是, Flickr photos in the number of only 5% of Facebook, we can use Facebook data

re-analysis again, but believe the result would have significant access.

innovation failed

Many people say that Kodak defeated the digital age, but this former giant in 1975 built the world’s

first digital camera

Kodak appears financial problems because innovation is not necessarily a failure, or taken from print

to digital transformation failed. In fact, the rise of digital cameras, Kodak involved in each process.

– Kodak electrical engineer 史蒂夫萨森 (Steve Sasson) in 1975 actually “invented” a digital camera.

– Kodak and Nikon collaboration launched in 1991, professional-grade digital camera, the number

reached 1.3 million pixels (You can use the less than $ 100 to buy a 12 million-pixel camera).

– 1995, Kodak released the first fool-type (point-and-shoot) camera.

Kodak’s main asset is a patent portfolio, which is the Kodak executives have been hoping for sale.

Kodak has also been sued Apple, RIM, that the latter violated its phone photos preview patents.

photo shooting changes

then, Kodak is the real reason for the decline? The answer is: Kodak mistake that people in after the

picture will continue to print it out, but this kind of thing more and more impossible. Agency

dedicated to photo printing from automatic terminals, Kodak insisted in this field too long, this should

be early to give up. Kodak has recently focused on business strategy and printer ink, but the digital

camera market share of only 2.6% of the poor.

era of film cameras, the main purpose of taking pictures of people left memories. Photos usually

reserved for a long time, until the destruction of the shoebox. However, anthropologists, sociologists

and psychologists recent survey, personal memories of photography has grown from a simple

communication tool to convert into stress and individual identity of the carrier.

researchers found that the most obvious changes is that teenagers and young adults. This shift has been

just the potential of technology and social networking platforms, “without hindrance” (Frictionless)

photo video sharing support. “Unobstructed” means that simplify from a photo-sharing social network

through the process.

but in technical terms, a real change in photography taken from the phone to a certain guarantee of

quality. Now many mobile phones equipped with cameras at least 500 million pixels, the people

decided to use the cell phone camera shot or a dedicated fool camera, the 5-megapixel resolution has

become a key factor in making decisions.

But from our Flickr data, the trend of using mobile phones to take pictures is still growing, but other

digital cameras are still popular.

unimpeded photo sharing

unimpeded photo sharing is the real catalyst for Facebook, Twitter and other social networking and

Posterous, Tumblr and other light instant photo blog transfer function. Especially the iPhone, which

promotes Instagram, Hipstamatic and other popular professional photo-sharing applications popular.

From this perspective, photo sharing more for communication, rather than personal memories. Also

added some photos next to the general notes for friends, “like” (like) look and comment. Another

important change in personal photographic memory tools that convert to a communication from the

media, and now these photos have become a “temporary” photos, photos taken of the absolute limit on

the number and upload a photo of the “save time.”

course, this mode also because Facebook timeline (timeline) and other functional changes, the time-

line functions for photo memories of purpose, hope more easily see the earlier pictures. It should be

noted that, in 2011, Facebook’s photo upload for a total of about 70 billion, some people still expect

the figure closer to 100 billion. From this perspective, Facebook is the world’s largest photo-sharing

site.

difficult to predict the future of photography in the development of Kodak’s role, even for corporate

restructuring, they still need to Nikon, Canon and other technologies in hardware and more powerful

firms. Today, photography is the true value of software, and sharing, distribution platforms, Kodak

needed a miracle, becoming a major player in this field. But all the possibilities in the analysis found

that Kodak may have lost an opportunity to reverse.

10 Reasons Why Kodak, Blackberry, Yahoo & Other Major Brands

FailPOSTED BY SCOTT WILLIAMS

19 Comments

JANUARY 5, 2012

Google | Organizational Growth | Strategy | Success

The announcement of Kodak going bankrupt was a shocker.  Not a shocker because you couldn’t see it coming, but a shocker because yet another once iconic, innovative brand is on life support.  This has been a work in progress for quite some time, as there were front-page newspaper articles in the late 1990′s showing that Kodak had to lay off 10,000 employees. (Writing on the wall)

There are definite reasons why these companies are dying and those same reasons contributed to the failure of other predeceased brands.  American Airlines – Bankrupt, Yahoo – Up for Sale, RIM Blackberry - Stick A Fork In Em’ and Sears is closing stores around the country.  The list of these major brands that will soon be a part of the history books continues to increase.

How can these brands find themselves in the grips of extinction?  The same way that you, your organization, church, non-profit or name your favorite brand can end up in the same place.  You should see a developing theme as most are in the same vein.

10 Reasons Why Kodak, Blackberry, Yahoo & Other Major Brands Failo 1. Inability to Innovate - Unable to produce new, noteworthy and fruit producing ideas.o 2. Inability to Stay Ahead of The Times - Only look at the here and now, no forward thinking.o 3. No Adjustments - Not adjusting to the market place or technology of competitors.o 4. Uncle Rico Syndrome - Just like Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite was living off of his 1983

successes, many brands are living off of yesterday’s wins.o 5. The Top Stays The Same - Unwillingness to change the key leadership players (especially in upper

management).o 7. Inbred Syndrome - Only hire from within and unwilling to bring outside folks with fresh eyes and

fresh perspectives into the fold.o 8. Reluctance to Take Risks - Playing it safe for a prolonged a period of time can be detrimental.

Most brand success stories have many instances of taking risks.o 9. Refuse to Surround Themselves With and Retain The Best - Letting key players leave without

creating opportunities for them to stay.  Some of the best innovations from high profile brands come from key players that were acquired from another brand.

o 10. Unwillingness To Change - They simply want things to be the way that they used to be.

Killing the Kodak moment … is the iPhone really to blame?

Monday, 9 January 2012

According to the Wall Street Journal, camera manufacturer Kodak is preparing to file forChapter 11 bankruptcy, following a long struggle to maintain any sort of viable business.The announcement has prompted some commentators to claim that Kodak's near-demise has been brought on by:

a failure to innovate, or

a failure to anticipate the shift from analogue to digital cameras, or

a failure to compete with the rise of cameras in mobile phones.

Actually, none of these claims are true. Where Kodak did fail is in not understanding what people take photographs for, and what they do with photos once they have taken them.

Before looking at what people actually take photos for, and how Kodak got it wrong, let's look at the two reasons others have given for Kodak's failure: that the camera in phones has replaced the stand-alone camera, and that Kodak failed to innovate.

‘The dedicated camera is dead'

In an article for ReadWriteWeb tech columnist John Paul Titlow claims Kodak is failing because of the dominance of camera phones.In the article, Titlow uses a graph from photo sharing site Flickr, showing the growth in popularity of the iPhone camera over severaldigital single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras.Unfortunately this graph doesn't tell the whole story.

I downloaded Flickr data and analysed the number of items uploaded to Flickr over the past year for several popular camera and phone manufacturers.The charts below show that images taken with camera phones only represent approximately 3% of the total. The actual number may be a little higher because Flickr can't always identify the type of camera that has taken the image, but it's still a very small percentage of the overall whole.

The other thing to note is that Kodak cameras are only responsible for 6% of images overall and that Canon and Nikon are by far the most dominant players in this market.

(Admittedly, the number of images on Flickr is about 5% of that on Facebook. It would be interesting to repeat this analysis using Facebook data, but there is no reason to believe the results would be substantially different.)‘Kodak failed to innovate'Kodak's financial problems aren't necessarily due to a failure to innovate, or a failure to recognise the shift from print to digital photography. In fact, Kodak has been involved in the rise of digital cameras at virtually every step:

Kodak electrical engineer, Steve Sasson, actually "invented" the digital camera in 1975. Kodak partnered with Nikon in 1991 to produce a professional-grade digital camera with a

whopping 1.3 Megapixels (you can buy 12 Megapixel cameras for under $100 now). In 1995, Kodak released their first "point-and-shoot" camera.

One of Kodak's chief assets is its collection of patents, which company executives have been trying to sell. Kodak has also been pursuing other companies - including phone manufacturers Apple and Research in Motion - for infringing their patents on the ability to preview photos on their phones.Why people take photographs and what they do with themWhere Kodak got it wrong was its perception that people were still taking photographs which they would then print.

But this is increasingly no longer the case.

From dedicated photo print shops to automated kiosks, Kodak persisted with this notion for longer than it should have. A large part of the company's more recent business strategy has focused on printers and ink. But here, as with their digital cameras, Kodak only holds a small market share - roughly 2.6%.In the days of film cameras, personal photography was principally about holding on to personal memories, with photos usually ending up in a shoebox.

But recent research by anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists suggests personal photography has moved from being mostly a tool for remembering, to one of emphasising communication and our individual identities.As with most change, researchers have noted this switch most prominently in teenagers and young adults.

This shift has been supported by the changes in underlying technology and the advent of "frictionless" sharing of photos and video via social network platforms. In the context of photography, "frictionless sharing" means minimising the number of steps between taking a photo and sharing it via a social network platform.

But in terms of technology, the real shift came when camera phones (in particular) reached a certain quality.

Many of the cameras found on today's phones are at least five Megapixels. For people making a decision between using their phone and bringing along a dedicated point-and-click camera, this five Megapixel resolution probably represents the tipping point in favour of the phone.

But as we have seen with the data from Flickr, the move to the camera phone is still gathering momentum and other digital cameras are still popular.

Frictionless photo sharingThe real accelerator for frictionless sharing of photos has been the ability to instantly upload photographs to social networking platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and to blog software such as Posterous and Tumblr. The iPhone, in particular, has popularised specialised photo sharing apps such as Instagram and Hipstamatic.Sharing a photo in this way is more about communication and less about remembering. The photo usually has some commentary ("Miserable in New York today.") and is "liked" and commented on by friends and others with whom it is shared.Another important part of photography's shift from memory tool to communication medium is that the photos are purposely temporary. The sheer volume of photographs taken and uploaded by individuals limits the shelf-life of these photos.

Of course this may change with features such as Facebook's timeline, which attempts to make it much easier to access photos for the purpose of remembering.(It's worth noting that in 2011, approximately 70 billion photographs were uploaded to Facebook, with some estimates putting that figure closer to 100 billion photographs. Either way, Facebook is the largest photo sharing site by a considerable margin.)It is hard to see a role for Kodak in all of this. Even with a company restructure, they would still be competing with companies such as Nikon and Canon; companies which are much stronger in the hardware and technology markets.

The real value in photography today is the software and platforms used for sharing and distribution. Kodak would need to pull off a miracle to become a major player in this space.

In all likelihood, Kodak's moment might have passed.

Subject: Re: Kodak's failure to quickly spot the move to digital photography.   

Kodak actually came very far behind in the pack when it comes to market share in the digital camera market. At the start of 2001 Kodak was number 4 in the digital camera market behind Sony, Olympus and HP. However towards the end of that year, Kodak made significant gains and held the No. 2 spot.

Overall market share leaders for the year were Sony at 23 percent, Olympus at 16 percent and Hewlett-Packard at 15 percent.Eastman Kodak, which held the No. 4 spot for 2001, made a big jump at the end of the year. In the fourth quarter, Kodak climbed to second place with 17 percent market share. U.S. digital camera sales shoot up.

But was Kodak really late in entering the digital camera market?

NO! Kodak has been investing in digital technology for decades. In the late '80s Kodak developed the first prototype digital camera, a professional model called the Dl that debuted in 1990. That same year the company introduced the first digital storage device forphotographs, the PhotoCD, which found a niche with pros but flopped as a mass-market product.

George Fisher arrived as CEO in 1993 and poured money into R&D, which led to a stream of ever-more sophisticated digital cameras, and brought in fresh management from outside the company. But Fisher's investments took too long to pay off. Eased out at the end of 1999, a year before his contract expired, Fisher was replaced as CEO by Kodak lifer Daniel Carp.

By 2000, Kodak was the No. 2 seller of digital cameras, behind Sony. But Kodak loses around $60 on every digital camera it sells, hoping to eventually make the money from online services, printers or other products.

Can Kodak Find Its Focus?(Company Business and Marketing)http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0HWW/27_4/76964766/p2/article.jhtml?term=

Kodak COO Antonio Perez had had this to say about the problem. Kodak did two things: one that was very good, and one that wasnt so good. The one that was good was the investment in digital technology. It was very intense all along the way. Luckily

What they didnt do well, is they didnt commercialize it. Why not? Probably because they were doing so well with analog. The thinking was its not the time.

Kodak: Better Late than Neverhttp://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=2589_0_4_0_C

In one article I found, the writer provides some great insights on why Kodak failed to profit very early on with this technology.

Targeting markets, not customers: The press release announcing Kodak's new strategy uses the word market or markets 15 times, but only uses the word customer twice--and one of those is as a risk factor. Sure, the target audience is investors, but the words echoKodak's recent obsession with sheer numbers. The result has been confusion to Kodak's customers, who see digital products come and go with little apparent long term commitment from Kodak to their needs.

Spending, not learning: Kodak has been one of the first entrants and an early leader in almost every important category of digital imaging product or innovation. But a rush to judge their own efforts and a corporate culture not used to change caused many of those efforts to die out before they had time to truly catch on. Rather than fixing their culture, Kodak often went out and acquired new technologies and products which then failed or under-achieved the same way.

Fighting with Film: Kodak, like every company with a large 'cash-cow' business being replaced by new technology, has struggled with how to position digital products and not cannibalize their existing products.

Wither or Whither Kodak??http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-13.htm

So what is Kodaks position now in relation with its competitors? If you are a Kodak fan then you would be glad to know that at the end of 2003, the company is now the market leader for digital cameras. Sony took 2nd place while Canon was 3rd.

Kodak-branded digital cameras were 19.4 percent of total units sold in the fourth quarter, which includes the pivotal holiday shopping season, up from 12.8 percent in the third quarter, and 14.1 percent a year ago, according to market research firm NPD Group.?

Sony's fourth-quarter percentage share dropped to 13.2 from 15.7 in the third quarter and Canon's dipped to 12.8 from 14.8, NPD said. In the fourth quarter of 2002, Sony led with a 16.1 percent share.?

Kodak ended 2003 with digital camera sales boost?http://in.tech.yahoo.com/040213/137/2bguv.html

Will this trend continue for Kodak? Will they be now reaping the fruits of their 2 decade long labor in digital technology research? Only time will tell?

Search terms used:Kodak late entry digital market. Kodak "digital camera" "market share"

I hope these links would help you in your research. Before rating thisanswer, please ask for a clarification if you have a question or ifyou would need further information.

Kodak's Long, Slow Slide

Was it a failure of imagination? Was it entrenched convictions and provincial thinking?

Was it one restructuring too far?

For Kodak—perhaps the iconic American brand of the 20th century—it was all those

things.

In an age when global competition has radically altered business overnight, when

companies have had to be fleet of foot, Eastman Kodak was the unblinking deer in the

headlights. Wednesday, the extent of the roadkill became fully apparent, with the news

that Kodak is readying its papers for Chapter 11.

This company failed long ago. Kodak, based in Rochester, N.Y., claims to have

invented digital photography but ceded that market to competitors such

as Nikon, Sony andCanon. It hung onto its identity, film, and watched it fade before its

eyes.

Then there were the restructurings, one after another, a thrashing-about that found

Kodak selling unrelated products and finally pitching headlong into the savagely

competitive printer business. It got savaged.

When a company starts to sell its intellectual property, hacking off an arm here and a

leg there, you know the end is near. That's what Kodak has been doing by trying to

offload its patents. It failed to sufficiently monetize its most important asset—its

inventions.

Other companies saw change coming and got out ahead of it, often changing

significantly. International Business Machines bolted personal computing, Milliken much

of traditional textile production. In the so-called creative destruction of capitalism, IBM

and Milliken lived up to the creative part. Kodak met with destruction.

This is also a legacy story—the legacy of pensions too costly to sustain. Kodak was

crushed in part by the expense of its obligations to its retirees, who could now become

victims of the company's travails.

In this regard, Kodak is emblematic of trends in the postwar era, when the U.S.

industrial base was essentially the only one left standing—a global monopoly for a time.

For decades, companies such as Kodak and General Motors bought labor peace by

committing to ever-more generous benefits, certain that revenue would continue to grow

and failing to address the re-emergence of hungry competitors abroad.

The decision to pitch expensive obligations into an uncertain future proved crippling. In

the cartoon Popeye, the character Wimpy often makes this promise: "I will gladly pay

you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

It's Tuesday in Rochester—and in many other locales of American industry.

Innovation Lessons from Kodak’s Failures

January 18, 2012Larry Keeley

More on InnovationRead a special report, “What Global Winners Teach Us About Innovation,” by Monitor innovation experts working with India’sBusiness Today magazine.Also see: “How Hot is Your Next Innovation?” a recent article by Monitor’s Geoff Tuff published inHarvard Business Review.

Kodak missed the moment when it had to switch strategies from film-based photography to

digital. That’s the convenient analysis, Larry Keeley writes in this article

for Fortune magazine’s website. But the real story is more nuanced, and shows corporate

leaders “how easy it can be to get things wrong, even when trying with the best of intentions

to do everything right. It’s a cautionary tale of the need for deeper understanding of what

innovation really means, and how it is infinitely more vital than most people think it is, even

as it isn’t about any single product.”

Keeley, an innovation expert and partner at Monitor, explains how Kodak’s famous failure

can be a useful lesson for executives looking to innovate now. He writes that a new form of

strategic thinking, convergences, “gives leaders a deeper sense of the interdependencies

that connect firms, products, systems and services in new ecosystems” and reveals

emerging opportunities, typically at the junction of new technologies and customer behaviors.