Both firms realised that digital photography itself would not be very profitable. “Wise businesspeople concluded that it was best not to hurry to switch from making 70 cents on the dollar on film to maybe five cents at most in digital,” says Mr Matteson. But both firms had to adapt; Kodak was slower.
Its culture did not help. Despite its strengths””hefty investment in research, a rigorous approach to manufacturing and good relations with its local community””Kodak had become a complacent monopolist. Fujifilm exposed this weakness by bagging the sponsorship of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles while Kodak dithered. The publicity helped Fujifilm’s far cheaper film invade Kodak’s home market….
This is a good analysis. Kodak had (and still has) a lot of intellectual assets, as well as an incredible workforce, but has squandered them through a lack of imagination and now lack of capital. How well Eastman Kodak is serves as a case study of corporate culture in America from the 1980 through 2000 would be an interesting debate.
On a side note, those of us in this generation who are familiar with the magic and creative application of film photography should mourn the inevitable (and rapidly approaching) loss of this medium for future generations.