– Why is Kodak floundering while Fujifilm flourishes? The Economist tackles this question and finds while both firms saw change coming, Kodak was slower to adapt and misjudged emerging markets. The magazine also quotes someone who blames Rochester, as a WSJ columnist did:
Another reason why Kodak was slow to change was that its executives “suffered from a mentality of perfect products, rather than the high-tech mindset of make it, launch it, fix it,” says Rosabeth Moss Kanter of Harvard Business School, who has advised the firm. Working in a one-company town did not help, either. Kodak’s bosses in Rochester seldom heard much criticism of the firm, she says. Even when Kodak decided to diversify, it took years to make its first acquisition. It created a widely admired venture-capital arm, but never made big enough bets to create breakthroughs, says Ms Kanter.
I find it hard to believe the culture of Rochester somehow contributed to Kodak’s downfall. This has been a place of tremendous innovation throughout its history, although lately getting those innovations to market isn’t easy. There are so many examples of thriving companies, this logic fails to resonate.
– A 1998 editorial in the D&C warns Kodak to change.
– Kathleen Parker wrote a great column about mean-spirited attacks on Michelle Obama.
– Single-cup coffee makers are concerned about their impact on the environment.