Eastman Kodak, Fujifilm
Innovation vs. Tried and True

Introduction

Eastman Kodak and Fujifilm have numerous accomplishments to brag; they have both amassed large success in the photographic commerce. While Eastman Kodak had the upper hand in the industry for nearly 100 years, Fujifilm has managed to flourish while Kodak filed bankruptcy in 2012. Fujifilm appears to have strategically implemented an equation that will thrive as long as they continue to invest in innovation, and navigate market changes.
History
Eastman Kodak and Fujifilm have been competitors since Fujifilm’s inception in 1934. Eastman Kodak had more than half a century worth of discovery and expertise over the incoming Fujifilm. However, when Fujifilm opened operations January 1934 within a month’s time they were producing all the same products as Eastman Kodak: roll film, photographic print paper, dry plates, and x-ray movie. It took George Eastman, inventor and proprietor of Eastman Kodak 25 years to invent color film (Eastman Kodak, unknown); in detail, George Eastman was renowned for very cautious designing temped with endurance, he did not hurry discovery and breakthroughs he was able to take his time because the industry was somewhat new and there was no real competition. As Kodak was ascending the ladder of success, George Eastman and his group of inventors had conceived many first. Including, the first dry plate formula along with the first patented appliance for organizing large amount of plates, roll film, compact cameras, flexible film. George even assisted Thomas Edison with the creation of the talking image; his business invented the first digital camera, so how did Fujifilm mass produce all that Kodak had to offer within their first month of operations?
Fujifilm film was Japans answer to Kodak and Jackson, (2011) summed it up best when he asserted, “The US is the home of IT and Japan has been for decades the home of consumer electronics, digital cameras now included” (Jackson, 2011). Fujifilm did a careful SWOT research; they knew their authority was in production, their shortcoming was IT, the break came with what George Eastman so masterfully laid out, and there was very little risk because Kodak did not have a presence in Japan and the government had the power to hold it that way.
Management and Adaptation to Change How did things go so erroneous for Eastman Kodak? Gordon (2012), made an very good evaluation when he noted the pitfalls businesses make that can lead to spoil in his article; The drop of Kodak: 5 courses for small business, complacency, mislaying aim, ignoring competitors, being short sighted, and not changing with the market. Inescapably, Eastman Kodak fallen in each of these pitfalls. The old adage, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” did not apply here, Kodak had a blame to the companies operation to extend innovating. They lost focus investing in newspaper editing software and cleansing products. Administration got comfortable with their achievement, so comfortable they disregarded competitors like Fujifilm, which were certainly reinventing themselves. In the 1970’s, when Fujifilm rolled a comparable product at a cheaper rate, Kodak naively thought that they did not have to compete because the clientele would trust to Kodak, foolish! Short sightedness was furthermore an area where administration arrogantly missed the mark. In the 70’s Kodak inventor, Steve Sasson created the first digital camera but neglected to invest in the evolving the technology. Instead, Kodak decided to invest in 35 mm film, Fuji was investing millions on digital photos, and it paid off. It was this conceited and 2654complacency that stopped Kodak from altering with the market different Fuji who decided to compress every fall of earnings out of the film industry, but invest in the future; Kodak sensed they had the flawless merchandise and refused to change with the time, so there is no wonder Kodak fell into the pit. (Gordon, 2012) (The Economist, 2012).
When Film was monarch both businesses had nearly monopolistic firm in their dwelling markets, and Kodak did all it could to avert the Japanese firm’s lower product from making its way to their shores. Fuji was adept to get in when they humiliated Kodak and won the sponsorship of the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. The advocating that came with the Olympics provided Fuji and their lower merchandise the impetus they needed to enter the American market. Both businesses were aware of the imminent condemn for the film industry and Fuji trashed no time organizing for the switch to digital, they ditched film and reinvented their product lines. While Kodak was trying their hand unsuccessfully at pharmaceuticals; Fuji created a skin care like with their anti-oxidant wealthy chemicals, they furthermore further evolved their expertise in film and now have 100% of the market portions in the film to expand LCD examining. While this was happening on Fuji’s side; Kodak’s supervisor George Fisher 1993-1999 decided to put his efforts in digital cameras that could upload directly to the internet, this was a good concept bit short dwelled because of the camera telephone attack. Had George been a little more innovative he could have really been on to certain thing; Kodak never pushed the wrapper sufficient. Fujifilm’s Chief boss agent, Mr. Komori did not operate the usual Japanese change resistant firm, he was preemptive and made hard choices to forward the business and avert total loss, a move that would have been expected of the American Kodak. Mr. Komori state, “he feels, ‘regret and emotion’ about his ‘respected competitor’… the firm was so confident about its trading and brand that it tried to take the easy way out” (The Economist, 2012). Rather than of Kodak endeavoring to evolve technology in dwelling they endeavored buying readymade firms; these maneuvers were contrary to George Eastman’s way of doing business. Kodak was founded on principles of innovation; it appears Fuji engaged more of George Eastman methods than Kodak.

Ethic and Social Responsibility Social responsibility is subjective, by some standards, companies are not obligated to society, but more and more companies are making it common practice to meet social issues. Today, both Eastman Kodak and Fujifilm are active in meeting social needs. Ethics are something altogether different. Ethics are like the compass to a business; morally bankrupt companies may be able to generate profits, but when their ethical behavior is questioned, they lose consumer confidence.
Kodak has had its share of ethical dilemmas; 2004, Accusation of discrimination against black employees (Global Ethics, 2004). 1991 Kodak paid $925 million dollars to Polaroid for the largest patent infringement case in history (Weber, 1991). Kodak accused by BBB for not responding to customer complaint (Bloomberg News, 2007). In addition to patent infringements, Kodak was often cited for being the worst polluter in the US. Fujifilm has primarily been on the defense concerning patent infringement; companies such as jvc, E-digital, and Eastman Kodak. Fujifilm seems to have got its start off the back of Eastman Kodak’s technology; Fujifilm also encountered an issue with the Independent Television Commission (ITC) when they ran a series of 30second commercials that were designed to challenge racism and discrimination against the socially disabled; they were commended by many, however, 155 persons with disabilities filed complaints with the ITC against Fujifilm. While these claims were dismissed the ITC ruled that advertiser need to take greater care with regard to taste. ( Greg Clark, Geoff Jones, Jenny Lewis, Paul Quintas, 2013).
Fujifilm has managed to protect its image better than Eastman Kodak; there aren’t many independent articles related to Fujifilm most articles concerning the company come directly from Fujifilm.

Conclusion Eastman Kodak with its prestigious history in the world of business dwindles to what looks like its demise, and it predecessor Fujifilm had more than 50 years year to sit at the proverbial feet of the master and learned how to be better. Fujifilm employed the very principles George Eastman employed himself to establish Kodak, and the business giant sank under Mount Fujifilm. In the end Fujifilm survived because they were willing to lose in the short run for long term gains; Mr. Komori said it best, “making the investment was damaging to the company’s short term profits, but the bet paid off. ‘We have more pockets and drawers in company’ he explained, a metaphor for different technical areas that bring in revenue” (Schumpter, 2012).

Three things I would suggest to any business to survive market changes and innovation would be, first, when it’s necessary a business must be willing to cannibalize itself. Kodak refused to risk profits on film that it sat on technology that would have propelled them light-years into the future. Two, over omitting to a plan that cannot be executed is almost as bad as not planning at all. One of the biggest problems Kodak has was not that they did not have what it took to compete; while they have all the components to continued success, they did not know how to execute the play in their book. Finally three, there is never an alternative when hard work is needed. Kodak opted to try to buy up and running businesses instead of investing in research and development and coming up with new paths to implement the technology they already had. This was an area of strength for Fujifilm, they used their expertise in film and revolutionized LCD screen viewing, reaping 100% profit share because they were willing to do the hard work necessary to innovate.
Unfortunately, at aged 77 George Eastman died at his own hand, he left a simple note, “To my friends: my work is done. Why wait?” Ironically, his company has survived for more than 130years and it seems they will die to their own hand as well. We will have to wait to see their final note.

Reference

Greg Clark, Geoff Jones, Jenny Lewis, Paul Quintas. (2013, May 5). "The New Management Reader." 5 May. 2013 . Retrieved from google e-books: <http://books.google.com/books?id=kF9qwumg2FsC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=fuji+film+and+ethics&source=bl&ots=kDdJR83tAk&sig=wD5Ug9GQECeJ0lTbsWQjQV7sZOI>
Bloomberg News. (2007, March 28). Kodak Quits Council of Better Business Bureau. Retrieved from Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/28/business/fi-briefs28.5
Eastman Kodak. (unkmown). History of Kodak (building the foundation). Retrieved from Kodak.com: http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Our_Company/History_of_Kodak/George_Eastman.htm
Global Ethics. (2004, August 9). Ethics News Live. Retrieved from global ethics: Kodak Accused of Discriminating Against Black Workers : http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2004/08/09/kodak-accused-of-discriminating-against-black-workers/
Gordon, M. (2012, Jan 16). The Fall of Kodak: 5 Lesson for Small Business. Retrieved from Biznik: 2012
Jackson, T. (2011, October 2). Kodak Fell Victim to Disruptive Technology. Retrieved from Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f49cb408-ecd8-11e0-be97-00144feab49a.html#axzz2RDunhGrm
Schumpter. (2012, Jan 18). How Fuji Survived; Sharper Focus. Retrieved from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-fujifilm-survived
The Economist. (2012, January 14). The last Kodak moment? Kodak is at death’s door; Fujifilm, its old rival, is thriving. Why? Retrieved from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21542796/print
Weber, J. (1991, July 16). Kodak Settles Polaroid Case for $925 Million. Retrieved from Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-16/business/fi-2502_1_polaroid-case