Hard to Picture

They still have enormous brand identity and anyone older than 35 recognizes that name Kodak. First HP and now Kodak, large organizations will no longer be defined by the number of employees but rather pure financials. They may need to gut the company and realize the most valuable asset they have is thier name.

Classic signs exist everywhere - even in financials - of this company dying. Most importantly, customers don't relate to this brand in a valuable, meaningful way anymore. Competition, technology, and a lack of vision has done them in. They just announced they will stop production of black and white film. With the exception of a few fine art photogs, who even really cared?

Good riddance...

I see a company abondoning its heritage to satisfy the bean counters and analysts on Wall Street.

Edward Weston and Ansel Adams used to go up to Rochester to see the latest and greatest. Who would even bother anymore?

Calm down folks. Kodak is doing what it must do. In a healthy turn around of any company with legacy technology, would you not expect massive layoffs? Film production was much more labor intensive that digital so what does everyone expect?

Kodak has been on the forefront of digital technology since the 80's. I know because I tested their first digital camera aimed at the photojournalistic market space. They currently have imaging technology which competes well with the other top makers.

Regarding the brand, it's still very strong but I agree that they need to re-affirm their position in the mind of consumers as the imaging experts.

Being the top seller of digital cameras is indication of how successful they have been in transforming from a film bases leader to a digital leader.

I'm not a stake holder, I'm simply impressed with the success Kodak has had with changing industries.

I have been able to witness Kodak's painfully slow slide into the icy abyss first hand. I have lived in Rochester (home of Kodak) for the last 12 years. Kodak is a dinosaur. It's legacy permeates the very foundation of many if not ALL businesses in Rochester and its economy.

My take is that they simply arent't shedding the dead weight fast enough. At one point, they were fat, dumb and happy. Rochester business looked forward to Kodak bonus day every Spring. )New TVs and steaks for everyone!) Those days should have died 10 years before they did. There was no vision. And now there is no courage to take the drastic measures that need to be taken. It MIGHT be able to recover.

You can see the damage everywhere you turn. Any time you walk into a company you will be sure to find at least one, myopic, closed-minded, this-is-the-way-we-did-it-at-Kodak, person. This person is usually in the deal/sales prevention role. These people are the cancer that killed Kodak.

You can see the damage when you go to a job fair as a hiring manager. Armies of former middle managers at Kodak. Jobless for years. STILL smug in the fact that they worked for them. These people, I'm sorry, are tainted. They are not FAST. They are sluggish and constipated by years (decades!) of hubris. Out of work with bad habits still seeking the salaries they were pulling down from 20 years of service. Outdated skills and demanding money that I could use to hire 3 new people AND train them.

Can the corpse be revived? I don't know. I'd rather talk about Xerox. THERE is a company that had the courage to do what needed to be done.

Kodak has a great brand. Has made good moves into digital. However, it was the pioneer of the old world of photography. Now the camera is increasingly the phone- people don't print (Kodak's core business) and people are using photos in a radically different way- see Flickr.com

Kodak should survive, but it needs to understand how to be relevant to the new world of photography, not simply translating their old business into a digital one. It's not enough.

The brand identity still has a certain impact and you don't turn around a company like that overnight, we should wait and see....

I see a company that needs to transition to a professional services firm.

Film will be around for some time still - it's not diappearing overnight, but the consumer film market will lead the disappearance.

Professionals still need high quality prints. Kodak paper and chemicals have been a part of this for a long time. Ink Jet prins have come a long way, but still don't offer the quality of photographic prints.

Kodak needs to downsize, yes. They should also focus on servicing professionals as best as possible.

Why would anybody want to make digital cameras? There's no margin in them, it's a purely volume business. Contract it out and licence the brand name if you need to.

HP, Kodak, Kimberly-Clark, and Ford, all announcing Layoffs. I also read where last month we hit a 17 month high in layoffs. What's going on? Free Agent Nation? Globalization?

I can't picture either one. Advancing technology has historically smothered sloth-like companies out of existence. If you "own" a big market share within a product niche you also own the responsibility to continually scan the technological event horizon and respond. The response mechanism has to recognize that the question isn't if, but when.

Innovation is more than a word it is a posture and an attitude that pushes great companies to action and risk taking. This all begs the question: Is it better to die in your sleep or behind the wheel, speeding into the future with the shields down?