Change Management - Case Google and Kodak

1. IDENTITY CHANGE

1.1. Based on what you now know about organizational identity

change from our readings, explain what happened (or should

have happened, but did not) at Kodak.

1.1.1. Background

In order to understand what happened with the identity of Kodak and what lead to it, it

is vital to understand the background of the company. It is not an overstatement to

say: Kodak was the Google of its day, being known for its pioneering technologies

and innovative marketing. By 1976 Kodak accounted for 90% of film and 85% of

camera sales in America and until the 1990s it was regularly rated one of the world's

five most valuable brands. Then something happened:

As can be seen from the graph, the fall was definitely not a subtle one. It would be

fairly easy to blame the ever-changing market and the dying industry of film, but let

us not forget – while Kodak crashed, it’s biggest competitor Fujifilm is still doing

rather well and the fact is that both companies saw the change coming.

4

The easiest answer seems to be that Kodak simply refused to go along with the

change. Opponents of this idea are saying that the company was not in trouble because

it stood still while the world turned. Rather, Kodak spent the past decade of its

existence attempting to adapt to the changing times, often creating innovative new

products (the world’s first digital camera was introduced by Kodak in 1976) but

failing to turn them into a sustainable business.

There were definitely mistakes on the business side that Kodak could have avoided.

For example, they were always aiming for “finished product” rather than using the

“make it, launch it, fix it” approach that could have kept them visible in the public eye

as a real risk-taking, innovative company.

However, it was not Kodak’s only problem, therefore it still leaves a notion that even

though they tried, they simply started trying too late, they didn’t act when they should

have acted. And when they did, they didn’t...