| Innovation of the TwoVianna DooleyProfessor GallowayStrayer University08/05/2014 | |

Eastman Kodak Company and Fujifilm are competing corporations in the photography industry. When the industry changed both companies were affected, but due to very different management styles and ability to adapt to change Fujifilm took a lead while Kodak fell behind.
George Eastman founded Kodak, in 1888. The company’s early success was based on the new technology for cameras. The camera simplified the photo taking process (Williams, C. 2013) Kodak’s main focus was photography and imaging. They had an array of products that ranged from photography equipment, film, paper and color chemicals. In the1980’s, Kodak’s market share reached 90%. This was a very special moment in the company’s history. Kodak developed the first concept of the digital camera in 1975. Their executives could not imagine the world without traditional film; unfortunately, the idea was dropped because they feared it would threaten the company’s film business. Digital cameras would become common; the technology started to spread and film sales dropped considerably at the late 1990’s. Kodak made a slow transition to digital technology. Unfortunately, their competitors adapted to change. This lead to Kodak’s loss of market shares both in the United States and worldwide. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. After one year of continuous battle to keep the company prosperous, the court approved financing for them. Kodak sold many of its patents to groups of companies such as; Apple, Google, Microsoft, and others (Snyder, 2013).
Fujifilm which is a Japanese company was founded in 1934 (Tsurumi, Y 1999). Popularity for Fujifilm grew at an enormous rate. They were in second place in the United States in film usage. Eventually, they began selling globally. Fujifilm made bold moves in American

market. They used aggressive marketing and lower prices for their product. The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics marked the turning point of the Fujifilm’s success in this venture, when they became the official film of the event. This placed Fujifilm on the market permanently. The company began taking over Kodak’s market share by offering equal quality products for a lower price (Tsurumi, Y 1999). As Fujifilm prepared for the fast changing needs in the market, it widened its business scope to digital cameras, printers, photocopiers, and optical devices. It also tapped into the health sector, producing medical equipment that includes X-ray imaging and chemicals. In February 1934 the Ashigara Factory began operation producing photographic film, print paper, dry plates and other photosensitive materials. With reported revenue of 917.4 billion Yen ($9.8 billion dollars,) today Fujifilm is the world’s largest photographic and imaging company. Manufacturing Digital cameras, 3D Image products, binoculars, supplies and a multitude of products and services to various businesses Fujifilm has established itself in several markets within the U.S. and other countries (Tsurumi, Y 1999).
Eastman Kodak and Fujifilm have several accomplishments, failures, and also differences in the way they have and still are handling changes. Although both have been somewhat successful in the filming industry each company is very different. However, Eastman Kodak has had the upper hand in the industry; Fujifilm has managed to flourish while Kodak filed bankruptcy in 2012. Fujifilm appears to have strategically formed an equation that will endure as long as they continue to invest in innovation, and adjust market changes.
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?
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. Eastman Kodak fallen in each of these pitfalls. The term, “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 thought that they did not have to compete because the clientele would trust to Kodak. 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.
Although companies are not obligated to society, but more and more companies are making it common practice to meet social issues which is their social responsibility. Today, both Eastman Kodak and Fujifilm are active in meeting social needs. 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 is committed to environmental, ethical, and socially responsible operations that include maintaining safe facilities and providing quality products while minimizing the impact on the environment. The company’s single-use recycling program helped avoid waste while saving resources and reduced costs by reusing the recycled material for manufacturing. In 2004, Kodak was noted for its anti-discriminative policies regarding employees’ sexuality and for the fair treatment of minorities and women by the Business Ethics magazine. All this effort resulted in promoting Kodak’s image as a trustworthy and conscientious company, and attracted a loyal and strong customer base (Tsurumi, Y 1999). 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. Fujifilm is obligated to ethics and social responsibility as well. The company set high standards in this regard which all employees have to observe and comply with, including top-level management. This ensures that these measures and values are integrated in all company procedures, increasing productivity, efficiency and thus profitability. They also implemented a transparency policy to keep the government and customers aware of its business activities.
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). Things any business needs to thrive and be flexible in market changes and innovation are a management team that is open to the ideas of employees and consumers. This is a great way to build flexibility in the decision making process. It emphasizes team work over individuals, and it allows exchange of ideas, information, and perception. Welcoming feedback also improves products and services that are better appreciated by customers, and it helps a company to figure out what customers want. 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. Finally, 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.

References
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
Tsurumi, Y. (1999). Case study and business strategies. (4th ed., Vol. 30, pp. 813-830). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Management.