Brand Failures_ The Truth About the 100 Biggest Branding Mistakes of All Time - Matt Haig [106]
If Kodak is to stand a fighting chance it needs to make some tough and potentially risky decisions. It will find it increasingly hard to keep one foot in conventional photography and the other in digital. After all brands are built on ‘either/or’ rather than ‘both/and’ policies.
As branding is a process of differentiation, Kodak must still preserve a unique identity in order to stand out from its competitors. At the same time, it must be able to form a brand image that is as cutting-edge as the technology it is starting to promote. This is by no means impossible. After all, providing photography survives in some form Kodak will have a fighting chance. Its strategic partnership with AOL for its ‘You’ve got Pictures’ service was certainly a move in the right direction.
It will, however, mean making some tough and difficult decisions. Among these will be the most difficult decision a brand ever had to make: should it divorce itself from its own heritage? Although difficult, it is better that this decision is made by the brand on its own accord, rather than forced upon it at a later date by the state of the market. Whether it will be possible is another question entirely, and only time will tell. Ultimately, Kodak may be forced to create a new brand altogether.
Lessons from Kodak
Markets do not stay static. Markets are always in a constant state of flux, especially those which are based around technology.
Brands have a lifespan. The Kodak brand has been around since the 1880s, making it one of the oldest technology brands in existence. Now, the brand may be reaching the end. ‘There is a time to invest in a brand and there is a time to harvest a brand,’ says Ries. ‘And, ultimately, there is a time to put the brand to sleep.’
Success is a double-edged sword. The more successful a brand becomes within one market, the more difficult it becomes for the brand to adapt when that market changes.
Protect the brand. In August 2010 it was reported that Kodak was playing the ‘Patent Lawsuit Game’. Patents are to help sustain a company’s profitability, but when they expire profits can dive, as competitors flood the market with copies that didn’t incur the costs associated with original innovation. Kodak is a mature company with declining profit – 11 per cent lower in 2009. Patent lawsuits are a way to lock competition, particularly newer firms, out of a company’s territory and used extensively by mature companies that have stalled. Lawsuits distract competitors, drain capital and potentially derail product plans. Kodak is well versed in this technique having slugged it out, albeit unsuccessfully, with Polaroid for years. Though Polaroid won the patent battle it lost the war, going bust in 2001. Nothing daunted, Kodak is back into battle having filed patent infringement complaints against Apple Inc and Research In Motion Ltd, both running strong at the time of writing this edition.
94 Polaroid
Live by the category, die by the category
If digital photography represents a difficult challenge for Kodak, it represented a near impossible one for Polaroid. In October 2001, after years of falling sales and drastic cost cuts, the firm filed for bankruptcy. Although the company was eventually purchased in July 2002 by the private equity arm of Bank One, many believe the glory days of Polaroid are in the past.
However, digital cameras are only one contributing factor in the perceived decline of the instant photography brand. To understand how it was unable to maintain its once formidably strong brand assets, it is necessary to understand how the brand evolved.
Polaroid was founded by Harvard graduate Edwin Land in 1937, who had spent years researching ways to reduce the problem of glare within photographs. Indeed, early Polaroid products included glare-reducing desk