logo
What Kodak's woes can teach us about Big Tech, capitalism and brand resilience

What Kodak's woes can teach us about Big Tech, capitalism and brand resilience

The Nationala day ago
, once among the most recognisable companies in the world, is blaming "misleading media reports" for causing concern after its second-quarter financial results.
Although Kodak reported a gross profit of $51 million this week, the Rochester, New York-based company included a "concern assessment" that unnerved investors, employees and customers.
The assessment warned various conditions "raise substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue".
Kodak, which declared bankruptcy in 2012 and emerged in 2013, has tried to climb back to relevance amid a vastly changed photography, imaging and chemical market. It said reporters misinterpreted the company's disclosure.
"Media reports that Kodak is ceasing operations, going out of business or filing for bankruptcy are inaccurate and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of a recent technical disclosure the company made to the Security and Exchange Commission," read a statement posted to Kodak's LinkedIn page.
Kurt Jaeckel, a senior communications director with Kodak, told The National that the warning "is essentially a required disclosure because Kodak's debt comes due within 12 months of the filing".
Mr Jaeckel said the 133-year-old company is confident it will be able to pay its debts by using $300 million from "the reversion and settlement" of Kodak's pension fund.
Yet Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B Riley Wealth in Boston, told The National that despite Kodak recently suggesting otherwise, the company's future is still very much in doubt.
"Any time you ever hear a company say there are questions about continuing to be an ongoing entity, it's almost a known quantity, it's theta-complete," he said.
Mr Hogan said that Kodak – which at its peak employed more than 140,000 workers, but now employs about 3,400 – is struggling to recover from its failure to adapt to digital photography, the decline of film and other market factors.
Despite emerging from bankruptcy protection in 2013 and turning to commercial print, advanced materials and chemicals, the company's earnings and overall financial reality leave a lot to be desired.
"When your debts and liabilities are going to be larger than the other side of your balance sheet, that's when you sort of turn the lights out and close the doors," Mr Hogan said.
Teachable moment for Big Tech?
The story of Kodak's rise and fall are almost cliched at this point.
The firm's domination of consumer photography through film and camera products, but inability to adjust to digital photography are well documented, although as Mr Hogan says, superficially researched to some extent.
In 1975, a Kodak employee by the name of Steven Sasson invented what many to be the first digital camera.
Although bulky and initially impractical, the technology showed promise, but Kodak failed to see a future in which digital cameras would destroy the profitable film industry it dominated. It shelved Mr Sasson's digital camera project, and sealed the company's fate when digital cameras started to outsell film cameras.
Yet what many often fail to factor in is that even if Kodak supported Mr Sasson's invention, smartphones – not necessarily digital cameras – changed photography forever.
As Mr Hogan says, sometimes the rules of economics and time make a company's demise inevitable. Nothing lasts forever.
"Going from the top of the leaderboard to being shown the door is something that inevitably happens," he said, adding that if competition and market forces do not cause company dominance to erode, sometimes government regulators step in and break up that dominance.
"It's the evolution of capitalism and it's just how things work."
He said that even companies like Nvidia, which is experiencing unprecedented success, inevitably falter, and there is not one single moment it can be pegged to.
Much like Nvidia, Kodak was once considered an invincible darling of S&P 500. Its stock price, as of the writing of this article, hovers at $5 a share.
Mr Hogan also said that although there are optimists who try to compare Kodak's recent struggles to that of Apple, which was nearing irrelevance in the mid-1990s only to come roaring back, those comparisons are ill-conceived.
Apple's struggles occurred while the computer industry was still finding its footing and the company was relatively young, whereas Kodak was already past its prime when its downfall began.
"It's clearly a fallen angel that's not coming back," Mr Hogan said.
Kodak's brand remains strong despite struggles
Although Kodak has financially meandered for more than a decade, at this point, the company's logo and name still carry weight.
Throughout many parts of the world, and particularly in the Middle East, Kodak signs remain prominent outside print and photo shops.
Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in western New York, said that the company's contributions to chemical and photography breakthroughs helped to give the US brand unprecedented recognition.
"Overseas, Kodak is loved," he said. "You can still see retail stores with Kodak branding and merchandise."
Prof Kneeland also said when Kodak was ascending to its peak of influence, the company made it a priority to send representatives overseas to promote its film, lenses and cameras, giving the brand a significant advantage over competitors.
"Kodak became the standard for film," he said, adding that the company's prolific TV advertisements boasting of capturing "Kodak moments" with cameras, made it a household name for billions.
Robert Thompson, a professor of pop culture, television, radio and film at Syracuse University 's Newhouse School of Public Communications, said that in the 1960s, '70s and '80s, Kodak's products and advertising worked so well that the brand almost took on a generic quality, similar to how people refer to tissues as Kleenex or adhesive bandages as Band-Aids.
"Their advertising essentially taught people how to use what was once just an emerging technology of photography," he explained.
Prof Thompson said Kodak's advertising messages were easily transferable to other parts of the world.
He said the now beleaguered company but resilient brand and logo offer a lesson to others at the centre of the current artificial intelligence boom, such as OpenAI and Anthropic.
"They turned photography into something that was part of the daily activities of a huge portion of the population," Prof Thompson said.
"AI is obviously a big deal too, but Kodak is admirable because it took technology and turned it into an aspirational product enjoyed by billions."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pictures of the week: From Limp Bizkit in Abu Dhabi to a robotic knockout
Pictures of the week: From Limp Bizkit in Abu Dhabi to a robotic knockout

The National

timean hour ago

  • The National

Pictures of the week: From Limp Bizkit in Abu Dhabi to a robotic knockout

Investing in disruptive technology can be a bumpy ride, as investors in Tesla were reminded on Friday, when its stock dropped 7.5 per cent in early trading to $575. It recovered slightly but still ended the week 15 per cent lower and is down a third from its all-time high of $883 on January 26. The electric car maker's market cap fell from $834 billion to about $567bn in that time, a drop of an astonishing $267bn, and a blow for those who bought Tesla stock late. The collapse also hit fund managers that have gone big on Tesla, notably the UK-based Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust and Cathie Wood's ARK Innovation ETF. Tesla is the top holding in both funds, making up a hefty 10 per cent of total assets under management. Both funds have fallen by a quarter in the past month. Matt Weller, global head of market research at GAIN Capital, recently warned that Tesla founder Elon Musk had 'flown a bit too close to the sun', after getting carried away by investing $1.5bn of the company's money in Bitcoin. He also predicted Tesla's sales could struggle as traditional auto manufacturers ramp up electric car production, destroying its first mover advantage. AJ Bell's Russ Mould warns that many investors buy tech stocks when earnings forecasts are rising, almost regardless of valuation. 'When it works, it really works. But when it goes wrong, elevated valuations leave little or no downside protection.' A Tesla correction was probably baked in after last year's astonishing share price surge, and many investors will see this as an opportunity to load up at a reduced price. Dramatic swings are to be expected when investing in disruptive technology, as Ms Wood at ARK makes clear. Every week, she sends subscribers a commentary listing 'stocks in our strategies that have appreciated or dropped more than 15 per cent in a day' during the week. Her latest commentary, issued on Friday, showed seven stocks displaying extreme volatility, led by ExOne, a leader in binder jetting 3D printing technology. It jumped 24 per cent, boosted by news that fellow 3D printing specialist Stratasys had beaten fourth-quarter revenues and earnings expectations, seen as good news for the sector. By contrast, computational drug and material discovery company Schrödinger fell 27 per cent after quarterly and full-year results showed its core software sales and drug development pipeline slowing. Despite that setback, Ms Wood remains positive, arguing that its 'medicinal chemistry platform offers a powerful and unique view into chemical space'. In her weekly video view, she remains bullish, stating that: 'We are on the right side of change, and disruptive innovation is going to deliver exponential growth trajectories for many of our companies, in fact, most of them.' Ms Wood remains committed to Tesla as she expects global electric car sales to compound at an average annual rate of 82 per cent for the next five years. She said these are so 'enormous that some people find them unbelievable', and argues that this scepticism, especially among institutional investors, 'festers' and creates a great opportunity for ARK. Only you can decide whether you are a believer or a festering sceptic. If it's the former, then buckle up.

Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis
Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis

Zawya

time2 hours ago

  • Zawya

Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis

U.S. President Donald Trump's criticism of Goldman Sachs' research on tariff risks could prompt some analysts to water down their research, investors and academics said, an outcome that could leave investors with less reliable information. The reams of research that banks such as Goldman produce are used by institutional investors, such as hedge funds and asset managers, in deciding how to allocate capital. Trump's comments -- in which he lambasted Goldman, its economics team and CEO David Solomon and accused them of making "a bad prediction" -- have triggered a debate on Wall Street about the possible fallout, according to interviews with banking industry sources and investors. At one Wall Street bank, Trump's comments spurred informal conversations among staff, a source familiar with the matter said. The source said they also discussed how to incorporate government data in the wake of Trump's decision to fire the head of BLS, claiming -- without evidence -- that its data had been politicized. Still, the bank was not considering changing the way research operates. "This is going to come down to a person's ability to withstand a barrage of criticism from the Oval Office, and the extent to which these banks provide support for their chief economists," said Dave Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research, who has worked in the economics departments at several banks. "If we notice that research is being watered down ... then we'll know that this has had an effect." Jack Ablin, chief investment strategist at Cresset Capital, said if banks do start self-censoring, smaller investors who do not have the resources to do their own analysis are likely to suffer most. Trump's criticism is his latest attack on corporate America and other institutions, and is a break from historical norms, where presidents have typically avoided calling out private companies and executives for things they do not like. Some companies that have considered passing on tariff costs to customers have faced public criticism, and Trump, who came to politics after running businesses, has intervened directly in private business decisions by making a deal with Nvidia to give a portion of its revenues from sales to China of AI chips to the government. Trump 'certainly is taking a number of steps that diverge from the traditional view of the respective roles of the government and private industry,' said Henry Hu, a securities law professor at the University of Texas. In a social media post earlier this week, Trump said foreign companies and governments were mostly absorbing the cost of his tariffs, counter to Goldman's research. "Given that sell-side Wall Street analyst predictions have been about as accurate as random guessing, small investors will do just fine with the president exercising his First Amendment right about flawed Wall Street research," a White House official told Reuters. On Wednesday, Goldman's U.S. head economist David Mericle defended its research on CNBC, vowing to "keep doing" what the bank considers informative research. Goldman declined requests for further comment. Other major banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Citigroup, declined to comment. REPUTATIONAL RISKS There has already been evidence of self-censorship. A senior JPMorgan Asset Management investment strategist, Michael Cembalest, earlier this year said during a webinar that he refrained from voicing some of his thoughts on U.S. tariffs publicly. Shortly after Cembalest's comments, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO, said that he expects analysts to speak their minds. Both Cembalest and the bank declined to comment for this story. Hu said there is a risk involved in even appearing to give way to political pressure. 'Goldman's reputational capital is at stake here,' he said. 'If their views on the economy become biased, and they are shown to be wrong, why would anyone choose Goldman to advise them on anything?' Mike Mayo, banking analyst at Wells Fargo, said independent research is critical for investment bank's reputation. "Investment banks live and die by their reputation and independence. That transcends all other considerations." Wall Street research has long been tightly overseen, one source said, with supervisory analysts reviewing research reports to ensure that language is not inflammatory, emotive or partisan and that reports are objective and cite sources. That person said that if analysts feel unable to speak openly then investors will pay more or take greater risk. Liquidity will suffer and there will be less foreign participation in U.S. markets, the person said. It was large losses by smaller investors that triggered the first major probe of Wall Street research in the aftermath of the dot com stock bubble of the late 1990s. Eliot Spitzer, then New York Attorney General, found that Wall Street analysts had swapped their honest opinions for unwarranted "buy" ratings on companies to help their banks win underwriting and advisory business. The result: a $1.5 billion global settlement payout by Wall Street and lifetime bans for some analysts. It remains to be seen whether the current kerfuffle will have an outsized impact on Wall Street or if it is a storm in a teacup, said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at IBKR. "It does raise a lot of questions," he added.

US manufacturing production stalls in July
US manufacturing production stalls in July

Zawya

time4 hours ago

  • Zawya

US manufacturing production stalls in July

U.S. factory production was unchanged in July suggesting manufacturing activity was stalling as businesses navigate higher costs from import tariffs. The unchanged reading in manufacturing output reported by the Federal Reserve on Friday followed an upwardly revised 0.3% increase in June. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast production for the sector, which accounts for 10.2% of the economy, dipping 0.1% after a previously reported 0.1% gain in June. Production at factories increased 1.4% on a year-over-year basis in July. Motor vehicle and parts output slipped 0.3% last month after falling 2.5% in June. Automobile manufacturers typically shut down production lines in July for the summer break as well as maintenance and retooling for new models. Excluding motor vehicles, factory output fell 0.1% after rising 0.5% in June. "Tariffs on various inputs to production, in particular steel and aluminum inputs, could mean longer or more broad-based shutdowns this summer," said Veronica Clark, an economist at Citigroup. President Donald Trump has imposed a 50% duty on steel and aluminum as well as a 25% tax on motor vehicles and parts. Trump has defended the duties as necessary to revive a long-declining U.S. industrial base, though economists argue that cannot be accomplished in a short period of time, citing high production and labor costs as among the challenges. There were solid increases in the production of electrical equipment, appliances and components, aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment as well as furniture and related products. But production of primary metals and machinery declined. Durable goods manufacturing production rose 0.3%. Nondurable manufacturing output decreased 0.4%, with production falling across all categories. Mining output fell 0.4% after easing 0.3% in the prior month. Utilities production slid 0.2%. That followed a 1.8% surge in June. Overall industrial production fell 0.1% after rising 0.4% in June. Industrial output advanced 1.4% on a year-over-year basis. Capacity utilization for the industrial sector, a measure of how fully firms are using their resources, declined to 77.5% from 77.7% in June. It is 2.1 percentage points below its 1972–2024 average. The operating rate for the manufacturing sector slipped to 76.8% from 76.9% in June. It is 1.4% percentage points below its long-run average. (Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Andrea Ricci)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store