CONCLUSION

If digital imaging and photography are viewed as a shift brought on by disruptive technology, then the missed opportunity to dictate to consumers what this new, disruptive technology is, and why it is important to use, has to be seen as Kodak’s crucial misstep. If George Eastman’s ability to communicate to consumers the value of amateur photography, and the ease of use of his new products, can be credited as a major reason for Kodak’s dominance of the industry, then their inability to do the same for digital photography must be credited as a major reason for their downfall.

While it is true that Kodak did not allocate enough resources to digital photography, it is not simply due to a lack of understanding or an unwillingness to listen to people who would eventually be proven right. Kodak followed a path that many responsible executives would have followed. They protected their largest markets and diverted resources from smaller markets that would provide less impact in their earnings. It is because of these reasonable decisions that Kodak failed, though.

Kodak’s actions highlight the importance of marketing and market creation when handling disruptive technology. Because Kodak was the architect of their demise, in many people’s eyes, the story becomes more interesting, but also more complicated. In the end, Kodak was not equipped to handle the technology they had initiated. This is not to say that the situation was out of their control or to excuse the decisions made, but once the digital photography market began to explode, Kodak was already too far behind to catch up.