Kodak Is Done Making Cameras

Could Kodak really put a halt on making cameras? According to the article, Kodak actually plans on seizing their production of cameras, including digital. Their plan is to stop production on all cameras, pocket video cameras and digital picture frames. Currently, the digital camera sector of Kodak is pulling in 3/4's of the companies revenue. But, Kodak claims that they must stop the production of these things in order to cut costs.

The executives of the company are saying that this move is a "logical extension" because it will save the company more than $100 million a year.

In the future, Kodak plans on placing their efforts towards licensing their brand name, photo printing and desktop printers. This is a huge deal because Kodak is the company that in fact invented the hand held camera. They recently filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month.

Within our marketing class we observed multiple companies that were able to create markets for their products originally but were unable to keep up with the innovative tendencies of their competitors.

What do you think that Kodak could have done differently in order to remain a constant competitor in the digital camera market? Also, what did companies such as Canon do to remain constantly ahead of the game?

In Response to Aislynn Sherry...

Do you think that the creativity and "flashiness" or the actual message sent to viewers is most important? And are these commercials sometimes overkill or are they appropriate?

 It is actually quite hilarious that a lot of viewers of the Superbowl are not even football fans. In fact, some could not care less who wins or loses. But, one things remains constant. Everyone loves the commercials. It is safe it say that some people just watch the Superbowl for the "funny" commercials. 


It seems that both the flashiness and the message of the commercial really matter. One prime example is Budweiser. Every Superbowl I always see the traditional Budweiser commercial featuring the ever impressive Clydesdale's. As a viewer, it seems that Budweiser is both trying to have a vivid visual interaction with the viewers to create a "wow" factor. But, it also gives off the feeling that Budweiser is a very nice company because they have these beautiful horses. Plus, if their are these great horses then the beer must have a rustic feeling when you drink it. 

The thoughts behind commercials can sometimes be a complete mystery when you actually think about it. The Clydesdale's have absolutely nothing to do with beer. Yet, as viewers we still enjoy the commercial and although it does not give us that instant craving to go out and buy Budweiser beer, it sticks with us subliminally so that the next time we are out getting beer and see the label, our thoughts on it could change. 


In this day and age I do not think that the Superbowl commercials are overkill. Even commercials that air everyday are completely ridiculous but it still must drive an increase in sales of some sort or they would have stopped airing it. By now viewers of the Superbowl expect to see commercials that are like none they have seen before and about as overkill as you can get while still being entertaining. 


Similar to your comment on YouTube, how is the increasing commercials on the web going to affect the amount and quality of commercials on television? Could the internet be the new television and T.V.'s become irrelevant?