Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
Authors: Tomonori Ito (Hitotsubashi University ICS); Jesper Edman (Hitotsubashi University ICS); Masa Suekane (Hitotsubashi University ICS)
Published in: 2014

Abstract

This is part of a case series. Fujifilm and Kodak: Surviving the Digital Revolution (A) and (B) cases looks into how Fujifilm had survived a virtual disappearance of its main product, i e analog film business, while its main competitor, Eastman Kodak, failed to do so and gone bankrupt in 2012. Both firms had almost an equal global market share in 2000 with about 37-38% share, but the emergence of digital cameras has wiped out an once lucrative business over 10+ years as well as an iconic blue chip American firm. Case (A) focuses on the culture of the two firms, organisational structure, leadership, efforts on diversity, and innovation. It describes how Fujifilm was able to develop new businesses that compensated for the loss of revenues and profits of the traditional film business. It also analyses why Kodak had not succeeded in diversifying out of the film business, but rather why it stuck to this business that was hugely lucrative, but was known to be fading away. Case (B) focuses on how Fujifilm has extensively utilised M&As to diversify out of the film business and looks into three large M&As it undertook. It also looks into the difference between the two firms in balance sheet structure, shareholder return policies, and how the two dealt with shareholder pressures.
Location:
Industry:
Size:
80,322 employees
Other setting(s):
November 2012

About

Abstract

This is part of a case series. Fujifilm and Kodak: Surviving the Digital Revolution (A) and (B) cases looks into how Fujifilm had survived a virtual disappearance of its main product, i e analog film business, while its main competitor, Eastman Kodak, failed to do so and gone bankrupt in 2012. Both firms had almost an equal global market share in 2000 with about 37-38% share, but the emergence of digital cameras has wiped out an once lucrative business over 10+ years as well as an iconic blue chip American firm. Case (A) focuses on the culture of the two firms, organisational structure, leadership, efforts on diversity, and innovation. It describes how Fujifilm was able to develop new businesses that compensated for the loss of revenues and profits of the traditional film business. It also analyses why Kodak had not succeeded in diversifying out of the film business, but rather why it stuck to this business that was hugely lucrative, but was known to be fading away. Case (B) focuses on how Fujifilm has extensively utilised M&As to diversify out of the film business and looks into three large M&As it undertook. It also looks into the difference between the two firms in balance sheet structure, shareholder return policies, and how the two dealt with shareholder pressures.

Settings

Location:
Industry:
Size:
80,322 employees
Other setting(s):
November 2012

Related