This week’s article “Lessons in Longevity, From I.B.M.” reminded me of two
companies that have, like I.B.M., survived for over 100 years in operation:
Xerox and Kodak. These two companies
were both founded in Rochester, NY and Kodak is still headquartered there. I lived in Rochester for three years of
undergrad at Rochester Institute of Technology, so my academic experience there
was heavily influenced by those two companies. As the article states, “I.B.M. faced the
challenge that all great companies do sooner or later – they dominate, they
lose it, and then they re-create themselves or not.” These two Rochester-based companies have faced
similar challenges as I.B.M but with disparate outcomes.
Xerox made a name for itself with photocopying, printing, and faxing products,
paving the way for the industry so much so that ‘photocopying’ became
synonymous with ‘Xerox.’ For a long
time, Xerox dominated the copying and printing industry, until younger
companies were able to catch up and utilize the same technology in their
products. Companies like Canon and
Hewlett-Packard have been making printers for years in an attempt to rival
Xerox and steal the juggernaut’s market share, with varying degrees of
success. However, what makes Xerox a
great company is its ability and willingness to change in order to
survive. The Reuters article linked below, states that
Xerox has been studying I.B.M.’s expansion into territories other than selling
mainframes as an example for how Xerox can “shed its stodgy image as a printer
and copier company.” Xerox is a perfect
example of a company that has used I.B.M. as a role model for longevity, and
like I.B.M., it is also making a push to include a services segment for its
business.
As we have discussed in class, Kodak is a company that made the mistake
of resisting change as the photography industry shifted from film-based imaging
to digital imaging. In retrospect, this
was a huge blunder as the company lost a major chunk of its market share to
rivals who embraced the advancement in photographic technology. What separates Kodak from Xerox and I.B.M. is
that it no longer appears to be a profitable company. Kodak’s hesitation—or stubbornness—to quickly
jump into the digital photography realm looks like it may have put the company
at a permanent disadvantage to the companies that made the transition
immediately and are now thriving as leaders in photography. In January 2012, Kodak filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy, and one of its main strategies for recovery has been to sell the
company’s patents and sue major companies, like Samsung and Apple, for
infringement (Bloomberg). Needless to
say, Kodak is fighting an uphill battle and surely could have used I.B.M.’s enthusiasm
for change as a basis for its own recreation.
Do you think Xerox will be able to reshape its image so that it is recognized
exclusively for its copying and printing machines? Will Kodak be able to rebound from its
extremely costly initial resistance to digital photography, or will that
mistake result in the company’s failure to survive in photography any longer?
Lohr, Steve. “Lessons in Longevity, From I.B.M.”
Reuters article:
Bloomberg article:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.