By Dan Carazo

The demise of the Kodak empire is an amazing story. As the recent news reports of looming bankruptcy rightfully have grabbed headlines what I find most fascinating is how a powerhouse business can simply die off as it proves incapable of making decisions to save itself. How, I ask, could Kodak management see a runaway train bearing down on them twenty years ago and still fail to get the company off the tracks to safety? 

What amazes me most is that the evaporation of Kodak's revenue has taken this long. Back in the 1980s and 1990s when I worked in another lifetime as an advertising agency art director, most professional photographers spent a small fortune for yellow Kodak packaged film, paper and chemicals. But it was 20 years ago when I saw ominous signs that Kodak was becoming vulnerable to competition. Fuji photography products packaged in bright green began showing up with growing frequency. First Fuji made inroads with professional photographers by getting big-name pros to use and endorse the new brand. Then Fuji began to erode Kodak's preeminence with hobbyists and regular consumers who liked Fuji’s instant point-and-shoot throw away cameras.

When we look at the demise of a company like Kodak what should never be forgotten by business owners and corporate strategists alike is that this is not a new phenomenon. New technologies frequently and repeatedly come along and manage to alter the competitive landscape, sometimes nearly over night. And those who are blind to the shifting sands within their own business circles or industry often suffer severe consequences if they fail to change and adapt to remain relevant.

Before Ford marketed cheap autos there were several leading makers of buggies. But did any of the buggy makers change their business model and survive into the automobile era? 

In the1990s, when I ran a small business-to-business marketing agency in New York City, phone companies charged high fees for long distance phone service. I recall paying over $400 monthly for just three phone lines. Today, millions of customers use cable provider and Internet-enabled communications to make unlimited long distance calls at a fraction of the cost that was charged twenty years ago. Question now is will AT&T be a vibrant company five or ten years from now?

I suspect that in time we will see a shakeout in the lighting industry as well. Some established manufacturers of lighting products will likely master the transition into the LED lighting era. Some may not. By all accounts the market researchers – and the U.S. Department of Energy – are betting on LED lighting to eventually eclipse the other current technologies to become the largest segment of the overall lighting market.

Some broadly promoted, and fairly expensive, marketing reports have been on record with projections of LED lighting’s rise to preeminence within four years. If we were to base our expectations for the U.S. lighting market by 2016 solely on the rapidly increasing birth rate among new LED lighting companies it would be entirely understandable to project great success for Light Emitting Diode technology.

However, based on input from folks in the trenches including lighting sales pros, lighting engineers, and property owners, I honestly can’t see the demise of energy-efficient fluorescent lighting in the space of a few short years.

Granted, there will be winners and losers among the marketers of lighting products as more lighting applications are met by LED technology, however, it remains difficult to pinpoint how rapidly the current best-selling lighting solutions can be challenged by the new kid on the block.        

Of course in the case of Kodak’s loss of market share it will be the little people who will be hurt the most. The folks like retirees, current employees, vendors, and local businesses who are directly impacted by Kodak finances will continue to suffer as the company admits to having lost its reason for existing. The stock holders who for whatever reason held on are now owners of a business that is nearly worthless. Workers who have ignored the demise of Kodak's film business should not be shocked as they lose their jobs. The Kodak story will be used in business schools as an example of a business that acted – through arrogance or stupidity – as if it were impervious to harm from competitors. As change comes will any of today’s lighting giants succumb to a similar fate? 

It is always sad when folks are hurt by brutal economic changes. Even sadder, in this case it seems Kodak could have handled the changes it has faced in a more creative and positive way.

In the light of Kodak’s demise it’s certainly worth asking what will the sure-to-take-place lighting industry shake out look like five or ten years from now?