By Dani Mattsson

Jonathan Keats, famous author and philosopher who was “acclaimed as a ‘poet of ideas’ by The New Yorker and a ‘multimedia philosopher-prophet’ by The Atlantic,”[1] assures analog-lovers that “Confirmation comes time and time again. Film refuses to die.”[2]

Walmart’s shelves are consistently filled with quality film. The hashtag #filmisnotdead has over 19 million tags on Instagram. Four of the nine Oscar nominations for Best Picture in 2020 went to movies shot on film.[3] And in 2018, “Kodak’s film business saw year-over-year growth of 21 percent.”[4] Simply put, the past few years have been booming for analog photography and cinematography.

So, what changed?

In 2012, Kodak was fading fast. The company filed for bankruptcy,[5] while digital cameras and the camera-included iPhone were in full swing. How did film resurrect itself in the face of the new age? Is it simply a trend? One answer rises to the top: it never truly left. Not technological advances, but poor management decisions will be the only reason for another close call for analog companies. As businesses everywhere master the art of diversification through identifying strengths and brand-building strategies, they too will remain as timeless as the experiential feel of film.

 

WHY POOR MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ARE THE ONLY DANGER TO FILM

Exhibit A: Fujifilm

One great piece of evidence is Fujifilm, Kodak’s long-time competitor. Kodak and Fujifilm were aware of the incoming digital realm before it took place. In 1981 Kodak organized a “research effort that looked at the core technologies and likely adoption curves around silver halide film versus digital photography,” where they discovered that they had about ten years before digital photography would be a threat to film. [6] The study’s predictions proved true. However, the difference between Kodak and Fujifilm was diversification in preparation for the boom of digital photography.

Although a Kodak engineer created the first digital camera in a lab in 1975, Fujifilm is the company who introduced the first portable digital camera to the public in 1988. The Japanese company also quickly diversified by producing medical equipment and drugs.[7] In 1986 they bought a medical diagnostic imaging company, in 2006 they acquired the business that later became Fujifilm Toyama Chemical, and in 2019 “health care and material solutions made up 43% of Fujifilm’s total revenue.”[8] Kodak also attempted to break into the drug industry in 1988 by buying Sterling drug, but they soon sold the company “in pieces for about half of the original” $5.1 billion purchase price.[9] The American film company did not try to reenter this space until 2020 when the U.S. government loaned them $765 million as part of the economic response to the coronavirus pandemic.[10]

In 2012, while Kodak was facing bankruptcy, Fujifilm had become a stable and successful business through its quickness to diversify. In the same year, Fujifilm was even harnessing 100% market share in a certain optical film created for LCD flat-panel screens.[11] Fujifilm never stopped producing film either—they sold 3.9 million instant film cameras in 2014,[12] while Kodak was still trying to get back on their feet.

 

Exhibit B: The Impossible Project

Another company that rose right as Kodak fell was The Impossible Project. In 2008, when Polaroid “abandoned instant film . . . a 39-year-old fan named Florian Kaps showed up at an event commemorating the shuttering of the last factory and convinced the company’s production manager to join him in making their own product.”[13] By 2010 they created “the first Impossible photograph.”[14] In 2011 they launched “‘Color Shade’ Film for Polaroid”[15] and started refurbishing and selling old Polaroid cameras. In 2014 Taylor Swift used a Polaroid photo for her 1989 album cover and copies of the album even included physical Polaroid pictures.[16] By 2017, The Impossible Project had become so successful they “acquired the rights to the Polaroid brand as well as intellectual property”[17] and created their own camera.

Although The Impossible Project was a much smaller company than Kodak and could better sustain themselves on a specific, niche section of film photography, they still proved that even though film photography dipped in popularity, it never truly went away. Kodak could have kept the sector alive if they had diversified in products.

Kodak did not face bankruptcy due to their film sales—although analog slouched in popularity in the face of digital, it never truly left. Kodak faced bankruptcy because they refused to change their business model to include digital photography, medical imaging, and pharmaceuticals even though they were a photo, imaging, and chemical company. Imagine if Apple had refused to diversify from computers once they had discovered the iPhone!

Vince Barbarra, a previous executive for Kodak, even wrote a book about the downfall, titled The Decision Loom. He states that there are four “interrelated capabilities . . . necessary to enable effective enterprise-wide decision making” and that “none . . . were particularly well-represented during pivotal decisions at Kodak.”[18] One could even argue that film’s recession in popularity, especially in the United States, was partly caused by Kodak as they had to discontinue certain films to stay afloat.

So, diversification is the key to staying relevant in today’s fast-developing society. But what is the best way to diversify? What should business owners absolutely avoid when diversifying? How does one even birth a new product idea? Businesses need to capitalize on their strengths and stick to their brand if they want a chance at successfully diversifying.

 

RULES FOR DIVERSIFICATION

Rule 1: Capitalize on Your Strengths

Dyson’s explosive entry into the hair care space is very similar to Fujifilm’s 100% market share in optical film for LCD flat-panel screens. Known mainly for their award-winning vacuums, “airflow is a core part of Dyson’s DNA . . . The Dyson story focuses on solving problems others ignore, reinventing the outdated and engineering the future—but airflow is a lasting romance.”[19] Dyson identified what they were especially skilled at and applied it to other industries that used that technology. The company’s ingenuity created an unorthodox curling iron that curled hair with airflow, shocking the beauty world. It was extremely successful—in fact, the hair curler and other new products generated so much enthusiasm and profit that Dyson’s founder, James Dyson, became the richest man in the UK.[20]

This is not the first time Dyson has diversified either: they’ve also created “a blade-less fan, a washing machine with two counter-rotating drums, [and] the ‘Airblade’ hand dryer seen in many public restrooms in the US” that were all revenue builders.[21] Dyson strategically capitalized on their expertise of airflow, and it’s been beneficial ever since.

 

Rule 2: Stick to Your Brand

Similar to sticking to your strengths, you also want to stick to your brand. As mentioned, The Impossible Project successfully took on the classic Polaroid brand seamlessly, allowing them to continue creating new film stocks and new cameras that matched the existing brand. Unfortunately, other companies have not been as successful in their endeavors.

In 1996, McDonald’s failed abysmally with the launch of the Arch Deluxe burger, “a sandwich aimed at more sophisticated and ‘adult’ customers.”[22] The burger was slightly higher in cost than their other products and was estimated to increase revenue by a billion dollars. Despite having an unprecedentedly expensive promotional campaign (estimated $200 million), the Arch Deluxe didn’t appeal to customers and McDonald’s shortly discontinued it. The flop was so bad, the campaign made it into the Museum of Failure.[23]

John List, economist and author of The Voltage Effect, explains on NPR’s podcast that “the average person, as it turns out, would rather just have a Big Mac or a Filet-O-Fish and French fries. They don’t want the fancy stuff.”[24] Why? Nobody thinks of “fancy” or “high-end” when they think of McDonald’s. People go to McDonald’s because it’s cheap, convenient, and still tastes good. Instead of feeling delighted by the new burger, consumers felt confused.

Coincidentally, Apple was also struggling in 1996. The company had a revolving door of CEOs without any promising financial results, when Gil Amelio bought a computer startup led by Steve Jobs. His hopes for innovation from the new blood were not misplaced. By 1998, Apple had introduced the iMac and built the Apple brand: sleek, individualized, streamlined, and innovative. The computer “was a much-needed hit, selling 800,000 units in its first five months.”[25] Jobs understood his consumer and he understood his brand; and Apple, to this day, has stuck to it.

 

SO WHY DID FILM SURVIVE?

Despite potential management strategies, the fact is that film should have died. Film is expensive and methodical, whereas digital is cheap and fast. Film is older technology, digital is new. Yet keeping all this in mind, film is again rising in popularity and sharing a bigger and bigger portion of the market with digital. This rise is not coincidental or trendy; it is meaningful and noteworthy.

There are two main reasons as to why analog photography and cinematography has resurged. The first, put eloquently by Jonathan Keats, is that “the future is [simply] coming on too fast . . . Digital simulations don’t satisfy us, and that points to a deeper reason for analog’s persistence.”[26] The second is that film creates a unique experience for the shooter and the viewer—and in the coming age, experience is king.

Keats further argues, “More than mere legacy is needed for an outmoded technology to become popular.”[27] For many people, film is an opportunity to unplug from the overload of the digital age. Astonishingly, “in 2020, adults spent an estimated average of 470 minutes (seven hours and 50 minutes) with digital media each day . . .” whereas in 2015, the average was “around five and a half hours.”[28] It’s no wonder people are craving the raw and realness of analog media when they are being bombarded with the flatness of digital so frequently. While shooting Little Women (2019), a nominee for Best Picture by the Academy, Greta Gerwig “absolutely wanted to shoot it on 35 mm film, as the overall texture provided by film grain would better support the reality of the story.”[29] The cinematographer on set, Yorick Le Saux, said that “when it comes to the subtle tones of faces, as well as the colors of the natural world, the results are far more beautiful and engaging on 35mm than they are with digital.”[30]

Furthermore, the analog media experience based on being the creator can be even more enriching than as a viewer. A cinematographer’s or photographer’s chances are limited when shooting on film. Those limited chances “[force one] to think about the image, plan the image and really create the image mentally before you actually do the shoot.”[31] Everything is intentional. Every knob must be in the right place. As Jonathon Keats put it, the process is “dignifying because it’s out of the hands of the algorithms, which means it affords you the freedom to make your own mistakes. Suffering the consequences of human error is paradoxically liberating, and a great picture can provide a rush equivalent to winning a marathon.”[32]

Shooting film is not just a trendy art form—it is an experience and an escape from the digital realm. Digital will always have to share the market with analog, and they will both have to coexist with whatever comes along next. Although there may be ebbs and flows in film popularity, due to new technology or poor management decisions, film will never really die out.

As industries worldwide diversify in the correct way, they will ensure fertile soil for their most beloved products to flourish and stand the test of time, just as they were always meant to.

 

Notes:

[1] Giovanni Aloi, “Reciprocal Biomimicry,” Antennae, no. 47 (2019): 159.

[2] Jonathon Keats, “Film Photography Can Never Be Replaced,” Wired, April 21, 2020, https://www.wired.com/story/film-photography-can-never-be-replaced/.

[3] Bill Desowitz, “Large-Format Film to Thrive in 2020, Led by ‘No Time to Die,’ ‘Tenet,’ and ‘Wonder Woman 1984’.” IndieWire, February 26, 2020, https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/large-format-film-kodak-2020-no-time-to-die-tenet-wonder-woman-1984-1202213355/.

[4] Keats, “Film Photography.”

[5] “The Last Kodak Moment?” The Economist, January 14, 2012, https://www.economist.com/business/2012/01/14/the-last-kodak-moment.

[6] Chunka Mui, “How Kodak Failed,” Forbes, January 18, 2012, https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2012/01/18/how-kodak-failed/?sh=1a9bd16b6f27.

[7] Naomi Xu Elegant, “Kodak’s Shift to Pharmaceuticals Comes Years after Rival Fujifilm Made the Same Pivot,” Fortune, July 29, 2020, https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/kodak-pharmaceuticals-loan-stock-fujifilm/.

[8] Elegant, “Kodak’s Shift.”

[9] Mui, “How Kodak Failed.”

[10] Elegant, “Kodak’s Shift.”

[11] “The Last Kodak Moment?”

[12] Oliver Laurent, “Kodak, Fujifilm: Film Photography Is Definitely Back,” Time, January 26, 2017, https://time.com/4649188/film-photography-industry-comeback/.

[13] Keats, “Film Photography.”

[14] Impossible Project, “A Brief History of The Impossible Project,” YouTube Video, 3:24, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM5k4B1C7cs&t=1s.

[15] WIRED Staff, “Impossible Launches Vivid ‘Color Shade’ Film for Polaroid,’ Wired, February 23, 2018, https://www.wired.com/2011/05/impossible-launches-vivid-color-shade-film-for-polaroid/.

[16] Michael Rothman, “Taylor Swift Explains Meaning Behind Cover of New Album ‘1989’,” ABC News, August 18, 2014, https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/meaning-cover-taylor-swifts-album-1989/story?id=25028609.

[17] Scott Gilbertson, “Review: Polaroid Now,” Wired, March 27, 2020, https://www.wired.com/review/polaroid-now/.

[18] Mui, “How Kodak Failed.”

[19] “Love Is in the Air: How Dyson’s Love Affair with Airflow Technology Has Withstood the Test of Time,” Dyson.com, accessed March 18, 2022, https://www.dyson.com/newsroom/overview/features/january-2021/love-is-in-the-air.

[20] Sissi Cao, “Dyson Curling Iron Hype Has Made Its Inventor the Richest Man in the UK,” Observer, January 26, 2019, https://observer.com/2019/01/james-dyson-richest-uk-man-dyson-airwrap/.

[21] Cao, “Dyson Curling Iron.”

[22] Kate Taylor, “McDonald’s Is Bringing Back One of Its Most Expensive Failures—with One Major Difference,” Business Insider, January 3, 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-tests-archburger-after-90s-flop-2018-1.

[23] Darian Woods and Greg Rosalsky, “Why This 1990s McDonalds Burger Showed Promise of Being a Wild Success but Flopped,” NPR, February 10, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079947555/why-this-1990s-mcdonalds-burger-showed-promise-of-being-a-wild-success-but-flopp.

[24] Woods and Rosalsky, “This 1990s McDonalds Burger.”

[25] Matt Weinburger and Avery Hartmans, “Steve Jobs Would Have Been 65 on Monday. Here’s How the Late Apple CEO Saved the Company from Disaster and Set It on the Path to a $1 Trillion Valuation,” Business Insider, February 24, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-apple-photos-2017-1.

[26] Keats, “Film Photography.”

[27] Keats, “Film Photography.”

[28] Amy Watson, “Time Spent with Digital Media in the U.S. from 2011 to 2022,” Statista, March 1, 2021, https://www.statista.com/statistics/262340/daily-time-spent-with-digital-media-according-to-us-consumsers/.

[29] “Kodak 35mm Nurtures a Special Connection to the Actors and the Action in Director Greta Gerwig’s ‘Little Women’,” Kodak Motion Picture, December 9, 2019, https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-post/greta-gerwig-little-women.

[30] “Kodak 35mm Nurtures.”

[31] Laurent, “Kodak, Fujifilm.”

[32] Keats, “Film Photography.”