3 ms·

It seemed like he understood that to me. This quote basically covers it: > Yet, as one BP director replied when I asked why his company continued to risk deep-

It seemed like he understood that to me. This quote basically covers it: > Yet, as one BP director replied when I asked why his company continued to risk deep-water drilling, instead of investing in alternative energy: “We are a drilling business, and that is our expertise. Why should we spend our time and money competing in new technology with General Electric or Toshiba?” I think that's why the primary argument is that they should cease R&D entirely and just distribute profits to shareholders until they run out.

ghaff 11y ago
The argument being made is really Levitt's marketing myopia argument which at least used to appear in pretty much every Marketing 101 course. [1] The argument is that you should define yourself as a transportation company rather than a railroad (or an energy company instead of an oil company). The problem with this argument is that it doesn't always apply very well. Yes, Kodak had distribution channels for photographs. But very little about the company gave it any particular advantage for digital photography from a technology perspective. Somewhat ironically, Fujifilm--notwithstanding some recent success in relatively niche camera products--has largely weathered the post-film era by applying its technology to medical products and the like. [1] http://academy.clevelandclinic.org/Portals/40/LHC%20Myopia.pdf http://academy.clevelandclinic.org/Portals/40/LHC%20Myopia.p...
- dagw 11y ago
  Yes, Kodak had distribution channels for photographs. But very little about the company gave it any particular advantage for digital photography from a technology perspective. Yet they completely owned the pro digital camera space in the early 90s. Their problem was that they chose not to build on this lead since they didn't want to cannibalize their more profitable film business.

ghaff 11y ago

The argument being made is really Levitt's marketing myopia argument which at least used to appear in pretty much every Marketing 101 course. [1] The argument is that you should define yourself as a transportation company rather than a railroad (or an energy company instead of an oil company). The problem with this argument is that it doesn't always apply very well. Yes, Kodak had distribution channels for photographs. But very little about the company gave it any particular advantage for digital photography from a technology perspective. Somewhat ironically, Fujifilm--notwithstanding some recent success in relatively niche camera products--has largely weathered the post-film era by applying its technology to medical products and the like. [1] http://academy.clevelandclinic.org/Portals/40/LHC%20Myopia.pdf http://academy.clevelandclinic.org/Portals/40/LHC%20Myopia.p...

dagw 11y ago
Yes, Kodak had distribution channels for photographs. But very little about the company gave it any particular advantage for digital photography from a technology perspective. Yet they completely owned the pro digital camera space in the early 90s. Their problem was that they chose not to build on this lead since they didn't want to cannibalize their more profitable film business.