Kodak changes logo, looses brand identity

D

Double Vision

Member
Local time
8:51 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
36
Kodak has changed its logo to something very generic looking. This is such a typically boneheaded move. There is a lot of history behind that logo. It is very recognizable in the industry and that cannot be said for many companies. Why is it whenever a company is doing poorly the first thing they do is change their logo?
 
Hmmm, it looks okay to me but then it does seem to be a bit clinical---almost creepy. I'm sure the film's still the same---and don't they have a full-sized sensor non-rangefinder digital cam? :)
 
It's the sign of a company trying to reinvent itself. Almost trying to disassociate itself from the film company in trouble of old. The thing is to go the whole way they'd need a complete name change.

Personally I think it's a waste of money and effort.
 
Just as we often hear 'Hoover' and 'Biro' being used as generic names for any vacuum cleaner and any ballpoint pen in some places 'Kodak' is the generic name for camera.
 
Reminds me of when the UK's Royal Mail changed its name to "Consignia", spending millions on the new brand identity. Within a few years they'd changed it back to "Royal Mail".
PL
 
When did the old logo first appear? It seems to have a 60's/early70's look about it and to my eye at least does seem a bit dated. The real question is whether this is part of a concerted effort by the company to modernise or whether they are just papering over the cracks to give the impression that they know where they are going.
 
I guess there's an argument for saying the old logo is dated, though that's not necesarily a bad thing, what matters is does it transcend its origins in those terms. For me, the answer to that is yes - this new "effort" (and just think of how many $$$$$$ went into the deep and meaningless design consultancy process!) will date far quicker than its predecessor. Its just trying soooooooo hard to be trendy (maaaaaan)!!!! :eek:
 
I think they have done this to try to appeal to the happy snappers, especially the younger market. The people here have the knowledge and experience (!) to choose products on their merits and arn't going to be concerned by a bit of marketing spin. But I agree that the new logo will date quickly. Perhaps it will follow the lead of the digicams and be updated or replaced every couple of years.
 
Kodak have been trying to change their identity for a while. I think their current CEO is from HP hence their byline (in Britain, I don't know about the rest of the world) "Keep it digital, keep it Kodak."
They seem to be going from a first rate film manufacturer to a third rate digital camera manufacturer. If I was to look for a digital camera, I certainly would not consider Kodak, I'd be looking at Nikon, Canon, Olympus etc.
 
This kind of thing is what drives me nuts at the grocery store. From cereal to coffee, they keep changing the 'look' of the wrappings, logos, colours, until I have to read the fine print to see if it's the same thing I bought last week.

From an aesthetic perspective, I can't say I like either the old or the new Kodak logo.

Gene
 
The old logo is a Super-8 movie Cartridge Loaded with Kodachrome.

That has meaning.

The new one is Kodak Flat-Lining. They can do better than that! At least it is the color of the old Kodachrome box.
 
Imagine if Coca-Cola tried to change that script they use for their logo to some modern day font. They tried to change the taste of the cola a few years back and the public uproar was ubelievable. However, some think that debacle was a public realations ploy instigated by Coca-Cola.
 
I like the new logo. The old one is dated. Since Kodak has been identified with film, paper and processing for a long time (NOT cameras), and since that market is bottoming out, this makes sense to me. Does anyone really think Kodak could maintain its current size and revenue stream on materials and procesing for long? Aside from consumer and professional photography, a lot of its business is now in medical imaging, digital printing and related areas.

Yes, they have made some bonehead moves and have been slow to adapt and make progress. Recapturing consumer market share with p&s digital cameras is a key part of their strategy. I'm not sure how to evaluate that right now, but it is what it is. The customers who will decide on a Kodak digicam versus a competitor won't be confused by a new logo. The new look is, to me, fresh and open. Not a blockbuster, but less tied to the past than the old logo, which looked boxed in. My main problem is that they didn't change the colours. I personally don't like the yellow-red combination. It worked OK on the film boxes, but in print it just doesn't work for me.

Earl
 
Looks like a return to their logo from the 1940s.
Sorry for the bad scan, but I didn't really want to take apart my 1943 edition of the Kodak Reference Handbook.

Peter
 
The new logo reminds me of Mc Donald's. I don't know why though, maybe it is the colours and the fonts.
It was sad to see Kodachrome go, I don't wish to see Tmax go.
 
Whereever I have been, when a film was needed I just looked for a store with the logo. I'm not in marketing but to me such a brand recognition is worth big $$$$, even when they want to sell more digital.
Personally I don't think this is a masterstroke in marketing.

John
 
I wonder if they ever thought of improving their products rather than their logo. I remember talikng to a polaroid rep a number of years ago. She was talking about the great new box that the pack film came in when I politely asked her if they had improved the product. The answer was no. Koday is in the same mode, a couple of years ago they made a terrible change in tri-x. Much of the silver is gone now and it's nothing like the original film except the name. The reduction in silver was to cheapen the film not to improve it. I'm afraid kodak is in the death spiral. They have no pro market and have a slipping amateur following. I read recently that in the past corporate year they lost $1 billion. How long can they sustain this. My guess is no more than one to two years.

Frank:
Kodak dropped all their pro digital last year. The only pro presence in digital is their chip manufacturing for a couple of the medium format digital back makers. They make fine chips but never made a MF back or pro 35 DSLR that was worth carrying home.


Kodak was the leader world wide untill Fuji came in in the eighties. Kodak had the attitude that they owned the pro market, amateur too, and we would use anything they put in front of us an like it. When fuji came in they had what the pro market wanted and sent Kodak into a tailspin. To this day Kodak has never been able to adjust to not owning the market anylonger. There's too much competiton from other companies in the digital world. This is competiton for a company that can't understand why the world isn't still film.

I truly believe that Kodak survives on name alone and not the quality of their products.
 
I agree that the old K logo looks somewhat dated. I don't see this as a major issue. A new logo will draw attention to the company (it sure has here) and {meow!} it gives marketroids something to do. :)

Just so they don't secretly reformulate Max and introduce it as The New Max{tm} or something like that. :)

Seriously, I would not be surprised if within the next several years, Kodak might spin off the film part of their business into a subsidiary or maybe might sell it to another company who would give it more attention.
 
Last edited:
x-ray: What is your source for the current Tri-X not having as much silver as an older version? When was the change? I'm not questioning your accuracy, I truly want to know. I recently shot some "new" Tri-X, but haven't yet evaluated it. The negs looked OK to me under a loupe, but that certainly isn't the same as making an optimum print.

Kodak makes the sensor for the Olympus E-1 and E-300/500 cameras. Whether you want to consider the E-1 a "pro" camera is a whole other conversation that I don't want to start, I'm just saying that there IS a "35mm" type of DSLR, i.e. not MF, for which they make the sensor. No one knows if the E-2 or E-3, yet to be announced, will have a Kodak sensor or not. All we know is that it will be a four thirds body.

For better or worse, Kodak's decision has been to not invest more R&D in analog/film. Whether they spin that off at some point or just let it die is anyone's guess. I think Perez would just as soon have it gone, but he's not stupid enough to throw away revenue stream just because "the future is digital".

Earl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top