the reasons Why nokia,toys r us, fujifilm and kodak failed?

1. ASSIGNMENT VARDA SHAIKH (18S-MBA-BS19)
Why nokia failed?
Nokia provides telecommunications network equipment and services. It was world’s leading
manufacturer of mobile telephone handsets. BUT had to sale it’s assets to the Microsoft for $7.2
billion. The sale marked as “sad ending to Nokia”. In 2004, Sales slowed down in developed
markets. Market shares fell from 35% to 28.9%.
 REASON OF FAILURE:
Failure to respond to new “clamshells” or flip-phones.
 STRATEGY:
Cutting price on selected handsets and eliminating some models.
 THE INVASION OF IPHONE IN U.S. MARKET & END OF NOKIA:
o In 2007, apple introduced the iPhone, which ran on Apple’s proprietary operating system
(iOS), first released in the U.S and available worldwide in 2008.
o By 2007, Nokia remained the leader in the fastest-growing markets including China, India and
Southeast Asia.
 NOKIA UNDER ELOP(2010-2013)
“The burning platform”
In September 2010, Stephen Elop was appointed as CEO of nokia. As he was also the former
president of Microsoft’s business division. He got to know about the nokia’s failure, reasons were:
o To release a product that compete with the iPhone.
o Nokia’s profit margin had declined and market share dropped down 40.3% in global
market.
o Apple dominated the high end smart phone market.
o Symbian applications were not so advanced like IOS and androids apps.
o Cut down 50% of the production of smart phones.
 NOKIA AND MICROSOFT PARTNERSHIP:
In September 2011, to come out from the burning platform the company took some bold steps:
o Nokia and Microsoft announced plans to form a broad strategic partnership that would use
their complementary strengths and expertise to create a new global mobile system.
o In September 2013, nokia sold its devices and services business to Microsoft and provided
access to nokia’s patent for ten years in $7.2 billion.
o Eventually after the announcement of partnership, nokia’s share price increased 40%.

2. ASSIGNMENT VARDA SHAIKH (18S-MBA-BS19)
Why TOYS R US failed?
Reasons of failure.
1. Out-of-town
In 1950s America, when retail was taking off as a leisure activity and baby-boomers were in
pushchairs and short trousers, the time was right for a huge, Aladdin's cave of toys, that could
overwhelm children with a wealth of choice.
In the 1990s, the model still worked for UK shoppers keen to pick up the latest Furby, Power
Ranger or Tamagotchi.
At the time, cheaper out-of-town real estate with purpose-built free parking, plus places to eat,
offered an easy weekend day out.
"It was ceiling-to-floor toys. It was a destination," says retail analyst Kate Hardcastle from Insight
with Passion.
But these days, out-of-town can mean out-of-sight compared with rival outlets.
We're more likely to pick up a fidget-spinner or some loom-bands on the way to the supermarket
till or be lured into a High Street shop as we stroll past by the sight of someone demonstrating a
remote-controlled helicopter.
2. New kids on the block
"Kids are changing," says Kate Hardcastle.
"An eight-year-old now, they can download an app in 30 seconds to distort their face and make
them look like Spiderman. Retail almost can't keep up."
Birthday presents are now tech-related, such as virtual reality headsets, drones or go-pro cameras,
she says.
"That wasn't something Toys R Us was able to get into very successfully," she says.
"They did it in a generic way... it was just another aisle."
And like the rest of us, children are seeking experiences rather than possessions. So a trip to a toy
store is competing with trampolining parks, laser tag and go-karting.
But the digital ecosystem can be an opportunity as well as a challenge, says another retail analyst,
Steve Dresser.
"For my four-year-old, YouTube is the first port of call. And there's a lot going on around there."
It isn't hard, he says, for retailers to spot fashions - like the current trend for making slime - and
capitalise on that, he suggests. The Irish chain Smyths has done so.
But Toys R Us failed there too.

3. ASSIGNMENT VARDA SHAIKH (18S-MBA-BS19)
3. Priced out
When it comes to toys, brand loyalty is to the manufacturer. You want to buy a box of Playmobil,
a Barbie doll or a Scalextric set - it doesn't matter who you buy from
That makes the market on and offline fiercely price-competitive.
Hamleys, Woolworths and Hawkins Bazaar all suffered from the onslaught of internet shopping,
plus the discounters and supermarkets before them, but Toys R Us didn't learn from their example.
"They had price promise," says Kate Hardcastle. "John Lewis does well because of its Never
Knowingly Undersold promise. I don't think anyone knew Toys R Us had one.
"Even in clearance now, trying to turn things around, they've been undercut by discounters and
big brands like WH Smiths and The Entertainer."
4. Lack of drama
"For a magical place, it's not very magical," says Ms Hardcastle. If you can't compete on price,
you can at least compete on theatre, she says.
"If I walk into the Lego store in Meadowhall in Sheffield, the first thing I look for is not the
products piled up, but the huge benches of Lego to play with.
"And the team members are there waiting to build with me. That's very exciting for a child."
In comparison, she says, a trip to Toys R Us was mundane and lacking in inspiration.
Retail analyst Nick Bubb agrees: "The main problem is simply that the stores are too big and
unwelcoming," he says.
"They have tried a few smaller, mall stores, without much success, perhaps because the store
format was too boring."
5. Lack of imagination
But in the end, they just needed to do something, anything to update what they were offering.
Geoffrey the giraffe - the 1990s cartoon character on the company's logo - should have gone long
ago, says Ms Hardcastle. They should have put children's experiences front and centre.
"It didn't feel like a kids' place," she says.
Even if they didn't want to give over their stores to the kinds of hands-on experience that you get
in Hamleys or a Lego store, they should have done more to keep customers happy, been less
functional, more on-trend, agrees Mr Dresser. They just needed some buzz.

4. ASSIGNMENT VARDA SHAIKH (18S-MBA-BS19)
"The general feel isn't one of fun, it's one of tiredness," he says.
"I stumbled on one in York - it was quite sad. The first sign you see is that they reserve the right
to check your bags as you leave. That's a horrendous message in a toy shop. As a customer, you
don't really feel valued.
"That shouldn't be what a toy shop is. It should be a place of joy."
Toys R Us' demise was not inevitable, he argues. They just weren't dynamic enough.
"They signed their own death warrant."
Why Kodak failed?
Kodak
Who can forget the ever so popular yellow Kodak film canisters or the “Kodak moment” ads which
told us to capture the moments in our lives?
The Eastman Kodak Company had a strong foothold in the American photographic industry by
selling affordable cameras, and other accompanying products such as their huge variety of amateur
and professional films, chemicals and paper. In fact, according to a report by the Baltimore Sun,
Kodak went on to become the “world’s biggest producer of film for still and motion picture
cameras.”
However, when digital photography and imaging entered the market, Kodak saw a massive
decline, and ended up filing for bankruptcy at the beginning of 2012.
Why did this happen?
One of the core reasons for this lies in the failure of Kodak to adapt its purpose according to
changes in its external environment—the digital revolution. Because of the lack of adaptability,
Kodak failed to stay relevant in the market and lost the battle to its Japanese counterpart, Fujifilm.
According to one of the firm’s former senior executives, “Kodak’s monopoly was the problem. . .
It always believed it had a God-given right to 100% of the market. . . It never bothered to look
over its shoulder at what was coming up from behind.”
However, Kodak was the first company to create the world’s first digital camera in 1975, and its
cameras were, in fact, better than Canon’s or Sony’s in the 90s. This shows that the company does
have the ability to innovate and create a new need.
However, as technology advanced with time, the company failed to see the need to match its
employees’ expertise and product design to suit the new external knowledge and the changed
market needs.

5. ASSIGNMENT VARDA SHAIKH (18S-MBA-BS19)
Even as the company attempted to diversify its product line through acquisitions and partnerships,
they did not have the relevant expertise to manage their new businesses. And that was why their
business model failed them.
Why Fujifilm failed?
Fujifilm
While Kodak was dominating the photography and film market in the United States, Fujifilm was
doing the same in Japan.
Fujifilm was aware of the shifting market trend in photography from film to digital and similarly
to Kodak, it opted to retain its existing business model, with the additional investments going into
new technology and diversification into new businesses.
According to an article in The Economist, in a span of a decade, Fujifilm’s profits for film dropped
from 60% to zilch.
In an interview with Digital Imaging Reporter, Manny Almeida, president of imaging division and
general manager of optical devices division, Fujifilm North America said, “. . . while the print
market shifted, and the film market continued to dissolve, we had to refine who we were, and how
we were going to be successful as the market changed around us.”
Fujifilm recognized the changing photo printing business and when it came across American firm
Fuji Xerox that was in need of help, Fujifilm saw an opportunity to form a joint venture.
According to Almeida, “. . . Some people want prints, some want books, enlargements, T-shirts or
posters. We need to deliver these to customers in a way that’s easy for them.”
Fujifilm managed to do this with Fuji Xerox’s products such as the Xerox Phaser® 6270 printer
which enabled retailers to produce the aforementioned items.
But the company knew it couldn’t merely rely on photo printing and low-end digital cameras to
sustain the business.
It saw an opportunity with a new market—pros and advanced amateurs—that was on the lookout
for high-performance cameras similar to DSLRs which suited its work, according to Almeida. And
Fujifilm did more than just that, by focusing on developing cameras with a remarkable image
quality feature.
These are merely a few of the tactics undertaken by Fujifilm in its efforts to refocus its strategies
to fit the shifting market needs.
According to chairman and CEO of Fujifilm, Shigetaka Komori, the company’s long-term vision
may have led to lower short-term profits, but the large investments proved to be worth it in the
end.