http://www.davegranlund.com/cartoons/wp-content/uploads/color-Kodak-bankruptcy.jpg

“You Press the Button, We Do the Rest.” It has been a long time since we heard such a slogan. Kodak, once a billion dollar company, is now worth only a couple hundred millions. What’s the reason behind its failure?

When George Eastman was still alive, he had made many brave moves such as shifting his company from developing black and white films to making color films. During that time, color film was inferior to black and white and Kodak was already in the lead of doing black and white. However, his enterprise mindset and his enthusiastic attitude for changes allowed the company to gain a place at the top of the photography industry. After his part away, Kodak management team was never the same.

http://gadgetreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/securedownload1-650×430.jpg

I think that because Kodak began as a film developer, many CEOs wanted to stick to original business plan, that is to sell only film cameras. They were ignorant to the disruptive digital technology. Furthermore, Kodak made a cliché mistake; it didn’t ask the right question. Instead of focusing more on the business that it was in, sharing memories, Kodak instead focused on selling more products. If its valued proposition is to let people share memories, Kodak should do whatever it takes to keep up with new photography technologies and inventions. In the blog, it is mentioned that Kodak purchased a chemical business for $5.1B because it wanted to develop chemically treated photo paper. (Another attempt to stick to film photography> huge mistake)

Today I think Kodak has learned its billion-dollar lesson. Just around last month, the company has released it newest product, a 360-degree sport camera, which is integrated with all kind of technologies. However, Kodak’s newly adapted strategy might have been a bit too late.

Source:

http://smallbiztrends.com

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2012/01/18/how-kodak-failed/3/

http://www.gurufocus.com/term/NCAV_real/FRA:KODN/Net%2BCurrent%2BAsset%2BValue%2B%2528per%2Bshare%2529/Eastman%2BKodak%2BCo

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2012/05/02/barriers-to-change-the-real-reason-behind-the-kodak-downfall/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/avidan/2013/08/20/the-death-of-scale-is-kodaks-failure-an-omen-of-things-to-come-for-corporate-america/

Unlike social enterprise, United Nations only handles problems at the surface. It’s an intergovernmental organization that establishes peace and security between countries and deal mostly with emergency situations.

Social entrepreneurs try to come up with innovations that address issues like educational opportunities, children health, housing, clean water, and climate change. However, they do not just fix the problems; they try to come up with methods that people could use so that they can solve the problem themselves in the future (finding the roots of the problem).

Social enterprise is a type of impact investment. It creates benefits more than just financial returns. Consider a situation in which a person wants to open a restaurant. Is it better to lend him money or is it better to equip him with proper business knowledge? Perhaps it’s better to go with the first one. However, the second option ought to be more efficient in the long term. If the man has the money but not the right business mind, he is more likely to face failure and be in debt. If he were provided with some business foundations, he would manage his restaurant better and is likely to succeed. Furthermore, the man could even teach his friends the business skills he learned so that they can open their own restaurants in the future. In this case, social entrepreneurs would do both but the money that they would lend out is not just a giveaway. It would come from a smart system like microfinance. Every decision is based on values that it would bring, be it environmental, social, or sustainability. This is why social enterprise differs from United Nations and should be highly recognized.

I’m really interested and looking forward to the Arc Initiative program that Sauder offers.

Source:
http://skollworldforum.org/about/what-is-social-entrepreneurship/
http://www.socialenterprisecanada.ca/learn/nav/whatisasocialenterprise.html

When I have to pay as much as a grand for just one way ticket, I expect a decent service. I want to share my experience with Air Canada which I believe is pretty similar to Peter Milobar’s.

Earlier this year, my flight had been canceled so I had to contact the call center. It took me an hour and a half to reach the agent. Not only did I have to wait for so long, but also the employee that finally picked up turned out to be quite rude and disrespectful.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/oY0uTMTBKRM/0.jpg

Like what Peter said, I think that Air Canada must greatly improve its customer service in order to sustain its customers’ loyalty. Even though Air Canada is the national airline and pretty much dominates the country’s airline business, it is facing more and more low cost competitors. Some American-based airlines are even now considering landing in the Canadian cities. More customers’ complaints could be observed online through http://whyaircanadasucks.com

I think that one way the company could resolve these issues is by creating a survey for clients to provide their satisfaction feedback. Furthermore, I think that organizational culture and human resource management should be paid more attention to. Air Canada must somehow make employees feel more enthusiastic and feel like working. The company might want to reduce their employees’ working hours, create a more comfortable atmosphere, and or integrate long working hours with frequent short breaks. To reduce the phone pick up time, they might need to hire more employees. These solutions come with a higher cost. But like Zappos, they would be proven useful in the long run.

Peter Milobar’s blog:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/petermilobar/
Source:
http://whyaircanadasucks.com
http://globalnews.ca/news/1483295/new-ultra-low-cost-air-carrier-jetlines-aims-for-spring-launch/