Contact us

Questions about your strategic brand development? 
Get expert advice from Louis-Philip Cattoir, IP &amp; Brand Strategist at Remarkable Europe.

Let’s talk about your challenge

Neem contact op

Vragen over jouw strategische merkontwikkeling? 
Krijg advies van Louis-Philip Cattoir, IP &amp; Merkstrateeg bij Remarkable Europe.

Laten we jouw uitdaging bespreken

Contact

Schrijf je in voor onze maandelijkse nieuwsbrief!

Thank you!

Bedankt!

Looking for more strategic, creative, and legal brand insights?

Wil je meer strategische, creatieve en juridische merkinzichten ontvangen?

Footer Bottom Menu

Footer Bottom Menu NL

Footer Menu EN

Footer Menu NL

Header Menu EN

Header Menu NL

For decades, Kodak was synonymous with photography. The “Kodak moment” became a household expression: a picture you simply couldn’t miss. The brand carried an emotional weight worldwide that few competitors could match. Yet in 2012, it went bankrupt. How can such a powerful brand — one that was literally part of our collective memory — lose itself?

The name Kodak was invented in 1888 by founder George Eastman. He wanted a short, strong, and universally pronounceable name. Not an existing word, but sounds that anyone, anywhere in the world, could say with ease. The sharp K conveyed strength, the symmetrical structure looked clean, and the word was language-independent. It became one of the first truly modern brand names. It foreshadowed how important branding would become.

A name that spoke for itself

Ironically, it was Kodak itself that developed the first digital camera in 1975. A bulky device producing 100&#215;100 pixel images, stored on a cassette tape. Visionary, but management mainly saw it as a threat to their profitable film business. The project was shelved.
That single decision illustrates a bigger problem: Kodak saw itself too much as a film producer instead of as a brand shaping memories and visual culture. While consumers went digital, Kodak clung to a product category that was bound to disappear.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-4958 size-medium" src="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/08/Remarkable-Europe_Kodak-Film-209x300.jpg" alt="Remarkable-Europe_Kodak-Film" width="209" height="300" srcset="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/08/Remarkable-Europe_Kodak-Film-209x300.jpg 209w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/08/Remarkable-Europe_Kodak-Film.jpg 445w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 209px) 100vw, 209px" />

The digital camera that never saw the light of day

A brand is never just a product. It fulfills functions that evolve over time: from practical recognition to quality label, commercial vehicle, and even societal role. Whoever misses that evolution gets left behind. Kodak had the chance to position its brand more broadly, but remained stuck in the film domain.

The pitfall of a too narrow brand definition

Kodak did try to expand: digital cameras, printers, photo services. But these initiatives felt incoherent. There was no clear brand architecture that explained what Kodak truly stood for. Was it a film manufacturer? A camera brand? A service platform? That lack of clarity weakened its perception.

Extensions without conviction

Brands face moments where small adjustments (evolution) are enough, and moments where only a radical redefinition (revolution) works. Kodak chose too often for the first, while the market demanded the second. That may well be the essence of their downfall: the unwillingness to truly reformulate their brand promise for a new era.

Evolution versus revolution

A striking contrast is Philips. Founded in 1891 as a light bulb producer, but over the decades evolving into electronics, healthcare, and medical technology. Philips consistently redefined its brand promise and broadened its scope. Today, it is a global health and innovation company.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-4960 size-medium" src="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/08/Remarkable-Europe_Phlips-225x300.jpg" alt="" width="225" height="300" srcset="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/08/Remarkable-Europe_Phlips-225x300.jpg 225w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/08/Remarkable-Europe_Phlips.jpg 730w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 225px) 100vw, 225px" />
Where Kodak remained trapped in film, Philips dared to leave its product base behind and continuously opted for a broader brand role. The brand evolved with time, without losing its recognition or reputation.

Philips as the mirror image

Kodak remained globally recognizable, but recognition alone is not enough. A brand must move with new contexts, technologies, and expectations. The failure was not a lack of innovation. The digital expertise was there. What failed was the ability to connect that innovation with the brand strategy.
Today, we still see faint echoes of Kodak: industrial printing, niche applications, even a short-lived flirtation with blockchain. But without a clear brand fit, they remained isolated attempts.

What brands can learn today

&nbsp;
<ol>
<li>Choose a name that is strong and timeless, but let it grow with your brand role.</li>
<li>Define your brand by its meaning, not its product.</li>
<li>Build a brand architecture that provides direction for new extensions.</li>
<li>Recognize when small steps no longer suffice, and when reinvention is needed.</li>
</ol>
Successful brands don’t make their identity a straitjacket. They make it a springboard. That is the difference between staying relevant for 100 years, like Philips, or ending up as a footnote in a history book, like Kodak.

From “Kodak Moment” to snapshot