Thread regarding FTD layoffs

Theories on why FTD'd old "interim" leader never made permanent CEO?

So why just "interim," the befuddled observer of interesting corporations wonders.

Theory: Intuition at former company a

Eastman Kodak (which, by the way, has had a history of layoffs over the years) dabbled in cryptocurrency (bitcoin like) in more recent years...

Cryptocurrencies come with some warnings...

A fact that led the New York Times to pen this critique of Eastman Kodak...

Well, it's certainly a disruptive concept.

Maybe didn't go over so well at Kodak though...

Does "mutually agreed" mean he was asked to leave, perchance?

Theory: Dude's career in a bit of a lull, hence needed a new gig to keep busy until finding next long term opportunity?

Kodak and cryptocurrency.

Sounds like kind of a desperate move to get attention to try to seem modern, high tech and more hip.

Kind of like putting Rip Van Winkel in Doc Martens and a nose ring as he's propped up after being roused from a very lonnng sleep. It just doesn't really work.

I think he was just brought in primarily to do what Kodak did do well, which was to cut workforce size. This is what conpanies do in certain stages of the business life cycle.

Salesforce = meteoric growth (Marc Benioff is such a tech rock star he even hangs out with rock star Lars Ulrich of Metallica)

Eastman Kodak? Chopping heads

FTD? Downsizing

These "interim" guys must just be brought in to "transform" (read plan layoffs to cut costs) and then the short term project they were hired for is overwith and a permanent CEO is brought in.

Makes sense! Hard to find anyone who wants to captain the Titanic immediately after a bankruptcy, so you hire a temp.

Just a theory.

So NOT Salesforce!

| 1065 views | | 2 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+15bQw9zk

2 replies (most recent on top)

Found more stuff online re: this Kodak cryptocurrency story

Turns out the thing may not have actually ended up licensed.

So what's the reason for a past Kodak CEO mutually agreeing with Kodak to leave? Too much confusion and weird PR with a CEO out there in the press first talking up cryptocurrency projects, then the Kodak Kashminer thing panned as a scam by critics, deal blocked by the SEC, but because it never ended up being licensed, it's not really totally egg on Kodak's face, but they just wanted to send the top guy along to avoid any more confusion and chaos affecting the brand's image??

Moral of story perhaps that if your brand is film, just stick to film already. Otherwise, change your company name.

Sounds like Kodak was trying to use a long history of brand equity to make money through licensing the iconic name. Some deals not only didn't work out, but also caused bad brand press as a result.

Bet that's why the old Eastman Kodak CEO said adios (mutually, that is).

Or maybe he wanted no more part of the embarrassment and rather than quit, both sides made it like it was mutual.

Whatever the real story, this Kodak thing is like a b-school case study in why you ought not take a well known brand's core business and muck it up trying to remain relevant when it's in the decline stage of the business cycle.

Post ID: @1uhu+15bQw9zk

Found more commentary on Jeff Clarke's (ahem) Kodak moment over at Eastman Kodak, which started to dabble in cryptocurrency.

The Securities and Exchange Commish put the kibosh on this...

I'm speechless

Post ID: @vve+15bQw9zk

Post a reply