funding your own disruption - by Swastika - stratnotes
stratnotes
SubscribeSign in
funding your own disruption<br>How Kodak and Netflix faced the exact same strategic crossroad, and took opposite paths to the future
Swastika<br>Jul 04, 2026
Share
In 1975, a 23-year-old Kodak engineer named Steve Sasson walked into a room full of executives holding something that looked like a toaster with a lens bolted on. He took a photo. He pulled a cassette tape out of the side. He played it back on a TV screen.<br>Nobody asked how it worked.<br>They asked why anyone would want to take a picture that way when there was nothing wrong with film.<br>Thanks for reading stratnotes! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribe
Thirty-two years later, a small, profitable DVD-by-mail company faced the same choice Kodak had faced. Its own core business was working. Its own core business was still growing. And it still had to decide whether to pivot away from the thing that was working, toward something smaller and unproven.<br>That company was Netflix. In 2007, DVD-by-mail was not a dying business looking for a lifeline. It was a healthy, growing subscription business with no external crisis forcing any change. Netflix pivoted away from it anyway.<br>It was the same fork in the road. It was the same slow-moving disruption. Two profitable, dominant businesses each stared at a smaller, uncertain thing nibbling at the edges of their own Cash Cow, and each one had to decide whether to pivot toward it.<br>Kodak refused to pivot in time. Netflix did.<br>This is the fork I want to look at.<br>The Framework
There is a tool from the 1970s that explains exactly why these two stories split the way they did. It is called the BCG Growth Share Matrix , and Boston Consulting Group built it to answer one question: where should this business get its next dollar, and where should it stop getting any? It plots every business along two lines. One line measures how fast the market around it is growing. The other measures how much of that market it actually controls.<br>Every business lands in one of four quadrants once you plot it this way.
BCG Growth Share Matrix. Source: BCG<br>A business with low growth and high share is a Cash Cow . It is mature and it is profitable, and BCG’s own guidance is simple. Milk it for cash, and reinvest that cash elsewhere.<br>A business with high growth and high share is a Star . It has real future potential, and the guidance here is just as direct. Invest in it significantly, because it is already winning and still growing.<br>A business with high growth and low share is a Question Mar k. It is unproven, and BCG’s guidance is the most honest of the four. Invest in it or discard it, depending on its actual chances of becoming a Star. Nobody gets to skip that judgment call.<br>A business with low growth and low share is what BCG itself calls a Pet, the quadrant everyone else just calls a Dog . The guidance is blunt. Liquidate it, divest it, or reposition it.<br>The matrix comes with an instruction. You are supposed to take the cash your Cows generate and pour it into your Question Marks, before you have to, not after. It is uncomfortable, because it means spending your most reliable business’s money on something that has not proven itself yet. But it is the only way a Question Mark ever gets enough runway to become a Star before somebody else’s does.<br>Kodak had a Cash Cow, and it had a Question Mark sitting right next to it. Netflix had the exact same setup, decades later. Only one of them actually followed the instruction.<br>Kodak: Defending the Cow
Here’s what makes Kodak’s story so much worse than the version you’ve probably heard. It’s not a story about a company that failed to see the future. Kodak saw it with unusual precision.<br>In 1979, a Kodak employee named Larry Matteson wrote an internal report predicting the complete shift to digital photography would happen by 2010. He was off by a few years. The transformation was largely complete by the early 2000s.<br>In 1981, Kodak’s own market intelligence team ran a study asking whether digital photography could eventually replace film. The conclusion carried both bad news and good news. The bad news was yes, eventually it could. The good news was that Kodak had roughly a ten-year runway to prepare before it became a real threat.<br>Ten years of runway. An internal prediction accurate to within a year of the real thing. And the invention itself, sitting in-house since 1975, patented and shelved.<br>Kodak had every input a company could ask for. What it did with all of it was defend the Cow.<br>In fact, Kodak made exactly the mistake that George Eastman, its own founder, had avoided twice before. Eastman gave up a profitable dry-plate business to move to film when film was still the uncertain bet. He invested in color film even though it was demonstrably inferior to the black-and-white film Kodak already dominated. Both times, he chose the harder, unproven path over the comfortable one....