In February 1999, Kodak CEO George Fisher and several senior managers met with Rev. Norvel Goff, president of the Greater Rochester (New York) chapter of the NAACP, to discuss discrimination complaints from female and minority employees. After that meeting, the Eastman Kodak Company launched an internal investigation to study the pay and promotion status of 31,000 company employees. It found that “there was a discrepancy that appears to be on the basis of gender and race.” If Kodak treats their own employees that way, it’s no surprise that they would treat any potential minority and women-owned business supplier the same way.
Clearly, Kodak has demonstrated issues with employment equity, and they also seem to apply the same mindset around supplier diversity, not to be confused with supply chain diversification, a strategy companies use to drive down pricing or increase supplier choices. Supplier diversity encourages the use of diverse-owned, women-owned, veteran-owned, LGBT-owned (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender), service disabled veteran-owned, and historically underutilized business.
During my 7-year tenure at Kodak, I didn’t have problems hiring a Caucasian- owned supplier, male or female. However, there was resistance from the top of the organization when I presented the first and only African American-owned supplier at Kodak’s digital business. I was never told why, only given the run- around by upper management when it came time to finalize the deal.
The Carol H. Williams Advertising Agency was clearly reputable, with an impressive client base. They were willing to work within our budget, while the current marketing agency was not open to negotiate costs or even disclose their cost model to Kodak. And on top of that, they charged a $50,000 per month retainer. Sounds insane, I know, but that is just how bad conditions were. That behavior was condoned by the marketing leadership and company executives and it cost the company millions of dollars each year in unknown billing and outrageous retainer fees.
Kodak simply was not interested in having a highly successful African American agency become the force behind their marketing campaigns, nor even the face that represented them.
I was completely convinced of this after I learned that upper management approved and contracted another marketing agency that I recommended before CHWA – you’ll see as you read on – without my knowledge or further involvement in any form. This happened shortly after the CHWA proposal was ignored. Understand that as the purchasing manager, it was my job to source suppliers and negotiate pricing, particularly at this cash-strapped time for Kodak. I had earned my good reputation by selecting best-in-class suppliers and negotiating vast savings. So why did this engagement occur completely without my knowledge or involvement? I believe the answer is quite clear.
Let’s do a quick and dirty company profile comparison of the two agencies. While reading this, keep in mind the statement by the President and COO of the parent company Eastman Kodak, who said that we (Kodak) needed to do a better job at reaching the African American constituency:
First, we have CHWA, an African American woman-owned business. The executive team is 100 percent African American, the staff is nearly 100 percent African American, and most of the marketing campaigns they produce feature predominantly African American people.
Now let’s take a look at the agency that Kodak elected to partner with to “reach the African American constituency”. It is a Caucasian-owned business, the executive team is 100 percent Caucasian, the staff is nearly 100 percent Caucasian, and nearly all of the marketing campaigns they produce feature predominantly Caucasian people.
I think this comparison presents a pretty clear example of Kodak’s philosophies and old-world practices. Ironic--Kodak, frozen in time, like a picture.
The decision by our President and CEO/Vice President Eastman Kodak to not engage the Carol H. Williams Advertising Agency left me with the sense that fate itself had been derailed. Here is why I say that: I mentioned earlier that Mr. Brown showed up alone for the initial meeting with Kodak. What I didn’t mention is that he also walked to our office.
As chance would have it, less than one year prior, the Carol H. Williams Advertising Agency relocated its local office just one block away from our Kodak Gallery office. And if that wasn’t enough, I also met Robert Brown about a year and a half earlier while attending the 60th birthday party for former California State Assemblyman Sandra Swanson in Oakland, California.
A true, but funny story: I was mistakenly assigned to Mr. Brown’s dinner table at that party, and I was seated in his chair. When Mr. Brown arrived at the table to take his seat, the waiter realized the mistake. When I learned what had happened, I was preparing to move when Mr. Brown, true to form, insisted that I remain in his seat and he would find another. I was very relieved by his gesture, as the dining room seemed to be filled to capacity.
Prior to that dinner, I had never met Mr. Brown. But there we were, and in looking back now, it seemed that we were riding on the wings of fate. Kodak and CHWA seemed to be a match destined to happen…except for a Kodak tradition and lasting regime of contradiction that would not allow this union to come to fruition.