Kodak was successful in bringing the trade problems to a head by filing the 301 petition backed up by the Dewey Ballantine study. In that respect, the initial strategy of presenting verified allegations and claims that Japan was restricting Kodak's entrance into the Japanese market, was bold and well thought out. Now that the strategy has been laid down, it is essential that Kodak does not adopt new strategies, but instead focuses on specific tactics to achieve the strategic goal.
The relationship between "strategies" and "tactics" must be made clear for the argument of this essay to succeed. A "strategy" is a concerted, focused intellectual construct, usually long term, to achieve a desired goal. A "tactic" is a specific action, or set of actions, designed to enable the success of the strategy. Although many analysts confuse the two terms and often use them interchangeably, they are not synonymous.
Within that framework, Kodak's next tactical move should be to tighten the precepts of the petition so that the issues of the battle remain clear. It is clear from the case that tension between the two companies has led to tension between the two nations, and it is essential that Kodak distance itself from these tensions by focusing on the market issue instead of the political issue. This is neither a reversal nor a denial of the original strategy of dealing with alleged trade restrictions is as a political issue. This strategy can be effective for Kodak, just as it was effective for Motorola, referred to in the case study. The first tactical consideration is how Kodak should further respond to the counterclaim by Fujifilm.
The response, and, indeed all of the tactical moves made by Kodak, must stay within the framework of the realization that, in spite of some evidential material presented, most of the allegations are based on "perceptions" rather than "realities." Indeed, Georg
...