How These Iconic Brands Faded Away

Throughout history, some brands have risen to the top, becoming household names and revolutionizing industries, only to fall from grace and fade into obscurity. These once-iconic companies captivated the world with groundbreaking innovations and loyal followings, but their dominance was not eternal. From failing to adapt to changing trends to making strategic missteps, their downfalls serve as cautionary tales of how even the mightiest can stumble. In this exploration, we delve into the stories of these brands, uncovering the reasons behind their decline and the lessons their legacies hold for the future.

BlackBerry

When I mention BlackBerry, it might bring back memories for you. In 2010, BlackBerry held more than 40% of the smartphone market in the USA. It was the epitome of technological innovation—the keyboards, the security, and even Barack Obama’s phone, which the Secret Service allowed him to use. Before it disappeared, BlackBerry ruled the smartphone world.

RIM, the company behind BlackBerry, first introduced the 850 in 1999. But it wasn’t even really a phone; it was a portable device made for sending secure emails. It was a revolution on Wall Street. Business professionals everywhere were snapping it up. A few years later, the BlackBerry 5810 arrived, changing the game. It combined email, SMS, internet access, and the ability to make calls—though you had to plug in a headset since it didn’t have a speaker. Though initially designed for professionals, it quickly became so popular that it earned the nickname “CrackBerry” due to its addictive nature.

But how did they fall behind the competition? Well, the answer lies in their failure to anticipate future trends. BlackBerry was a bit too comfortable with its success and didn’t worry much about the iPhone at first. The first iPhone, while groundbreaking, was still somewhat of a gadget. It had a short battery life, was overly expensive, and lacked many features, such as an efficient automatic corrector. Technologically, though, it was impressive, and there was room for improvement. BlackBerry’s leadership thought they had time to create their own version, which would ultimately lead to their downfall.

What BlackBerry didn’t expect was Apple’s rapid improvement. The iPhone 3G launched the following year, alongside the Apple Store, and it became clear: people wanted a computer in their pocket. Apple delivered just that. As if that wasn’t enough, Google’s Android made its debut, adding even more pressure on BlackBerry to release a competitive product.

In an attempt to keep up, BlackBerry launched the Storm. It was designed to stand out with a touch screen, which they thought would offer a better user experience. But their teams had never worked with this kind of technology before, and with only nine months to develop the model, they couldn’t get it right. When the Storm launched, it was far from perfect. Despite its popularity and BlackBerry’s strong public image, the device was plagued with bugs. The screen didn’t function properly, and tens of thousands of units had to be exchanged and replaced. Some of the replacement phones were just as defective, forcing the company to take a huge financial hit—losing half a billion dollars and damaging their reputation.

From that point on, BlackBerry’s decline was inevitable. The first BlackBerry running Android wasn’t released until 2015, but by then, the world had already moved on. Today, the company still exists, but they’ve completely moved away from phones and now focus on cybersecurity. In 2022, BlackBerry stopped supporting all of their old software, and it’s unlikely that we’ll see them return to the smartphone market anytime soon.

BlackBerry’s story is a classic example of a company that couldn’t keep up with changing times and technological advancements.

Vine

Why did Vine stop? It’s literally the ancestor of TikTok and YouTube Shorts. Back in 2012, Vine’s success was dazzling. Just three months after its release, it was surpassed, but Vine’s potential was evident. YouTube, Logan Paul, and influencers—many of them came from Vine. Yet, just three years later, it went bankrupt. How could such a successful concept disappear so quickly? The answer is simple: Vine made critical mistakes.

The app, created by three men—Dominique, Rus, and Colin—wasn’t even ready for launch when Twitter bought it for $30 million. Elon Musk’s ongoing surveys on X to relaunch Vine highlight its potential. Not only was the concept crazy good, but it also complemented Twitter’s 140-character format, and Vine exploded once it launched. However, there was a problem—Vine struggled to monetize and figure out how to manage ads. Who or what should they charge? For Twitter, this wasn’t a serious issue. It’s normal for startups to lose money, but the creators of Vine faced a different problem. They had millions of views, and there was potential to monetize those views—around $3 to $5 per thousand subscribers for a sponsored video.

The biggest creators, especially in the U.S., had a brilliant idea: they all gathered at a content creators’ hub on 1600 Win Street to collaborate and help each other build their brands. They could create trends, cross-promote, and elevate each other’s content. It was the “El Dorado” of social media. However, Twitter wasn’t benefiting from this success. They didn’t make any revenue from the top creators, who were the ones keeping the platform alive. Twitter also didn’t agree with the kind of content the creators were producing. This led to a silent war between Vine’s creators and Twitter.

Over time, Vine started downplaying the importance of its top creators, who felt undervalued despite having kept the platform alive. Meanwhile, Vine’s management was in constant turmoil, with frequent CEO changes and no clear strategy. Instagram also launched short-form videos, YouTube offered better monetization, and Vine’s creators began posting elsewhere, causing a decrease in views. However, there was still a chance to turn things around.

In a last-ditch effort, about twenty of Vine’s biggest creators met with the Vine team and pitched a deal: if Twitter agreed to pay them $1 million each and developed better tools for creators (e.g., a way to filter out insulting comments), they would agree to post three videos per week for a year. Twitter refused to pay, as they were facing financial struggles. In the weeks that followed, influencers stopped posting, deleted their accounts, or directed their followers to other platforms. The trend continued downward, and Vine couldn’t recover.

Vine’s demise is a textbook case of how a company can fail to evolve, make poor decisions, and mismanage its resources. Often, it’s this type of oversight that leads to the downfall of companies, even when they have a great idea.

Moving on to a related topic, you had sent me newspaper articles, but I couldn’t view them. It’s normal—they’re only available in the country of origin. So, how do you see this? I reached out to our long-time partner, CyberGhost VPN. If you need to change your location and bypass geo-restrictions, it’s the best solution. With just one click, you gain access to all content blocked in France, for example, the foreign catalog of streaming services like Disney+, Amazon, or Netflix. You even get 40% more content in French, including car racing from Belgium, all at the local price. Plus, it’s great for saving money. For instance, Disney+ in Argentina costs only €2.80, and Spotify is €1.50. They have more than 38 million users and are the world leaders in cybersecurity, with a 100% private network that encrypts data. Right now, they’re running an 83% off promotion with 4 months free, only €2 per month. You can protect up to 7 devices at once, and there’s a 45-day satisfaction guarantee. If you’re interested, don’t wait—click the link in the description.

Now, let’s talk about BlackBerry. Do you remember it? In 2010, BlackBerry held more than 40% of the smartphone market in the U.S. It was the tech innovation of its time—secure, reliable, and used by high-profile people like President Obama. But how did they fall behind the competition? The answer lies in their reaction to the iPhone. The first iPhone model was stylish but lacked many features, which gave BlackBerry a chance to respond. But they underestimated Apple’s ability to improve quickly. The iPhone 3G and the Apple Store quickly put them ahead. Meanwhile, BlackBerry was scrambling to create its version to compete. Their attempt, the Storm, was rushed, and the end result was a buggy, problematic device. Though it sold well initially, it damaged BlackBerry’s reputation, and they lost half a billion dollars. After the failure of the Storm, BlackBerry couldn’t catch up. By the time they released their first Android-based phone in 2015, the market had already moved on.

Today, BlackBerry is still around, but they’ve shifted to cybersecurity and have left the smartphone market behind.

There are many other examples of companies that failed to adapt to changes. Kodak, for instance, was once the leader in photography. They invented portable film cameras, color film, and even worked with the CIA on government satellites. But in 1975, one of their employees, Steve Sasson, invented the first portable digital camera. Kodak didn’t jump on this new technology because they were too invested in their film business. It took them 10 years to prepare, but by the time digital cameras became mainstream, Kodak was too late. They tried to pivot to high-end devices but couldn’t compete with cheaper options. As people began taking photos with their phones, Kodak’s business model became obsolete. They went bankrupt despite having had the digital technology from the start.

Similarly, Netflix started as a DVD rental service by mail, and when they refused to sell to Amazon or Blockbuster, they unknowingly set the stage for the streaming giant we know today. If they had sold out, we might not have the Netflix we have now.

There are countless other companies that failed because they didn’t evolve with the times, from Tati stores to Alice and Club Internet, many iconic names faded away. The lesson is clear: adaptation is key to survival in business.

Kodak

The story of Kodak and its decline is a fascinating cautionary tale about technological innovation and business strategy. Kodak’s journey—from being a trailblazer in photography to falling behind due to their reluctance to adapt swiftly—offers important lessons for companies navigating technological disruption.

The Kodak Case: A Summary

Dominance in Film Photography:
Kodak was a technological giant, synonymous with photography. It made photography accessible with portable cameras and affordable film, and even collaborated with the CIA during the Cold War for high-tech satellite cameras.
The Digital Camera Innovation:
In 1975, Kodak engineer Steve Sasson developed the first digital camera. However, Kodak chose to focus on their profitable film business instead of pivoting towards digital technology, fearing cannibalization of their core product.

Late Entry and Strategic Missteps:
- Kodak eventually embraced digital photography, releasing products that became best-sellers.
- However, they entered the market late, facing stiff competition.
- Their strategy of focusing on high-end devices alienated budget-conscious consumers, who favored cheaper alternatives.
- They struggled to repurpose their massive film-production infrastructure.
Diversification Failures:
- Attempts to pivot to the chemical industry failed.
- Legal issues, such as a lawsuit over instant photography, further drained resources.
- Investments in outdated trends like photo printing failed to anticipate the digital storage revolution.

Competition from Smartphones:
As smartphones with built-in cameras gained popularity, Kodak’s digital cameras became obsolete, leading to dwindling sales and eventual bankruptcy.

The Netflix Parallel

Kodak’s story parallels the early days of Netflix, which began as a DVD rental-by-mail service. Unlike Kodak, Netflix embraced innovation:

They transitioned from physical rentals to streaming, understanding the potential of the internet.

When Blockbuster, the dominant video rental chain, declined to purchase Netflix, they missed the opportunity to adapt. Netflix thrived, while Blockbuster’s model became obsolete.

Lessons Learned

Adaptation Is Key: Companies must anticipate and adapt to technological changes instead of resisting them to protect existing revenue streams.
Timing Matters: Being the first mover or early adopter often provides a competitive edge, while late entry can be costly.

Consumer-Centric Thinking: Understanding evolving consumer behavior is crucial (e.g., the shift to digital storage and smartphone photography).
Diverse Strategies: Relying on a single product or business model can be risky, especially in rapidly changing markets.

Both Kodak and Blockbuster highlight how even industry leaders can fall if they fail to innovate and respond to disruption. Meanwhile, Netflix’s adaptability serves as an example of leveraging change to stay ahead.