Why do people ask us if we can still get film for that "thing" when we are USING the darn camera?
I know the feeling. It used to annoy me, but I've fixed my Grandmother's 126 camera and reloaded cartridges with fresh film. Now, when people ask, I can say, "If I couldn't get film, would I be using it?" Followed by, "As a matter of fact, they don't make film for this camera anymore."

I'd only do this when asked smugly, not when asked in earnest. Unfortunately, most questions have been of the former sort.
In what publications? And once those publications are named, have you seen Fuji, Adox and or Ilford pay for film ads in similar spreads?
What would that acknowledgment look like? Who would it appeal to? Who would it sway, what would be the bullet points of the campaigns?
If Ilford came out with Delta 400 in 4x5, how should they spend their advertising dollars in promoting this format? If Ferrania succeeds in creating new transparency film, what is the best form of advertising?
I feel this is a bit nihilistic.
Also, i feel it is somewhat like asking me how Chevrolet should best spend their money to get people to buy one of their vehicles. While I can throw about ideas, I do not know much about advertising. However, I do know that Chevrolet does advertise
each of their models. All of their advertising bullet points and expenditures neither sway nor appeal to me - but I'm not everyone, and have always been cognizant of that.
Today I was talking to a friend at work (in IT) who is also a professional photographer. He was telling me how people seem to just want CDs of their weddings now, not albums. These aren't smart-phone pictures of office parties or vacations. It has changed a lot in just 10 years.
By attempting to
increase printing, it would seem KA is already investing funds to increase a market. To do so, they either have to persuade the same people to print more, or recruit more people to print photos. Either way, they are actively trying to expand a market in a world where those who want it already know, and the rest appear content with something else.
I was just addressing some of the comments in this thread. Perhaps some people here would feel a bit better seeing something related to film in the regular advertising campaign, even if it did not take center stage. I already suggested (off the cuff, and not in a negative tone) the acknowledgment might look like
a roll of film.
You may notice that I have not bashed Kodak on this BBS. Suggesting it wouldn't kill them to add an image of a roll of film to a Personal Imaging ad is just an harmless opinion. It may even remind people who used to use film that it is still out there, and who knows, it might lead some to dig out their old cameras.
A few film companies (among other vendors) advertise here on APUG. Ironically, perhaps, most people on APUG would know of these companies and where to purchase their products even if said companies had absolutely no presence on APUG. We don't
need to see them advertise here, yet they still do.
In this light, I might ask why actions by companies like Ilford and Adox were used in your example as they were, without also fully reversing the example. A question like that may seem an (intentional) faux pas of logic on my part, but could be amusing none-the-less.