Awakening of Fuji: Choosefilm Relaunch

[Film-Niko]

http://choosefilm.com/

Thanks for the information, looks like an improvement.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

They do!! Personlly I think the main Kodak website is absolutely brilliant with superb marketing for their traditional film products. Compare the main Kodak website with the main Fuji one - there is quite a difference.

Whlst new Portra 400 and Ektar may share technology with Vision, they are of course not re-badged movie film and there will have been enourmous investment to bring these products to market - I think it would suprise people just how much if we knew.

Currently "Choose film" website seems to be the only marketing spend Fuji have with traditional products, which is a shame.

It is not clear to me where Fujifilm wants to go with their analogue stills photography film offering. My perception from here in the UK is that their E6 films have willing purchasers, but their colour negative offering is possibly less distinctive compared to the Kodak products.

Tom

 

[Moopheus]

They do!! Personlly I think the main Kodak website is absolutely brilliant with superb marketing for their traditional film products.

Really? In what way? You can find information about the film products on the web site, but all of the real promotional effort of the site is clearly directed to digital products. There's no effort to interest anybody in the film products who isn't already a user.

The thing about the Fuji site is that it is clearly an initiative of Fuji UK, and there doesn't seem to be any coordination with Fuji's other units. The nice thing about it is that they're trying to make it welcoming for all film users, not just Fuji customers (a smart move on their part, I'd say).

 

[Film-Niko]

They do!! Personlly I think the main Kodak website is absolutely brilliant with superb marketing for their traditional film products.

Oh no, superb marketing looks absolutely different.
Kodak is doing a bit better with their cine film marketing (why shoot film, interviews with directors etc.).
But for photo film: nothing equivalent from them. Why not?

For photo film there is no marketing strategy at Kodak.

The greatest problem of the current analogue market is the lack of efficient marketing strategies and marketing campaigns. Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Foma, Lucky, Adox, Rollei-Film/Maco don't do nothing to promote film as an attractive photographic medium.

The same for the big film distribution companies: Freestyle, macodirect, fotoimpex and your business ag-photographic. No marketing strategies for promoting film use and getting new photographers interested in shooting film.

There are millions of people, which have started photography with digital. Lots of them are now realizing that there is film, too.
They asked themselves, "which may be the reasons and the advantages of shooting film?"
They think: "Oh, the best should be to visit the information websites of the film manufactureres and distributors. They will tell me all the good reasons why they produce film, why they sell film and why I should use film".

Then they visitit the websites:
Kodak: Nothing (only for cine film, but photographers will not look there)
Fuji: Nothing
Ilford: Nothing
Foma: Nothing
Lucky: Nothing
Freestyle: Nothing
Fotoimpex/Adox: Nothing
Rollei-Film: Nothing
Ag-photographic: Nothing

These digital photographers with a starting interest in film will not find any infomation by the film manufacturers, which could be the reasons to shoot film.
Their possible conclusion: If the film producers don't know why to shoot film, then there is no reason for me to start with film.

Film manufacturers and distributors are the only companies in todays capitalism, who think you can successful sell products without efficient marketing strategies.
Of course you are not successful without marketing.

The only exception is the Lomographic Society: They do an extremely efficient marketing not only for their own products, but intensively for film as a photographic medium and a new trend.
Because of their new and innovative marketing strategies they are extremely succesful (I have recently talked to them at one of their new gallery stores and the manager told me they have growth rates of 20-40% per year, and that for about ten years now!!).
But for the whole film market the Lomography marketing is of course not sufficient.
Kodak, Ilford, Fuji + Co have to start marketing strategies as well.

But the example of Lomography shows clearly that also in the digital age selling film in big numbers is possible.
But that will not "fall from the sky", you have to work for it, you have to develop the marktes, you have to do marketing.

Currently "Choose film" website seems to be the only marketing spend Fuji have with traditional products, which is a shame.

That is right, but the other manufacturers and distributors are not better in this regard.
The whole behavier concernig marketing of all film manufacturers and distributors is a shame, except LSI (they do by far the most for promoting film as an attractive photographic medium).
But perhaps the choosefilm relaunch is the first step in the right direction. The first step in new marketing efforts. Let's hope that's the case, and let's get in contact with them and other producers to tell them, to share ideas (for marketing) and to support them.

Choosefilm could be a tool for that.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Marketing in the sense you're referring to is overrated; much better for the manufacturer to provide good in-depth product information, and maybe some case studies, not trendy absurdist hype. Intelligent customers will figure out film for themselves if they are sufficiently curious.

To counter your list, for starters see: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=140
and: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319

Tom

 

[Steve Smith]

To counter your list, for starters see: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=140

Also on the same site are Ilford's guides to developing, printing and black and white photography in general. Click on 'APPLICATIONS' to see the list.


Steve.

 

[Moopheus]

Intelligent customers will figure out film for themselves if they are sufficiently curious.

In the US at least, that has not generally been the road to commercial success; that is the road to obscure niche product that eventually disappears from the market.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

In the US at least, that has not generally been the road to commercial success; that is the road to obscure niche product that eventually disappears from the market.

Possibly. However there may be a difference between Harman deciding to run a series of adverts in the British Journal of Photography for the ILFORD product range compared to latching on the the latest fashionable trend, e.g. 'use ILFORD HP5 Plus in your lomo for old school photo creativity'. i.e. trying to associate a brand with a particular approach which may well be deeply misleading and simplistic.

Tom

 

[Matt5791]

Then they visitit the websites:
Kodak: Nothing (only for cine film, but photographers will not look there)
Fuji: Nothing
Ilford: Nothing
Foma: Nothing
Lucky: Nothing
Freestyle: Nothing
Fotoimpex/Adox: Nothing
Rollei-Film: Nothing
Ag-photographic: Nothing

These digital photographers with a starting interest in film will not find any infomation by the film manufacturers, which could be the reasons to shoot film.
Their possible conclusion: If the film producers don't know why to shoot film, then there is no reason for me to start with film.

Film manufacturers and distributors are the only companies in todays capitalism, who think you can successful sell products without efficient marketing strategies.
Of course you are not successful without marketing.

The only exception is the Lomographic Society: They do an extremely efficient marketing not only for their own products, but intensively for film as a photographic medium and a new trend.
Because of their new and innovative marketing strategies they are extremely succesful (I have recently talked to them at one of their new gallery stores and the manager told me they have growth rates of 20-40% per year, and that for about ten years now!!).
But for the whole film market the Lomography marketing is of course not sufficient.
Kodak, Ilford, Fuji + Co have to start marketing strategies as well.

But the example of Lomography shows clearly that also in the digital age selling film in big numbers is possible.
But that will not "fall from the sky", you have to work for it, you have to develop the marktes, you have to do marketing.



That is right, but the other manufacturers and distributors are not better in this regard.
The whole behavier concernig marketing of all film manufacturers and distributors is a shame, except LSI (they do by far the most for promoting film as an attractive photographic medium).
But perhaps the choosefilm relaunch is the first step in the right direction. The first step in new marketing efforts. Let's hope that's the case, and let's get in contact with them and other producers to tell them, to share ideas (for marketing) and to support them.

Choosefilm could be a tool for that.

I don't often say this - but you need to get out of the darkroom more. How can you say

Kodak: Nothing

Look at the link Tom provided to the Kodak website. I think their marketing is brilliant. What more do you want!!! They really understand the customer - look at the new listing for the new Portra - the imagery and photographers they have chosen, it all appeals to the film user and those who are seeking the "Film look". Further to this they post video interviews with people like John Sexton on the black and white side.

You are 100% right that new people are coming to film having started in digital and we cater for this curiosity by offering advise and making the traditional products approachable. I can honestly say that not a day passes without a new customer coming to us who "hasn't shot film in a long time" or "is just getting into traditional film".

I'm not sure about Lomography - they sell film at extraordinarly high prices and I really think that there will be a very high proportion of people who buy the plastic camera, shoot a roll of film purely for novelty value, and then either never get it processed or, if they do, are dissapointed with results.

Matt

 

[thegman]

I can appreciate that Fujifilm has let go of a few films recently, and I don't like it any more than anyone else here. However, I do think that we should bear in mind that Fujifilm continue to release both 35mm and 120 cameras, quality cameras too. They've got the Klasse and Natura for 35mm and the GF670 for 120 (and soon a wide lens version). They are trimming the film lines, but if one line is a loss maker, would we rather they continue at a loss, or make their film business profitable, and one which can be defended to the board and shareholders?

They are a business, and need to act that way, however if you nose around a bit, they have more activity in film than it first appears.

 

[thegman]

As someone who gets practically all their film from AG Photographic, I agree with all of the above except the Lomography bit. I started in film with a 35mm range finder, then MF range finder, and then for some fun got a Lomo LC-A+. I love the little thing, and I really like the results. I shoot it a fair bit, and get the films cross processed. The results are in some ways a Lomo cliché, with the green tinges and vignetting, but I like it.

I have written to Lomography about their insane film pricing, and they wrote back, but we'll see if anything changes. However, I can get all the films I need from AG, so I do. Just waiting for the new Portra 400 to come in stock now...

 

[Steve Roberts]

It is not clear to me where Fujifilm wants to go with their analogue stills photography film offering. My perception from here in the UK is that their E6 films have willing purchasers, but their colour negative offering is possibly less distinctive compared to the Kodak products.

Tom

I agree, Tom. For some reason Fuji's neg films seem to come across as a bit nondescript and downmarket compared to Kodak's products.

I expect this has been mentioned elsewhere, but unfortunately the widely broadcast demise of Kodachrome is often seen as "you can't get slide film any more" which won't help the cause of the many fine E6 films available or of film use in general, as perceived by potential converts (rather than existing users).

Steve

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I agree, Tom. For some reason Fuji's neg films seem to come across as a bit nondescript and downmarket compared to Kodak's products.

I expect this has been mentioned elsewhere, but unfortunately the widely broadcast demise of Kodachrome is often seen as "you can't get slide film any more" which won't help the cause of the many fine E6 films available or of film use in general, as perceived by potential converts (rather than existing users).

Steve

I wonder where the market is for 160S and 400H? I have to admit though that I've been impressed in my limited experience with the Reala film for its colour rendition, possibly unique.

On your second point, I'd not heard that viewpoint but has 'Kodachrome' ever been seen as a generic term for transparency film?

Tom

 

[edp]

I'm clearly in the minority loving Fuji's colour negative films (especially 160S and Reala), and Kodak's E6 (particularly E100GX).

 

[Moopheus]

Look at the link Tom provided to the Kodak website. I think their marketing is brilliant. What more do you want!!! ... it all appeals to the film user and those who are seeking the "Film look".

It is still niche product marketing. It is relatively buried within the site, and clearly marks film as for elite arty professionals. Not a mass-market product. Now admittedly you can sell a certain amount of product to pretentious amateurs this way, but there is really no effort to sell film to people who aren't already using it.

 

[Steve Roberts]

I wonder where the market is for 160S and 400H? I have to admit though that I've been impressed in my limited experience with the Reala film for its colour rendition, possibly unique.

On your second point, I'd not heard that viewpoint but has 'Kodachrome' ever been seen as a generic term for transparency film?

Tom

I've never had any complaints about Fuji neg film. In my experience, the variations in the final product (i.e. the prints) are far more dependent on processing variations than on the film stock used.

I wasn't going quite as far as suggesting that Kodachrome was seen as a generic term for c/trans film (certainly not amongst people here) but to those who last shot slides a few years ago or whose parents did, "no more Kodachrome" can seem to equate to "no more slides". I could mention the K-word to all kinds of people who aren't photographically inclined and they'd know what I meant, but drop Astia, Provia or even Ektachrome into the conversation and the words would mean nothing.

Steve

 

[mabman]

What I don't understand about Fuji is how some of their products end up being sold in Japan-only. Specifically I'm thinking of Natura 1600 film - from sample shots I've seen it actually looks like a high-speed colour neg film with light grain and nice tones, whereas the now defunct Superia 1600 was, um, not so much Also, things like their Gaslight paper are also unique in the marketplace right now.

Yes, I know they can be imported from Japan Exposures, but I would rather be able to go down to my local photo store that stocks Fuji and buy from them.

It just seems a bit silly to have at least 2 unique products in the marketplace as a whole and not want to make them available to the worldwide market and thus make more money for yourself.

As for marketing specifically - most of it seems to be word-of-mouth these days in the film market. Given sites like APUG I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing - they show something at say, PhotoKina, it gets talked about here, the existing community knows about it. For me, this is good, because let's face it, Scott DiSabato or Fuji reps aren't going to be doing a dog-and-pony show here in Winnipeg, MB anytime soon, and it's unlikely I'll be going to PhotoKina myself in the near future. It does make it a bit more challenging for the new film user, but considering APUG and other user-driven sites rank very highly on Google searches on common film subjects I'm not sure it's that much of a barrier, either.

It would be nice to see Kodak and Fuji spend more on film advertising, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

 

[Steve Roberts]

As for marketing specifically - most of it seems to be word-of-mouth these days in the film market. Given sites like APUG I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing - they show something at say, PhotoKina, it gets talked about here, the existing community knows about it.

It would be nice to see Kodak and Fuji spend more on film advertising, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

I think what you say is true, but unfortunately word-of-mouth tends to spread misinformation as effectively as it spreads good information. Last night I exhibited a few b/w prints (of snow scenes) and one chap made a comment to me that "This wasn't last winter, was it?" I said that it was and wondered why he thought it might not be. He replied "Well you can't buy black and white film and paper any more so I thought you must have printed them a while ago." Now this chap isn't daft by any stretch of the imagination, but with the overwhelming onslaught of digital photography and withdrawal of pretty much all film use promotion to Joe Public, this was clearly the supposition he'd made and presumably would voice to anyone who listened to him. This begs the question of how many potential film users are out there who have stopped using their film cameras because "you can't get film these days" but who might be pleased to know that you actually CAN get film - and as much of the stuff as you like!

Not for the first time, I suggest that it wouldn't cost Kodak, Fuji et al a fortune to re-invent some point of sale gimmicks to raise the profile of film in Boots, Truprint, Jessops, etc..

Steve

 

[perkeleellinen]

What I don't understand about Fuji is how some of their products end up being sold in Japan-only. Specifically I'm thinking of Natura 1600 film - from sample shots I've seen it actually looks like a high-speed colour neg film with light grain and nice tones, whereas the now defunct Superia 1600 was, um, not so much

Superia 1600 & Natura 1600 are the same film. I've not heard any announcement that Superia 1600 is to be cut and it was on the Fuji stand at photokina this year.

 

[michaelbsc]

You can't buy film any more is a common misconception of people standing in line at Walgreens with film hanging on a peg 3 feet away from them.

It is absolutly necessary to shove it in some people's faces. Which is why the film companies should do at least come promoting.

 

[mabman]

Superia 1600 & Natura 1600 are the same film. I've not heard any announcement that Superia 1600 is to be cut and it was on the Fuji stand at photokina this year.

I stand corrected - after some reading I think you're right. The last time I saw some Superia 1600 locally was several years ago, and must have been a previous generation, because it wasn't very good at all.

In any event Superia/Natura 1600 isn't sold locally anymore due to lack of demand, which is unfortunate.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I think Superia 1600 is best overexposed a bit, maybe even a stop. I also think it looks better in daylight, rather than in dim light. But I suppose all this is moot if you can't find it!

 

[pentaxuser]

I had exactly the same unbelievable experience myself in Cornwall last year as Steve Roberts. A couple saw me with my Agfa Isolette 1 and were intrigued. The man said something to the effect that it was a "real" film camera and his mate has real cameras but could not get any film or materials to process so had stopped bothering.

I had to explain this wasn't so and gave him names of a few stockists which he bothered to make a note of on a piece of paper, saying his mate would be pleased to learn that film and materials for home processing were still available.

I think his mate had spoken to someone whom he had regarded as knowledgeable but had spouted this rubbish out of ignorance or worse had moved to digital and thought it best to tell him "white lies" so he would embrace the "new ways". After all if film and analogue was quite finished then it was as good as so he was just being kind to him.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

 

[Matt5791]

I had exactly the same unbelievable experience myself in Cornwall last year as Steve Roberts. A couple saw me with my Agfa Isolette 1 and were intrigued. The man said something to the effect that it was a "real" film camera and his mate has real cameras but could not get any film or materials to process so had stopped bothering.

I had to explain this wasn't so and gave him names of a few stockists which he bothered to make a note of on a piece of paper, saying his mate would be pleased to learn that film and materials for home processing were still available.

I think his mate had spoken to someone whom he had regarded as knowledgeable but had spouted this rubbish out of ignorance or worse had moved to digital and thought it best to tell him "white lies" so he would embrace the "new ways". After all if film and analogue was quite finished then it was as good as so he was just being kind to him.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

The big problem at the moment is people go in to Jessops and see two dusty rolls of HP5 on a lower shelf and speak to an assistant who says it's all dead - the message this sends out is very damaging.

 

[Marco B]

If only Kodak would do something like this...

Well, the slightly hidden Kodak Professional Photographers subpages on Kodak.com still offer a site geared towards film promotion:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/cpq/features/featuresIndex.jhtml?pq-path=522

And the Kodak Store from the main page offers film sales options:
http://store.kodak.com/store/ekcons...AL_Film/Black__White_Film/categoryID.40677500

And of course there is the blog of Kodak employees:
Dead Link Removed

Quite a bit of d*****l rambling these days, but every now and then, there is a little historic gem passing by, for example, this short blog story about an old Kodak sign:
Dead Link Removed

Or the story behind the wonderful 1922 "Kodachrome" motion picture film test and the accompanying video added below:
Dead Link Removed

[video=youtube;J_RTnd3Smy8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_RTnd3Smy8[/video]

Marco