Adorama, being a photographic supplier, in the best interest of the photographic community, should not be pushing one over the other. If anything, they should promote the merits of both, and let the user decide.
Pro is different than anti.I noticed it. I've read it before and I expect to read it again. It's background noise. As I asked before, if they ran a pro-film article, do you think the pro-digital folks would all be up in arms and call for a boycott?
Clearly you missed the anti film sentiment of that article. Others were not so unobservant.
Adorama didnt write the article.Adorama is a business. Remember? They want to sell digital equipment. They don't have "sentiment," they have accountants.
I'll re-phrase: if they ran a anti-digital article by a film aficionado, do you think the pro-digital folks would all be up in arms and call for a boycott? If not, why not?Pro is different than anti.
I'll re-phrase: if they ran a anti-digital article by a film aficionado, do you think the pro-digital folks would all be up in arms and call for a boycott? If not, why not?
Adorama "should" do something that doesn't make sense to its management?
Upgrade their photography. If they said upgrade their equipment, I could let that pass. Upgrade their photography? That's as insulting as their original post.
I don't see how the management sees sense in doing something to rile a segment of its customers. Why not just drop film sales entirely and force everyone to digital? Good PR is important to businesses, and neither makes sense.
Chill, it is to drive traffic to their site. I would not let a silly article stop me from ordering film from them.
Boycotts do work. ... They do work sometimes.
Adorama didnt write the article.
I noticed it. I've read it before and I expect to read it again. It's background noise. As I asked before, if they ran a pro-film article, do you think the pro-digital folks would all be up in arms and call for a boycott? It just seems ridiculous to me. And I shoot film.
So boycotting a supplier which may result in forcing them out of the film business is a good strategy. The phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.The difference is that the film status is "Endangered" on the IUCN Red List, and Digital is "Least Concern".
So the purpose of the boycott then is to punish Adorama for promoting digital over film? I get it.
Okay. I'll boycott Adorama. Wait, I've already been doing that for years.You obviously were not paying attention here.
So boycotting a supplier which may result in forcing them out of the film business is a good strategy. The phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.
So boycotting a supplier which may result in forcing them out of the film business is a good strategy. The phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.
Boycotts only work if the target is noticeably damaged by the boycott. What percentage of Adorama's sales do you think are film related? I'd be surprised if it was even 5%. Between TVs, home theater, computers, phones, and digital sales, my guess is they wouldn't be hurt by a boycott.
Less expensive? What is this guy smoking? Health ? Sure develop deep vein thrombosis from sitting on your ass in front of a computer
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?