Can you believe Adorama would post this?

[jtk]

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.

Adorama "should" do something that doesn't make sense to its management?

 

[RattyMouse]

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?

Pro is different than anti.

 

[jtk]

Clearly you missed the anti film sentiment of that article. Others were not so unobservant.

Adorama is a business. Remember? They want to sell digital equipment. They don't have "sentiment," they have accountants.

 

[RattyMouse]

Adorama is a business. Remember? They want to sell digital equipment. They don't have "sentiment," they have accountants.

Adorama didnt write the article.

 

[faberryman]

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?

 

[RattyMouse]

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?

I have no idea, nor do I care much about the digital crowd. Their existence is not under threat the way film is.

 

[RPC]

Adorama "should" do something that doesn't make sense to its management?

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.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

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.

Exactly.

They are clueless to their inherent bias.

 

[jtk]

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.

Their decisions make sense to them. Why should they bother with a nearly inconsequential market segment? Shop somewhere else.

"Why not just drop film..?" That's what they'll do, eventually. Why shouldn't they? Try to come up with a good business reason.

Most photography is already done by phones. I'll bet Adorama soon makes more $$ with phones and accessories, and with their lab biz, than with all camera sales put together.

 

[skorpiius]

Chill, it is to drive traffic to their site. I would not let a silly article stop me from ordering film from them.

In fact the very first sentence of the article is "Now that I’ve gotten your attention…"

They essentially admit right off the bat that their title was a bit inflammatory to get some attention.

 

[skorpiius]

Watermark removed? then it's theft, I can't see any possible 'accidental' explanation.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Boycotts do work. ... They do work sometimes.

Boycotts can work for all sides. Although I'm probably on the opposite of your political side and expect that type of jab, I caution you not to use the word "Kookychrome" or I will have to retaliate with "Hasslebad".

 

[Sirius Glass]

Adorama didnt write the article.

But they posted it. Now they have one less customer. One who had been a great customer.

 

[faberryman]

Could film be more trouble than it is worth to Adorama? B&H tried to exit photographic chemicals a couple of years ago by falsely blaming shipping regulations before coming back from the brink, apparently realizing that a fair number of film aficionados buy digital stuff (and tents) as well.

 

[Helios 1984]

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.

The difference is that the film status is "Endangered" on the IUCN Red List, and Digital is "Least Concern".

 

[faberryman]

The difference is that the film status is "Endangered" on the IUCN Red List, and Digital is "Least Concern".

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.

 

[eddie]

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.

 

[Brady Eklund]

Hey if you're set on boycotting adoramapix and you order a lot of prints from them you should try sharpprints.com. We love film and most of the employees here are film shooters. Our prices are very low for anything bigger than a 4x6.

 

[mshchem]

Less expensive? What is this guy smoking? Health ? Sure develop deep vein thrombosis from sitting on your ass in front of a computer

 

[David Luttmann]

So the purpose of the boycott then is to punish Adorama for promoting digital over film? I get it.

You obviously were not paying attention here. The author made up figures to further and agenda. Rhe author stole an image from another photographer. The author then lied about it..and Adorama went with it...until it all exploded. So no...you dont get it.

 

[faberryman]

You obviously were not paying attention here.

Okay. I'll boycott Adorama. Wait, I've already been doing that for years.

 

[Helios 1984]

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.

People are free to do as they please, I can't blame 'em for feeling insulted when I read rubbish like "We are just encouraging our customers to upgrade their photography". The way I see it @Sirius Glass isn't boycotting anyone really, he just decided to buy from one of the other film sellers who are in need of customers too, to stay in business (Good Guy Sirius Glass). As for me, as a non-customer, I'll keep buying my rolls on eBay and my chemicals from a local business which needs my cash way more than Adorama. No boycott.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Since Adorama is insulting film users, I am losing nothing. There are other photographic suppliers who support film users.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

At worst they lose one good customer, me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Less expensive? What is this guy smoking? Health ? Sure develop deep vein thrombosis from sitting on your ass in front of a computer