I've noticed a couple of things while looking at this sight and film manufacturing websites and got me thinking.
I don't think for a minute that these companies don't want to succeed but it almost seems like they don't. In order for film to remain around we need people to buy it. People like us who are enthusiast will buy it no matter what. What we need is to get new people interested in it. Young people. So how do you get young people involved now that it might not be taught in school anymore or their parents take pictures with their iPhone or a digital camera. So that is out. I'd say you create a marketing strategy that took in mind millennials on down. Right now I see a hodgepodge of bad ideas and some good.
This criticism can also be said of the online retailers. You want your company to make money? Update your websites, have tutorials, basic darkroom checklist make sure nothing is a 404.
All of this is just me thinking out loud. Would love to hear people's thoughts.
For me, color negative film doesn’t make much sense. I’m not going to be making optical prints from the negatives, just scanning and printing digitally, so why not just shoot digital to begin with? (That being said, I still shoot a lot of color negative, for whatever bizarre reason)
The difference though, is color slide. My first time projecting my own slides with my secondhand projector... I was hooked.
Because I’m not printing my own color negs, b&w and slide are the two formats I can enjoy completely “analog”. Enlarging and printing for one, projecting for the other. As someone who grew up in the digital age, that’s just cool to me.
That's true. But even with the wide latitude I still end up blowing out my highlights no matter the mediumEven if you are scanning, color negative film gives a wide latitude of light so there is more shadow detail than slides or digital. The tonality is STILL better on color negative film than digital.
That's true. But even with the wide latitude I still end up blowing out my highlights no matter the medium
All the film manufacturer is needed is easy accessible data sheets for each film. Plus, some links to the dedicated to particular film groups on Flickr, FB. And some case studies.
This is it. Doable by single person. The real marketing is done on photo forums. It is from where we know what Foma 400 is not 400 film, what some Kodak 120 film has problems with backing and so on.
Same single person could deal with it as well.
Ultimately it is us. We film shooters are the ambassadors of the hobby. Companies just follow the money.
Personally I feel that some of the marketing efforts are targeting the wrong market segment. While there obviously is a value in reminding existing photographers with the "Hey, we're not dead, and you can still buy our stuff", such an audience is literally a dying breed. There is some room in targeting the younger photographers who grew up with digital and are on photography forums, but it can be a real up hill battle. (And the snobbishness stereotype of film some of the most vocal film users in such environments tends to sour people's interest.)
An obvious choice would be investing in Ambassador Programs with universities. Getting an industry team effort together with something like Ilford, Paterson, and maybe someone making film scanners - Build a cheap near disposable 35mm camera, do a run of custom load 6 shot 35mm reels, and put together kits that can be shipped out to universities to set up as part of first week campus activities. "Hey look at film cameras, and how easy it is to shoot, develop, and scan right here without some complex darkroom setup. And here's a pamphlet on how to make darkroom prints for not much more effort!"
To me, the best marketing would be as follows:
Keeping a traditional presence of promotion and informational marketing for older life long film shooters,
An accessible social media platform and presence to make film photography interesting and relatable to under 35 year olds who have never shot film before.
A mix of the two above to appeal to people in the middle age segment who may have shot film when younger, might contemplate returning, and have enough disposable income to do more with film than they might have been able to when they were younger.
This trifecta would seem to me the best approach to keep film accessible and interesting to all possible market segments.
To the OP, what are your takes on Fujifilm and Lomography in relation to good marketing?
One problem with company websites is that users will only visit the sites if they are already aware of the product.
OP you have worked out your own ideas and have some ideas from the contributors here. Shortly we will reach the point in discussions like this where the "talking shop" mentality takes over and eventually when we have got "it all off out chests" the thread will fizzle out and nothing will have changed. This may be all you wanted and expected but if the thread was designed to "move the analogue needle" then let us know how you will summarise your paper in these matters to the film giants in the hope of improving their and film's future. Send them this succinct paper and let us know their responses.
Thanks
pentaxuser
I like it! And it's the truth, instant physical photography is the one type that can instantly appeal to non-film users without even trying.
I think your targeted marketing is off if you are trying to reach manufacturers.Well I was hoping someone from one of the companies would see this and I also wanted to see what others thought.
OP: how and to whom would you suggest Kodak market the new Ektachrome? IMHO, running an ad during the Super Bowl is not going to have many people digging through their closets to find their film cameras and slide projectors so they can relive the glory days of the 1970s, so something else is required.
And what are they going to do on a YouTube video?
And what are they going to do on a YouTube video?
And what are they going to do on a YouTube video?
I can think of a lot of thingsAnd what are they going to do on a YouTube video?
Zenit announced to bring out a "new" camera. We thus could see how they market it.Maybe Kodak should hire the Russians. They seem to be able to get a message out effectively.
With digital photography going to overtake the analog form at Agfa it was decided quite early to get rid of their complete consumer business, what finally they succeeded in. And from then on they showed no interest in any consumer market, but instead re-invented themselves on the commercial digital sector.The only thing I would like to add to this thread is I sure would like to see Agfa regenerate itself. I use to shoot Optima religiously, I cant tell you how much it hurts not being able to land that stuff anymore.
This is an assumption that people know these website are out there plus we can only do so much. I do know APUG is the best place I found for analog photography info and it doesn't suffer the snark and holier than thou that a lot of website have.
Eastman Kodak do have a bit of presence in the cine film world. With respect to still film, they are just a contract manufacturer. Kodak Alaris is the entity to pitch anything to if you have a promotional idea.Kodak doesn't care about the individual consumer. They're not interested in what one person does. They do the majority of their business with other large businesses. Kodak makes their money from selling software, machines, and emulsion coated plates to the printing industry. Photographers don't do much for them. I'm guessing the only reason they still make film is because they still own all of the formulas and equipment to do so, and they still make chemicals and stuff for their printing plates.
I work for a print shop that spends probably $25k-100k on Kodak products a year (depending on if we upgrade our software or hardware that year or not). They don't really care about us either. If we call them with a question or problem, it usually takes a few days for them to get back to us. We're small potatoes compared to the big print shops that spend millions of dollars a year, every year on Kodak products. Those are the guys who Kodak is focused on. Same with Agfa. They are commercial print companies who still do some film. They're not film companies anymore. And I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a similar situation with companies like Fuji and Ricoh. Sure they still make film, cameras, and other photographic equipment, but they're bread and butter is industrial print equipment. Ricoh (who owns Pentax) is all over the digital press boom that's sweeping the print industry.
Photographers just aren't where the money is. Honestly, I think we should count ourselves lucky that they haven't decided to abandon photographers completely. They're doing us a favor by staying in the game.
It is - and as far as I know, it is most everywhere else in the world too. The USA is the exception. What you may not realize is that we in Canada are "blessed" to see a lot of US television, and we get many of the same magazines as one finds in the US.I thought that it is illegal to advertise for prescription medicines in Canada.
I thought that it is illegal to advertise for prescription medicines in Canada.
It is - and as far as I know, it is most everywhere else in the world too. The USA is the exception. What you may not realize is that we in Canada are "blessed" to see a lot of US television, and we get many of the same magazines as one finds in the US.
Drug companies are allowed to market to doctors though.
What is this "APUG" thing you refer to? My browser's address bar reads "www.photrio.com."...the world has not yet discovered APUG...
I believe it's 1/3 of the holy trinity of apug, dpug and hpug (was it ever hpug? I dunno.). It's hard adapting to the new name. My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!What is this "APUG" thing you refer to? My browser's address bar reads "www.photrio.com."
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?