Companies Not Marketing Right

[RattyMouse]

Kodak used to advertise heavily including the Olympics, but they found that the advertisement did not increase sales.

Kodak failed again. It's largely known that Fuji's success in the USA was kicked off by its participation in the 1984 LA Olympics. Tremendous visibly was gained by Fujifilm using their blimp and they gained a foothold in the US that they never lost.

 

[vsyrek1945]

Kodak failed again. It's largely known that Fuji's success in the USA was kicked off by its participation in the 1984 LA Olympics. Tremendous visibly was gained by Fujifilm using their blimp and they gained a foothold in the US that they never lost.

I was shooting Fujichrome regularly for 10 years or more by 1984, having tried it shortly after its early 1970s U. S. introduction. While Fuji's high-profile Olympics presence no doubt converted a good part of the pro shooters market segment, amateur enthusiasts like me were long since on board. The vibrant colors, especially when underexposed 1/3 EV, and sharpness at a competitive (lower) price made the decision easy.

 

[AgX]

Tremendous visibly was gained by Fujifilm using their blimp and they gained a foothold in the US that they never lost.

A "Fujifilm" blimb has been around here for years but the same time there were no traces of Instax cameras in the shops.
The latter only changed over the last two or three years.

Imagine there had been a blimb with "Instax Cameras".

 

[RPC]

That's true. But even with the wide latitude I still end up blowing out my highlights no matter the medium

If you are blowing out highlights in a negative you are grossly overexposing. If seeing it only in prints, there is a problem elsewhere. In my experience it is much easier to blow highlights in digital than negative film. Slide film, on the other hand is similar to digital.

 

[RattyMouse]

I was shooting Fujichrome regularly for 10 years or more by 1984, having tried it shortly after its early 1970s U. S. introduction. While Fuji's high-profile Olympics presence no doubt converted a good part of the pro shooters market segment, amateur enthusiasts like me were long since on board. The vibrant colors, especially when underexposed 1/3 EV, and sharpness at a competitive (lower) price made the decision easy.

The fact remains that Fujifilm's market share was distinctly second to Kodak's pre-1984 and took off like a rocket after the Olympics. Kodak once again missed the boat. Their hubris cost them virtually every chance they had to stay an American icon.

 

[AgX]

Before that Fuji pushed Agfa from that second position.

 

[saman13]

If you are blowing out highlights in a negative you are grossly overexposing. If seeing it only in prints, there is a problem elsewhere. In my experience it is much easier to blow highlights in digital than negative film. Slide film, on the other hand is similar to digital.

It was a little tongue in cheek.

 

[saman13]

The path for black-and-white is clear, and I can see the issues with color-negative, but I feel there is a market for slide film that isn't fully serviced yet. To think the film market will ever be like it was is a mistake; the people that will make up the market of the future are not like the people that made up the market during the 80s and 90s. (The majority of) People getting into film today aren't adopting it to take better pictures, or to replace digital, they're doing it for nostalgia, novelty, or 'authenticity'. Take a look at the return of other analog mediums. New-pressed records are largely not the music of the generation that grew up with them. Also look at the rise of subscription box services; certainly some of the success can be attributed to the gratification of getting something by snail-mail. This is where I think slide film has an edge over color-negative film, but first a couple anecdotes.

At Canadian Thanks Giving this year I brought along my Instax wide with 3 packs of film. As a side note, everyone thought it was a camera from the 70s, because even with the popularity of Instax, I was the only one in a group of 20 that had heard of it; it was always referred to as a 'Polaroid' camera. By the end of the night I had a pocket full of photos that I spread out on the table for every one to take home, and I can be sure the excitement around the table will top anything that was felt when viewing photos from the same night on Facebook the next morning.

On a recent trip home, after purchasing an Ektapro projector, I started testing it with some of my parents' slides from the early 80s. This turned into 4 nights of my family, and a few friends with no investment in the images, sitting around a slideshow typical of the 80s for hours. The comments were often about how interesting the process of viewing a slide was. I can guarantee there would have been far less engagement had I projected the same images from my laptop.

There is something to be said for the process that film images go through, and how people perceive that as a benefit. This is where I feel slide film has an edge over color-negative in today's market. Color-negative had the advantage when film was the only method of photography; it made sense, easy, fast prints. Like tedr1 said, digital has taken over this market, and does a far better job at it. Slide film, on the other hand, has that element of authenticity and novelty of being projected, and being able to see your image in true color on the film. I'm sure the argument will come up about color-negative's improved range, but like has been said, those of us using film for its image quality are the minority; just look at the rise of Lomography. We've been sold on it, so there's no point marketing to us. Film and developing prices being equal, I think we would have seen color-negative emulsions be discontinued like positive emulsions were.

Missed this post the first time around, but +1. These are the exact same experiences I’ve had with film.

With young people, it’s a novelty and it’s the tangibility of the medium that is very cool. But even with people like my parents and grandparents, it’s a novelty just the same because they haven’t picked up a film camera in 10-15 years. It’s like hearing your favorite song from high school again. A pleasant experience and kicks you back into “remember whens”.

Slide film has even more of a novelty for people around my age because they don’t even know that it’s a thing. “They’re like tiny photos!”

 

[esearing]

No one has mentioned Bergger yet. Their 400 speed film seems likeable and their black and white printing papers are of good quality. But I think they are too much like Ilford products to justify spending the extra premium for their products.
Moersh is another long standing chemical company that is serving a niche market, but you rarely hear of them in the US.

Ilford could benefit from buying/inheriting some old paper formulas like Portriga. Give us more reason to explore.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It was a little tongue in cheek.

Please keep your tongue in your cheeks and out of other people's mouths, especially mine.

 

[RPC]

If there is a problem it is color. Digital does color so much quicker and better than film. I can get really good quality color prints from digital in minutes at my local CVS store for pennies, I think Walmart probably do the same thing (I believe the Kodak package used by CVS makes dye-sublimation prints). The color fidelity and black density is streets ahead of yesterday's prints from color negatives. In the same store I can get color film processed, send out for processing, turnaround a week or more, print quality unknown. In my mind there is no contest, for color digital wins hands down. The days of mass color film processing are gone and not coming back. The days of color film are numbered and the clock is ticking, no amount of marketing is going to bring it back.

This is why I feel the best use of color film is for printing in the home darkroom.

I do my own darkroom color prints from negatives I develop myself, and prefer the natural look over the highly manipulated digital prints I see from stores or labs. And prints from film scans are highly dependent on scanning quality, with which there is often problems .

I mostly use medium and large format film to make prints and with these, there is no comparison with respect to color, better tonality, natural sharpness, and dynamic range; it beats digital.

I think the sales of color films would increase if more people could see the excellent quality of prints possible from film, done right, in a home darkroom, where, although it takes longer than digital, image quality is superior and one has total control. In addition, there would be more sales of chemistry and darkroom equipment to help keep analog photography alive. But the misfortune is, very few today color print anymore.

 

[vsyrek1945]

The fact remains that Fujifilm's market share was distinctly second to Kodak's pre-1984 and took off like a rocket after the Olympics. Kodak once again missed the boat. Their hubris cost them virtually every chance they had to stay an American icon.

True enough, and there were so many instances of hubris and corporate arrogance to cite going back to the 1960s (and folks older than I can probably cite prior examples) that make one wonder how they didn't implode sooner. A few examples from personal experience and observation:

126, 110, disc, and APS film formats;

The Retina S2 35 mm camera my sister gave me as a Christmas present in 1969, a selenium-meterng, scale focusing 35 mm P/S with so-so lens flash cube socket and hot shoe;

Adoption of the PGI (Print Grain Index) for measuring resolution when their color print films compared poorly to competitors' RMS ratings, which, thankfully, no other manufacturer adopted;

Various tweaks to Ekta/EliteChrome in response to Fuji and Agfa products.

Others have been recounted on this and other forums. In one regard, Kodak's existence was likely prolonged as long as it was because of their marketing prowess, as they were trading on their past reputation rather than innovation and quality.

 

[Sirius Glass]

126, 110, disc, and APS film formats;

Those formats were developed to use less film and silver per photograph. Please developing new formats helped the manufacturers sell new models.

 

[MattKing]

126, 110, disc, and APS film formats;

Whenever I see a comment like this, I realize how many people who don't have trouble with 135 or 120 film don't realize how much of a barrier the technicalities of handling those films were to so many people.
I worked in camera stores and camera departments when 126 and 110 were prevalent, and saw the first uses of disc film. They increased the use of film tremendously.
I doubt I could count the number of people I dealt with who had trouble loading and unloading 135 film - the number was too high!
The side effect of the creation of 110 and disc formats? Tremendous increases in the quality of all films, including 135 and 120 and movie film.
And by the way, well I'm sure reduction of silver usage had a cost benefit, much of that occurred because of the improvements in the technology (T-grain). In addition, the introduction of 126, 110 and disc greatly eased the handling issues for mini-labs and other processors, which contributed greatly to the explosion in photography that occurred as a result.
My first nearly new (actually a within Kodak employee purchase)135 camera was a Retina S1. I would agree that it was a pale ghost of the great Retina heritage, but it served me well. By that time Kodak could see the writing on the wall about camera manufacture - Japanese manufacturers had entered the higher end of the market with great vigour, and a favourable cost structure - so I don't fault Kodak for electing to concentrate on the lower cost market.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I think the only time Kodak both simplified the handling and improved the format (image quality) was in going from regular 8mm spools (so-called double eight) to Super 8 magazines.

 

[AgX]

True enough, and there were so many instances of hubris and corporate arrogance to cite going back to the 1960s (and folks older than I can probably cite prior examples) that make one wonder how they didn't implode sooner. A few examples from personal experience and observation:

126, 110, disc, and APS film formats;

Types 126 and 110 were most successful. Plenty of family memories are safed by these.
I consider APS a well thought system. It just came too late. And never before so many manufacturers cooperated in advance.

(Kodak's type 126 even forced Agfa to crank out someting competing over night so to say.)

 

[Wallendo]

The best recent marketing of any sort is, in my opinion, Simon Galley's presence on APUG. Even though he has been gone a while, a lot of that goodwill still remains. Ilford still has some limited presence on Photrio, but it is markedly diminished.
Ferrania still has a presence, but technical manufacturing issues have been a problem.
Kodak Alaris and Fuji are MIA. It would be great if both were here. On the other hand, it would take a very tough-skinned rep to come here and listen to the complaints about discontinued films and backing paper issues.
I, at times, wish film companies would market better, but don't really have a good idea of what cost-effective marketing would look like in 2017.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Maybe they could sell film better if they advertised that you can get high on the processing chemicals.

 

[Luckless]

Maybe they could sell film better if they advertised that you can get high on the processing chemicals.

I'm guessing we use rather different chemistry... "Enjoy a slight nagging headache with a chance of feeling mildly unwell for a few hours or even days after working with chemistry..." doesn't sound like a great selling point.

 

[AgX]

With young people, it’s a novelty and it’s the tangibility of the medium that is very cool.

Sam, how and via what medium should the industry aim at people of your age?

 

[saman13]

Well, I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I know what would work for me, had I not picked it up earlier.

The reason I got into film photography in the first place was because digital cameras are expensive. I was drawn to the fact that I could get a good, solid camera and lens for under $50. Now, obviously, long term costs increase with film, but I was a college student and I still think pretty short term.

How did I go about deciding to get into film photography and deciding on a camera? All articles on the internet. As people here have mentioned, an online presence is very important. Articles and Youtube videos on how to to choose a film camera, comparisons on the look and use of different film emulsions, how easy it is developing film yourself, things like that. I know that I basically only read videos and articles written within the past 5 years when I was choosing because I knew that the industry had changed so much in the past 10 years and product availability was constantly changing.

So, a strong online presence, both written and videos, with in depth reviews and things like that.

All these companies would also probably do well to look at The Darkroom photo lab Instagram. They do a very good job posting examples of film photos, comparisons of different emulsions, photography contests with pro cameras as prizes, features customer photos, and a very interactive staff member is running it. He always responds to comments, asks what films they're shooting, etc. Ilford does a better job with their Instagram than Kodak because they feature customer photos but nowhere near as good as The Darkroom.

These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[faberryman]

I, at times, wish film companies would market better, but don't really have a good idea of what cost-effective marketing would look like in 2017.

Don't you already know most of the stuff that would be in their marketing campaign already? Or at least know where you can already get that information?

 

[RattyMouse]

I agree about Ilford, they rose from the ashes of bankruptcy ten years ago and have their act together. However black and white is a niche market, and one that IS taught, at least in some parts of the USA. But that's black and white, which probably has a future.

If there is a problem it is color. Digital does color so much quicker and better than film. .

Better? I dont think so. No digital camera, nor any software simulation looks as beautiful as Fuji 400H. Or Kodak Ektar.

I shoot color film strictly for the aesthetics. Digital looks completely sterile in comparison. And even if the film simulations worked, I have no interest in "simulating" what I can do on my own.

 

[CMoore]

I'm guessing we use rather different chemistry... "Enjoy a slight nagging headache with a chance of feeling mildly unwell for a few hours or even days after working with chemistry..." doesn't sound like a great selling point.

1. It is obvious He was making an Impromptu joke.....even supplied a Smiley Face..... not that it did any good.
2. We Must Use rather different chemistry. I spend several hours, at a time, in my darkroom and never suffer any of what you do.

 

[Europan]

I think the only time Kodak both simplified the handling and improved the format (image quality) was in going from regular 8mm spools (so-called double eight) to Super 8 magazines.

Sorry, only half true. The increase in image area size is 43 percent. The image is placed at the side of a perforation hole. A sound track area is provided on the side opposite to the perforated edge. These are the positive aspects.

The Super-8 (what a hoax name) cartridge makes a semi-defined film canal together with the camera aperture plate. ISO 1780 defines the cartridge and when you read clause 3.9 of it you can learn a lot about cybernetics engineering: “It is intended that the film surface of the cartridge pressure pad be flat. Pits or depressions, however, which do not interfere with the film flatness, are acceptable. Bumps or protrusions are not acceptable. The tolerances established for the flatness on the 8 mm Type S film cartridge pressure-pad film surface are specified to allow for slight warpage in moulding if the pressure pad is made from a plastic material.” 3.11: “Dimension G2 of figure 3 and table 3 specifies the clearance for film in the picture aperture area. To prevent a mis-match of the cartridge pressure pad seating area and the camera aperture boss, the minimum value of G2 should be established by taking the maximum film thickness to be used by a manufacturer and adding 0,013 mm (0.000 5 in). This change will allow a manufacturer the opportunity to vary dimension G2 according to the thickness of his film product.”

With the open concept of all other film formats, I mean film guidance by camera parts, you can have better flatness. Most Double-Eight cameras guide and locate the film better than is possible with Super-8. Single-8 and Double-Super 8 are different cakes.

But what regards marketing Kodak did it right with Super-8. They were cautious in the beginning, cranking the efforts up with success. Today we have another Kodak Co., admitted, but they don’t put their money where their mouth is. Compared to how it went back in 1923, 1932, and 1965 that new Super-8 camera thing plus an announced Ektachrome thing are jokes for dummies. In elder times things were prepared, often in complete secrecy, and then brought out as one blow. No social media crap. Or is it this talkative time?