Marketing and Advertising Photographic Film

jrhilton · Sep 6, 2015

xo-whiplock said:
why Kodak and Fuji both do not seem like they are willing to spend any money or campaign and increase film sales in the face of the overwhelming numbers of digital consumers and the digital devices and products that these consumers are addicted to buying and using. Basically, these huge corporations are not marketing their film products because they do not feel the money spent will produce the desired return on investment is dollars spent in advertising.

With respect I think in this paragraph you gave a response to your own post as to why more advertising would not work.

The truth is compact digital cameras and a lot of smart phones take better quality images than the point and click compacts that the majority of people used (more than) ten years ago,and they satisfy the "good enough" criteria for the majority.

I know this is controversial but look at the average person taking photos with their digital compact or smart phone (especially families) and be honest, they are enjoying experience far more than when they used film; as there is instant gratification - you can quickly look at the images with the people you are with, or share them by email or social media etc with people elsewhere. No need to wait for film to be processed to see if the picture was any good when the moment has gone....

I don't know how film can compete with this for the average person.

pdeeh · Sep 6, 2015

This thread isn't about "marketing film" is it?
it's simply about elitism and perverse snobbery .

jrhilton, you have hit several nails square on the head.

xo-whiplock · Sep 6, 2015

jrhilton said:
With respect I think in this paragraph you gave a response to your own post as to why more advertising would not work.

The truth is compact digital cameras and a lot of smart phones take better quality images than the point and click compacts that the majority of people used (more than) ten years ago,and they satisfy the "good enough" criteria for the majority.

I know this is controversial but look at the average person taking photos with their digital compact or smart phone (especially families) and be honest, they are enjoying experience far more than when they used film; as there is instant gratification - you can quickly look at the images with the people you are with, or share them by email or social media etc with people elsewhere. No need to wait for film to be processed to see if the picture was any good when the moment has gone....

I don't know how film can compete with this for the average person.

Film does not need to compete with the needs of the average person, it needs to advertise to the not so average person. These would be artists looking to find a unique medium that produces a unique product that sets it and the artist apart from the average everybody. Why this persistent use of a large mass of nobodies to say film is not the best product for a few somebodies is beyond my comprehension. These few somebodies that produce great work will inspire the mass nobodies to think of film if they want the best chance at being a somebody. Sorry I had to phrase that for special needs people to comprehend.

What hurts film, film sales, film photography are ignorant and arrogant idiots that use digital and think it beats film... It does not and never will, for look, process, and uniqueness of final images. These are the things artists look for in a medium. Digital is for the average consumer that cares not for these things, and only cares how easy and fast they can take their selfi or a shot of what they are eating and social media post it like so much spam to the world.

xo-whiplock · Sep 6, 2015

pdeeh said:
This thread isn't about "marketing film" is it?
it's simply about elitism and perverse snobbery .

jrhilton, you have hit several nails square on the head.

The thread is about advertising and marketing by the film lovers that have posted in response. The rest are simply here to fuck with the process of film lovers discussing the needs of film to be advertised, and with the film lovers that are trying to have a discussion free of assholes. All you anti film "film is dead" jerks have nothing better to do than shit on anything positive about film, because the truth is digital sucks the big one for artists and film kills it all to hell for look and final images quality. That's why the trend to artificially make digital look like film. Digital photography is dead. The images look dead. The future that was envisioned by photographers with digital has died. It was stolen by smart phones and phone jockeys and social media. Artists are those using film and making huge ass prints from their 4x5 cameras, and the rest of the film users are playing at and hoping to graduate to 4x5 one day, or not, as they may be just fine and dandy shooting smaller film formats to meet their personal needs. It's for sure that digital never has and never will fulfill the personal needs of photographers, if this need to produce unique art that looks like film, smells like film, and tastes like film. Film is the real thing, and digital is just an imitation of it, and not a very good one. It's like food without taste.

Advertising and marketing requires the knowledge of just what the digital market is all about and why film is head and shoulder above the ideology and mindset of todays digital zombies. Film is life in a world of dead electrons.

Also,

"This thread isn't about "marketing film" is it?
it's simply about elitism and perverse snobbery."

This is an accurate accounting of the "film is dead" people here that are in a film group pushing digital and disrupting discussions about film. Most of which, these digital trolls, do not have the beans to say clearly what they mean, and use double speak to "agree, but, nonsense, twisted logic, confuse, and then state their true intent, usually by saying digital is best and film is dead... BS. Drop the pretense and or be gone with you all.

Arctic amateur · Sep 6, 2015

xo-whiplock said:
Film does not need to compete with the needs of the average person, it needs to advertise to the not so average person. These would be artists looking to find a unique medium that produces a unique product that sets it and the artist apart from the average everybody. Why this persistent use of a large mass of nobodies to say film is not the best product for a few somebodies is beyond my comprehension. These few somebodies that produce great work will inspire the mass nobodies to think of film if they want the best chance at being a somebody. Sorry I had to phrase that for special needs people to comprehend.

What hurts film, film sales, film photography are ignorant and arrogant idiots that use digital and think it beats film... It does not and never will, for look, process, and uniqueness of final images. These are the things artists look for in a medium. Digital is for the average consumer that cares not for these things, and only cares how easy and fast they can take their selfi or a shot of what they are eating and social media post it like so much spam to the world.

For the average consumer, digital beats film by a landslide. Convenience is king. It's the same reason smartphones are out-competing photographically superior digital cameras.

Are your "mass nobodies" those who have photography as a hobby? Or do you mean professional photographers who use digital?

Sal Santamaura · Sep 6, 2015

xo-whiplock said:
...You clearly have no idea how branding works, why it works, and what establishes value in a brand...to even imply that a new generation do not know, or would be unaware of the Kodak brand is just plain stupid.

Ad hominem attacks demean only the attacker.

I stand by my posts and will let others decide which of us makes a better case.

xo-whiplock · Sep 6, 2015

Arctic amateur said:
For the average consumer, digital beats film by a landslide. Convenience is king. It's the same reason smartphones are out-competing photographically superior digital cameras.

Are your "mass nobodies" those who have photography as a hobby? Or do you mean professional photographers who use digital?

Let's get some terms defined.

mass nobodies = those individuals that to film, have no connection and need educated about film before they can make an informed choice as to medium that best fulfills their needs. When they are educated and experience film for themselves, instead of listening to what digital propaganda says about film, and have their own mind, not controlled by big brother, they realize everything about film they were told was a lie that was propagated to bolster digital sales of digital cameras and digital processing software. Once they have this knowledge and can make an informed choice of when and why to use film versus using digital, which is not an exclusionary process, but simply a choice based on needs and desired results, then they become a somebody that is not discounting film or believing it is dead. These would include everyone, hobbyist, professional, aspiring film photography artists, educator, film schools, photography schools, students, etc.

xo-whiplock · Sep 6, 2015

Sal Santamaura said:
Ad hominem attacks demean only the attacker.

I stand by my posts and will let others decide which of us makes a better case.

Case for what? Digital is better than film? Come on. Film will always be superior to digital. That's especially true now that pretty much sensors will not be R&D'd to be any better than what they are today for photography. Film out resolves, provides a better looking product, and offers the best experience to artists looking for intimate process and unique results that only film can provide.

BTW, if you look up http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem you'll see that I'm not the one appealing to "feelings." I gave you my thoughts on what you said. My conclusion is that you are incapable of comprehending due to mind blindness.

Arctic amateur · Sep 6, 2015

Yet most people are choosing convenience over maximum quality, because digital is good enough.

BrianShaw · Sep 6, 2015

Wow. Just wow.

P.s. I'll be shooting fomapan100 when not shooting with th iPhone 6.

xo-whiplock · Sep 6, 2015

Alan Klein said:
Film is like a drug. I love the smell. I can eat it.

Alan, you are a big sweat heart of nice guy! That's the best advertising for film here so far.

xo-whiplock · Sep 6, 2015

Arctic amateur said:
Yet most people are choosing convenience over maximum quality, because digital is good enough.

Again with "most people." What is it with using argument of "most people" when film is clearly for aspiring artists that are looking to go to the next level in their photography. This higher level is not for "most people."

Arctic amateur · Sep 6, 2015

Ok, in that case I understand you. It was not very clear who your untapped masses of potential customers were.

xo-whiplock · Sep 6, 2015

BrianShaw said:
Wow. Just wow.

P.s. I'll be shooting fomapan100 when not shooting with th iPhone 6.

Be sure to try and talk to at least one person about film, and do your bit to market and advertise film to those around you.
Film will be very happy you do.

Sal Santamaura · Sep 6, 2015

xo-whiplock said:
Case for what? Digital is better than film? Come on...

Your apology for making ad hominem attacks must have fallen into the virtual abyss.

Come on, read my posts, the ones you found it necessary to trash. You, after a several year period of dormancy here, have suddenly begun frenetically, aggressively evangelizing that film manufacturers can and must "market and advertise" photographic film to "a new generation," "addicting" students to its marvels. That's an old song, one that's been sung by others on APUG from time to time. The entities to whom you should be making this pitch, namely film manufacturers, couldn't care less what you think. They know the business, they know what market conditions are, they have a tight handle on advertising ROI. Even HARMAN, with one of its directors participating regularly here, employs a marketing approach in ways it knows are effective. Simon doesn't need your advice either to grow his business.

You've claimed that Kodak's brand is extraordinarily valuable. Kodak also thought its IP was worth a lot. It wasn't. I continue to maintain that the actual value of Kodak's brand to licensees has not yet been determined. "Polaroid" products today have as much to do with what the real Polaroid was as those selfie sticks do with "Kodak." Hand waving will not change this. As world population of young people who knew nothing about film or Kodak swells, the brand's worth will continue to decrease.

xo-whiplock said:
...Film will always be superior to digital...

To consumers in the mass market that drives production at Fuji and Kodak, digital has been superior to film for over a decade. In every conceivable way. Those snapshooters will never return to film. And, the "artists" about whom you write will never be a large enough factor in the market to support Fuji's or Kodak's continued manufacture of film. Only HARMAN, with its monochrome focus and appropriately sized coating line, has a good chance of thriving from a small, targeted customer base like that.

xo-whiplock said:
...pretty much sensors will not be R&D'd to be any better than what they are today for film photography...

It's not clear exactly what that means, but clearly your insight into imaging R&D falls short. Sensor R&D continues. In the future, all parameters will improve. At which specific rates and toward what asymptotes I can't predict, but improve they will.

xo-whiplock said:
...Film out resolves, provides a better looking product, and offers the best experience to artists looking for intimate process and unique results that only film can provide.

Again, "artists" do not drive the market. Their number is so small that Fuji and Kodak would be flushing money down the drain advertising/marketing film to them. That's why those manufacturers don't expend funds on it.

It's important to realize that those reading your posts at APUG use and appreciate film, its "look" and the process that accompanies it. That's why we're here. However, most of us are realists. We understand the world's trends and, although enjoying film anyway, don't fantasize about turning back the clock, which will not happen. The entire membership of APUG is infinitesimal compared to what Fuji/Kodak need as film customers. Fighting change rather than coping with it can be very frustrating and virtually never accomplishes anything. I strongly suggest you step back from attacking those APUG members with whom you disagree and, instead, enjoy available film products while they're still there. The alternative will lead to negative health effects and waste your finite life.

xo-whiplock · Sep 6, 2015

Arctic amateur said:
Ok, in that case I understand you. It was not very clear who your untapped masses of potential customers were.

Everyone looking to experience photography differently by giving film a go.

RobC · Sep 6, 2015

+1 to Sal Santamaura post

It's clear the OP hasn't got a clue about the photographic market place and what drives it.

BrianShaw · Sep 6, 2015

None of my business really, but suggest you listen to Sal. He's been around and has great insights overall. Your choice, of course.

xo-whiplock · Sep 6, 2015

Sal Santamaura said:
Your apology for making ad hominem attacks must have fallen into the virtual abyss.

Come on, read my posts, the ones you found it necessary to trash. You, after a several year period of dormancy here, have suddenly begun frenetically, aggressively evangelizing that film manufacturers can and must "market and advertise" photographic film to "a new generation," "addicting" students to its marvels. That's an old song, one that's been sung by others on APUG from time to time. The entities to whom you should be making this pitch, namely film manufacturers, couldn't care less what you think. They know the business, they know what market conditions are, they have a tight handle on advertising ROI. Even HARMAN, with one of its directors participating regularly here, employs a marketing approach in ways it knows are effective. Simon doesn't need your advice either to grow his business.

You've claimed that Kodak's brand is extraordinarily valuable. Kodak also thought its IP was worth a lot. It wasn't. I continue to maintain that the actual value of Kodak's brand to licensees has not yet been determined. "Polaroid" products today have as much to do with what the real Polaroid was as those selfie sticks do with "Kodak." Hand waving will not change this. As world population of young people who knew nothing about film or Kodak swells, the brand's worth will continue to decrease.

To consumers in the mass market that drives production at Fuji and Kodak, digital has been superior to film for over a decade. In every conceivable way. Those snapshooters will never return to film. And, the "artists" about whom you write will never be a large enough factor in the market to support Fuji's or Kodak's continued manufacture of film. Only HARMAN, with its monochrome focus and appropriately sized coating line, has a good chance of thriving from a small, targeted customer base like that.

It's not clear exactly what that means, but clearly your insight into imaging R&D falls short. Sensor R&D continues. In the future, all parameters will improve. At which specific rates and toward what asymptotes I can't predict, but improve they will.

Again, "artists" do not drive the market. Their number is so small that Fuji and Kodak would be flushing money down the drain advertising/marketing film to them. That's why those manufacturers don't expend funds on it.

It's important to realize that those reading your posts at APUG use and appreciate film, its "look" and the process that accompanies it. That's why we're here. However, most of us are realists. We understand the world's trends and, although enjoying film anyway, don't fantasize about turning back the clock, which will not happen. The entire membership of APUG is infinitesimal compared to what Fuji/Kodak need as film customers. Fighting change rather than coping with it can be very frustrating and virtually never accomplishes anything. I strongly suggest you step back from attacking those APUG members with whom you disagree and, instead, enjoy available film products while they're still there. The alternative will lead to negative health effects and waste your finite life.

Your entrenched mindset regarding film prevents you from seeing the possibilities and potential of converting digital only/film is dead believers into film/digital artists. This ideology of lumping everyone that takes a photo into one bucket and denying the need for the most talented to rise to the top (cream of the crop) and provide examples to the rest of the photography world is astoundingly myopic on your part. It's as if somehow digital has taken away the future of film in your mind. I see today as the beginning of film's revival. The only thing needed is for people to affirm that film is the superior medium in the face of the cult like digital believers. Reprogramming is required to undo the brainwashing from the past 15 years. The up side is that a new generation is not brainwashed and open to film. All your arguments are based on a lost generation.

Sirius Glass · Sep 6, 2015

Alan Klein said:
Film is like a drug. I love the smell. I can eat it.

As the dear departed Floatsam's signature said, "I love the smell of hypo in the morning."

Sal Santamaura · Sep 6, 2015

RobC said:
+1 to Sal Santamaura post

It's clear the OP hasn't got a clue about the photographic market place and what drives it.

BrianShaw said:
None of my business really, but suggest you listen to Sal. He's been around and has great insights overall. Your choice, of course.

Thanks guys. This prompts the repetition of a story I've told before, perhaps here, but maybe not.

Before retirement, I commuted 100 miles round trip per day for more than 33 years. Although never placing any bumper stickers on my own cars, I did read all those that were affixed to other cars' bumpers. My favorite one in all that time was:

I feel much better since I gave up hope

The OP does not appear susceptible to reason. Zealots rarely are. My keyboard's done with this thread.

Sirius Glass · Sep 6, 2015

Arctic amateur said:
Yet most people are choosing convenience over maximum quality, because digital is good enough.

They same public that chose PCs over Mac and VHS over Beta. There is no substitute for knowledge, experience and intelligence. As H. L. Mencken said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/h_l_mencken.html#fJuOD6gD1XKslVqW.99

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 6, 2015

pdeeh said:
This thread isn't about "marketing film" is it?
it's simply about elitism and perverse snobbery.

xo-whiplock said:
The thread is about advertising and marketing by the film lovers that have posted in response. The rest are simply here to fuck with the process of film lovers discussing the needs of film to be advertised, and with the film lovers that are trying to have a discussion free of assholes. All you anti film "film is dead" jerks have nothing better to do than shit on anything positive about film...

pdeeh, this is a particularly egregious example, in an otherwise highly questionable thread. Still, can you see the problem here? Can you connect the cause-and-effect dots? Would it help if I made the chicken-and-egg observation that in 1980 the number of film photographers bashing digital photography was... zero?

Ken

kuparikettu · Sep 6, 2015

My personal experience is that bringing new people to film isn't that difficult at all. I have been able to persuade two of my friends, my wife and my little sister to shoot on film. With one of those friends I also have spent quite a lot of time in darkroom printing RA-4.

One of the things common to all of these, however, is that 1) they had cameras their parents had owned and used before them and 2) especially in the beginning I invited them to come and take photos with me with their own cameras, I bought large quantities of film and they bought the film they needed from me and we sent film out together for processing. And I took care of sc*nning with my Nikon LS-2000/V700.

So now, for example, my friend is in Lapland, taking photos with Pentax 645 we bought together this summer. What began with his father's Nikon FM has gotten a bit bigger since then.

Another experience, this one by my wife who beside shooting our family photos on color negative also shoots Instax film: she was in her friend's wedding with the Instax camera and took some photos. People were really impressed and interested. The reason? "That's even more convenient than digital! You get the photo instantly!"

Convenience is a factor one mustn't overlook. For my friends it is somewhat decisive that getting film processed and sc*nned happens with ease --- without having to first find out where to buy film with good price, where to process it, how to sc*n / print it. They want to take photos, they enjoy the analog experience, they don't mind waiting for the results (which they usually like better than digital!) but they have lots of other things to do in their life as well. For me on the other hand this is an important hobby so those things I like to read about and invest time into -- I'm kind of hardcore.

So yes, I agree with the OP. Film scanners (preferably fast ones!) in libraries, easy access to darkrooms and friends who'll invite them.

removed account4 · Sep 6, 2015

xo-whiplock said:
Let me re-write this to say what you are really saying...

I'm an envoy for digital. Forget film and buy a Leica digital camera instead.

I'm not OK, and it does matter to me. You are wasting your time. Film is dead. People that use film are idiots.

Digital meets the needs of the lazy photographer.

It's a good thing I only upload to the internet, as printing is expensive and a waste of time.

IMO, you don't belong here in this group.

Hell, everyone so far has exhibited the same degree of disdain of film, just none so skilled at double speak as this one.
It's like a cut and paste collection of the best-of BS against film.

please do not put words in my mouth.
i never said people who use film are idiots i am an envoy for digital, film is dead
i never said digital meets the needs of the lazy photographer, but a lot of people don't want to spend money or time
and have to deal with extra bs to get their photographs processed. most people don't want to have to
deal with no way to process their film, or get their hands dirty with black/white or color processing.
for them digital works, it is good enough for what they do.

i only upload to the internet and printing is an expensive waste of time ?
did i ever suggest you don't belong in this group? no, put your marketing and branding ideas to work .. and enjoy yourself
if you are suggesting i don't belong in this group, maybe i don't, i don't see eye to eye with a handful of people
i don't appreciate snark nor condescending comments directed towards me or anyone else,
no distain for film at all from me, but i am a realist, and know that a lot of people want nothing to do with it and i don't really care
to be honest, someone does what they want .. whether they used to process/print, do commercial work or make art work
i'm not going to change anyone's mind. i've given cameras and film to people, bought cameras and film holders for others ..
they really have no interest but i have plenty of interest and it really isn't changing very much. i make developers from scratch
coat glass plates with emulsion, make ferrotypes when i can ... and soon i will be home brewing my own emulsions again, something i did IDK 29 years ago ... yup big waste of time
its too bad you attack and put words in other's mouths.
this has been a wonderful first impression i have of you

best of luck with your branding and marketing !
john

Marketing and Advertising Photographic Film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency