Marketing and Advertising Photographic Film

[MattKing]

I'm all for advocating for film, but ....

It is extremely difficult to operate a consumable based business, that depends on high volumes for profitability and maintenance of low prices to the consumer, in an environment where there appears (to the consumer) to be a low or no consumable cost alternative.

So in order to have something consumable that can be successfully marketed, one has to have a product that will be clearly differentiated in its qualities, to enough of a customer base to make it economically viable, given the production capacities that the manufacturer is working with.

To my mind, photography is like the wine industry. Film photography is capable of being at the higher end of that market, because of those qualities that will be appreciated by a relatively small percentage of users.

That means, unfortunately, much higher prices for those who use film, except for those elements of excess production that might end up in the "wine lake" environment of Lomo and the like.

And any advertising that is targeted to those users probably won't be about price.

Kodak and the like should go back to having an advertising budget that supports the promotional efforts of niche market retailers and promoters and educators, rather than mass market advertising.

Things like sponsoring workshops and trade shows and educational shows.

 

[xo-whiplock]

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.

Wow! That's the kind of advertising I'm talking about! This is the standard and example we should all seek to emulate the best we can.

 

[RobC]

Inkjet printer companies such as HP sell small but very capable inkjet printers for peanuts. They then make their money on selling the consumables. i.e. inks and papers.

Now if Ilford were to team up with someone like cosina and make a quality but very simple 35mm camera and sell it dirt cheap under the Ilford brand, then I think that would be a productive exercise for them. Schools and colleges the world over would go for that I'm sure.

Just make it an M mount camera

 

[xo-whiplock]

I'm all for advocating for film, but ....

It is extremely difficult to operate a consumable based business, that depends on high volumes for profitability and maintenance of low prices to the consumer, in an environment where there appears (to the consumer) to be a low or no consumable cost alternative.

So in order to have something consumable that can be successfully marketed, one has to have a product that will be clearly differentiated in its qualities, to enough of a customer base to make it economically viable, given the production capacities that the manufacturer is working with.

To my mind, photography is like the wine industry. Film photography is capable of being at the higher end of that market, because of those qualities that will be appreciated by a relatively small percentage of users.

That means, unfortunately, much higher prices for those who use film, except for those elements of excess production that might end up in the "wine lake" environment of Lomo and the like.

And any advertising that is targeted to those users probably won't be about price.

Kodak and the like should go back to having an advertising budget that supports the promotional efforts of niche market retailers and promoters and educators, rather than mass market advertising.

Things like sponsoring workshops and trade shows and educational shows.

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

Please don't let my words be any more distressing to you than they need to be. It's not personal at all. I attacked your support for film on one hand (film flag in left hand) and defeatist attitude (white flag in the right hand) statements. Pick a hand and play it. Personally, I'd buy you a drink of your choice and buy you a meal if that would make things better between us. I learned a long time ago to not let discussions/debates become personal. People have their views, make their points, support their points, or don't, and everyone gets to say what they wish to say. There will always be those that disagree and those that agree. The process is to test one's own position and adjust thinking when needed, but don't let people steal from you what you believe in. In this case, we are in a film group to support film. If you are a realist, then the facts should persuade to reason, and reason to belief. For optimists like myself, belief is in the ability to change things for the better. So, for me, not to seek change is a sin. For others, keeping the status quo is the only agenda.

 

[jrhilton]

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.

Surely composition is more important than medium unless you are trying to us the medium to distort the image in some way for artistic effect? You see this in camera clubs a lot, people think their image is great and better than those made by the digital lot just because it was shot on film. When the person taking the best images is focusing on composition and wants to talk about why they took that photo and not what equipment they used.

If you have something interesting or thought provoking you can make it look good in film, oil paint or digital. For example the image of the Syrian boy being recovered from the Mediterranean by the police office that is all over the news currently here in Europe would still be tragic and upsetting if were an oil painting etc because it provokes thought and emotions.

I think cost and convenience killed film sales as digital had done irrevocable damage to film long before people where doing selfi shots or uploading straight to social media. But we should stay be positive; film is still here and the quality of products still being made are better than ever. Also there is a lot of renewed interest in older traditional and alternative processes (something close to my heart). It has a future but it will be a niche one.

By the way digital can beat film for astrophotography so your statement does feel like strong opinion presented as fact.

 

[xo-whiplock]

Surely composition is more important than medium unless you are trying to us the medium to distort the image in some way for artistic effect? You see this in camera clubs a lot, people think their image is great and better than those made by the digital lot just because it was shot on film. When the person taking the best images is focusing on composition and wants to talk about why they took that photo and not what equipment they used.

If you have something interesting or thought provoking you can make it look good in film, oil paint or digital. For example the image of the Syrian boy being recovered from the Mediterranean by the police office that is all over the news currently here in Europe would still be tragic and upsetting if were an oil painting etc because it provokes thought and emotions.

I think cost and convenience killed film sales as digital had done irrevocable damage to film long before people where doing selfi shots or uploading straight to social media. But we should stay be positive; film is still here and the quality of products still being made are better than ever. Also there is a lot of renewed interest in older traditional and alternative processes (something close to my heart). It has a future but it will be a niche one.

By the way digital can beat film for astrophotography so your statement does feel like strong opinion presented as fact.

What I said about film is fact. What you have just said is opinion seeking to believe it's fact. None of these opinions change the uniqueness of film as a photographic medium that's worthy of support and respect by all those that practice photography. We are here to support film use and talk about marketing and advertising it to prospective users. I'd be more interested in hearing ideas of how this is being done and any new ideas. Problem is, there's too much 1984 going on in 2015. (for those that didn't get that, Orwell's 1984 where they rewrite history all day long. In this case, it's the entire history of film... forgotten.)

 

[BrianShaw]

Are you joking? What a rude response. One of many. Get a life buddy.

 

[xo-whiplock]

Are you joking? What a rude response. One of many. Get a life buddy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Trollin', trollin', just trollin' down the river ...

 

[eddie]

What I said about film is fact. What you have just said is opinion seeking to believe it's fact. None of these opinions change the uniqueness of film as a photographic medium that's worthy of support and respect by all those that practice photography. We are here to support film use and talk about marketing and advertising it to prospective users. I'd be more interested in hearing ideas of how this is being done and any new ideas. Problem is, there's too much 1984 going on in 2015. (for those that didn't get that, Orwell's 1984 where they rewrite history all day long. In this case, it's the entire history of film... forgotten.)

I don't see much, in your diatribes, that can be called facts. It's these sorts of posts, and opinions, which make film users seem small, petty, and vindictive. Attacking people who use film (as evidenced by their presence on APUG), is absurd. You'd be better off taking this blather to an entirely digital site. Aren't they the "idiots" you want to convert?
It seems to me you're trying to justify your own choice to use film. No justification (or comparison) is necessary.

 

[xo-whiplock]

I don't see much, in your diatribes, that can be called facts. It's these sorts of posts, and opinions, which make film users seem small, petty, and vindictive. Attacking people who use film (as evidenced by their presence on APUG), is absurd. You'd be better off taking this blather to an entirely digital site. Aren't they the "idiots" you want to convert?
It seems to me you're trying to justify your own choice to use film. No justification (or comparison) is necessary.

Funny. I post a thread wanting people to discuss marketing and advertising of film, and I'm the asshole??? Yet none of you (well a couple did) have actually contributed a thing to this discussion but BS and attacks. WTF are you all doing here? I know why I'm here.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That's enough of that.