I suspect the anticipated result of this poll was that it would demonstrate there was no interest at all in a hypothetically revived Kodachrome product. That when people were asked about exactly how much real money they would be willing to part with, suddenly all of the feigned interest would evaporate.
But that has not turned out to be the case. The results have consistently hovered around a 60/40 split, where fully ~40% of respondents have indicated a willingness to open their wallets if the product returned. (It's slightly better than 40% in favor at the moment, but it drifts back-and-forth.)
What does it prove? Nothing, really. Except that the original premise was not true. There is significant interest. Much higher than I expected, truthfully. How much would translate into actual sales? I dunno'. How much into repeat sales? I dunno'. How much into volume sales? I dunno'.
But none of these follow-on issues were addressed by the original question. It was only about how much would you be willing to spend per roll? That's it. Much in the same way that the original poster's question was a very, very simple "Is it totally dead?" That's it.
These discussions are subject to insidious scope-creep. Before you know it people are demanding to know why all of those 40% positives have not taken classes with PE to learn how to make Kodachrome in their bathrooms (or barns) before being allowed to cast a credible positive vote in the poll. Or have not posted hundreds of dollars in advanced money before voting positively. Or have not jumped through gazillions of other flaming hoops before voting, just to prove their sincerity to the doubters.
I mean, if you can't synthesize the whole Kodachrome tomato all by yourself in the basement (just read the patents!), then saying you'd be interested to use a revived Kodachrome carries absolutely no weight. Right? Heck, I never use Tri-X until I can recreate it from scratch in the kitchen. Do you? Of course you don't...
It's good that these forums are open to all opinions. That must not change. But the price often paid is that the discerning reader must be able to figure out what is the critical path in a discussion, then discipline himself to stick to that path. The rest is just entertainment.
Ken
The bigger question (which also had an inadequate poll option) was how much would you buy, one, maybe 2 rolls "just because"?
I would prefer these polls had a more accurate and available set of options, choosing "less than 40" over "none" doesn't tell you anything, because many would ere on the side of caution and choose "some" rather than none at all, but probably wouldn't pay more than $20 per roll, which is a far cry from $40...
Ya dig?
These polls, both, are useless...
Ken, you're the stats guy, design a GOOD poll for us will you?
EDIT: by the way, I do recognize that flying camera set up the pool to be realistic of the price point that it would probably COST in order to have it be a viable option, that doesn't mean that it's a fair goal designed to be accurate to what people would actually be willing to PAY in reality. When I say his polls aren't good, it's not to indicate he is bad at determining true price, just bad at designing polls to actually give you realistic data, that's all.
There should always be a NO option, and always be extreme values at either end as well.
$0 $5 $10, $25, $50, $100, $1,000
You can always average the low numbers together to get a more reasonable expectation, but if you have no lowball numbers and no highball numbers you really don't have a good idea of where in the spectrum people really are...
Same with the other poll
0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 75, 100, 200, 1,000
In terms of rolls per year.
....
