Kodachrome marketing project Part 2

<p>Dear film users and other members,</p>

<p>A few weeks ago I posted a question to <strong>explore some ideas about kodachrome</strong>. It is for a <strong>MBA class project</strong>. I would like to thank all of you who have responded to my initial question.</p>

<p>Now my team has created an <strong>online survey to capture data for quantitative analysis </strong>and I need your help. Your participation in the survey will help me to get some insight on the situation.</p>

<p>The link to the survey is <strong> </strong><br /> <a href="http://qshare.qualtrics.com/SE?SID=SV_8wi3OHlubZ5EeOM&SVID="><strong>http://qshare.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8wi3OHlubZ5EeOM&SVID= </strong></a></p>

<p>The online survey is <strong>strictly for academic purpose</strong> and <strong>all responses will be anonymous</strong>. Additionally, there will be <strong>no solicitation for any brand or product promotion</strong>. The survey measures a photographer's awareness, attitude, loyalty and tries to understand the benefits that photographers seek from their products.</p>

<p>I would like to request all forum members, who are reading this post and <strong>who have used film at least once in last 12 months</strong>, to take part in the survey.</p>

<p>There are <strong>7 sections</strong> in the survey and it takes <strong>approximately 15-20 minutes</strong> to finish it. Once again, this survey is created by and will be used by academics, solely for scholarly purpose. There is no hidden agenda like trying to get your contact number for product promotion. There is no question in the survey asking for any contact information like email, blog or phone. I only need your honest opinion on some aspects of film photography.</p>

<p>The link to the original question is given below.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00W2kg</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for your help.</p>

<p>Subho</p>

 

<blockquote>Would you agree that Kodachrome is a stellar performer in Enlarging negative?</blockquote>

<p>Ehm, ..., .., nope.</p>

<p>Subho,<br>

Please post a summary of your findings (or a link to your thesis) when complete. I'll be interested in the results and your analysis.</p>

<p>Subho,</p>

<p>I filled in the survey. It wasn't quite clear to me whether some of the questions were asking "would I use some other product branded as Kodachrome" or "would I continue to use Kodachrome, in the same or very similar form to its current one, if it was to be reintroduced". The answer to the former is "no, unless it *really* looked like Kodachrome and had similar archival properties etc", the answer to the latter is "yes".</p>

<p>(I've just packed up 46 rolls of Kodachrome for processing, and realised that this is now more than I have left. I will miss it when it is gone, though it has been inevitable for a long time, I think).</p>

<p>Thank you guys. I will post the summary once this is over in 2 weeks.<br>

I need about 100 responses to make it meaningful. <strong>Please pass this information to your friends so that they can also participate.</strong><br>

Tim...... Those questions are trying to find how strong is brand association and whether the association can be used to diversify into related products. You will se it all the time from all big companies e.g. Canon sells camera, lens, printer, printing paper and so many things.</p>

<p>Subho</p>

 

<p>Subho, 'just finished the survey. Thank you for your interest. Overall, there were some good questions, but others were generic & vague. One asked about how I'd feel concerning possible multiple locations for K-14 processing. After having my K's sent to Dwayne's the past several years, I couldn't use anyone else. They're superb processors. No doubt most, if not all others feel the same. Also, the one-week turn around time is fine. We know our Kodachrome slides will look fine atleast 50+ years from now - they're good insurance. How reliable will digital files/computors will prove, well, only time will tell. Good luck with your project.</p>

<p>Just to say, the survey you sent me to included veiled questions about Kodachrome, "if reintroduced".</p>

<p>Realize that we aren't stupid and if Kodak thinks they can "reintroduce" Kodachrome (basically repurposing a 75 year old brand) as a run-of-the mill E6 film they will be disappointed.</p>

<p>Obviously, calling anything Kodachrome that is not KODACHROME, just to salvage a name or reputation would be a Koda-CRIME !</p>

<p>We all went through the NEW COKE debacle. They thought they were so clever... taking Coca-Cola off the market, offering a terrible substitute, only to bring back "Coke Classic".</p>

<p>Well it did work but we also did notice that the new formula Coke Classic was not Coca-Cola anymore. It was now laden with High Fructose Corn Syrup in place of real sugar. A poor imitation.</p>

<p>If Kodachrome comes back as a simple rebadge of a lesser product, the market will wise up very quickly and Kodak will replace New Coke as the brand bunglers of the 21st century.</p>

 

<p>Why not Bill? Kodak recently introduced the great Ektar film so why wouldnt they be able to successfully launch a new slide film? In fact very many photographers are lusting for new slide films. Film is quickly gaining popularity among young photographers. I don't think film is disappearing, I think it is evolving! I think Kodak might have something big on the horizon...</p>

<p>I'm saying it would be wrong for them to call it Kodachrome if it isn't Kodachrome.</p>

 

<p>*BUT* Kodachrome has a value as a brand name even it is is used to hawk batteries!</p>

Kodak batteries would work. Or Fuji batteries. But Kodachrome batteries? I think that would have a lot of people scratching their heads.

<p>Kodachrome is not a brand, it is a product. Naming a lesser product "Kodachrome" is a sick marketing ploy by the very MBA mentality that has brought America to its knees over the past 40 years.</p>

 

<p>Bill Kodak has used the same Brand Name for different products for along time. </p>

<p>Ektar was for lenses from about 1940 to about say 1975; and is not used much anymore. Then they used the old brandname for color print film in the late 1980's to mid 1990's; then ie died since few bought it; now it is used again for color print film</p>

<p>Kodapak is an ancient pre WW2 brand name for film sleeves; then in 1963 it was for the new Kodapak cartridge; ie Instamatic</p>

<p>Ektra was the Kodak 35mm RF camera; then it was used on mid late 1970's 110 cameras; ie super high end to super low end. </p>

<p> The Kodachrome brand Name has been used for their old Kodachrome sheet films; and their roll film slide materials; and some 8mm/9.5mm/16mm movie films. </p>

<p>Kodachrome prints was once Kodaks printing processes to get positive PRINTS from Kodachrome slides.</p>

<p>The prints one got are stamped on the back "Kodachrome Print"; thus 1940's and 1950's prints by Kodak were marked Kodachrome prints.</p>

<p>One has the Stereo Kodachrome prints too; where one got two Kodachrome Prints from the duo Kodachrome stereo slides. </p>

<p>There was once a Kodachrome paper used to make these prints too. </p>

<p>I the old 1950's Home Movie eras we had Kodachrome Filters when we used movie light/bar film outdoors; or vise versa.</p>

<p>So already Kodak has used the Kodachrome for film, prints, paper, filters; thus it is not a far to leap to batteries</p>

<p>The Kodak brand name of Kodachrome has already been used on many Kodak Products already; all over 50 years ago. </p>

 

<p>Subho;<br>

<br /> Back in the 1950' the photo world complained when Kodachrome film was dropped too.<br>

Except then it was sheet film Kodachrome that was dropped.<br>

Folks complained; lawsuits were filed; yada yada. At one time Kodachrome in sheets was available up to 11x14 inches</p>

<p>Kodachrome prints were made with a non-substantive (without couplers) material. The process introduced the couplers, just like the Kodachrome film process. The prints were on a white plastic support rather than paper. I think it was quite reasonable to use the Kodachrome name for this product. </p>

<p>I agree with Bill in general (that it would be a sad day if the Kodachrome name were applied to a coupler incorporated product). But, Kodachrome is an adjective not a noun. Nearly all trademarks are adjectives. It is Kodachrome film, Kleenex tissue, Xerox copies, Frigidaire refrigerators, Ford automobiles, and Guinness beer.</p>

<p>There was one Kodachrome type product that was not called Kodachrome. Eastman Reversal Print Film 7387 was used to make motion picture copies from reversal originals. It was a non-substantive product that ran through a process very similar to K-12.</p>

<p>When Kodak used the Ektra name again in the mid 1970's for 110 Instamatic cameras 35 years later the complainers werer most older folks and not younger folks.</p>

<p>A generation had passed and the good or bad memories of the Kodak Ektra of the 1940's had mostly passed.</p>

<p>Some old farts were enraged that the super high end 35mm RF Kodak Ektra camera name was being used on Joe Six packs camera; and being hawked on TV by Little Joe too. It was like if Leica made a disposible called a Leica M3; the old fiesty Leica board here would go totally nuts.</p>

<p>In many big companies older trademarks that are sort of retired are purposely re-used on minor products to add a sense/stance that they are not abandoned or discarded; for legal reasons. The old paper and Drafting makers like K&E; Post; Dietzgen would do this; and the brand names would be used as needed as nouns and adjectives on pencils, papers, transits, plumb bobs; slide rules, planimeters,vellums; rulers .</p>

<p>The Kodachrome name has a value thus worth something to reuse in the future. As old folks die off or go senile there is less issues with the grumpy factor of reusing good brand names on other products. If I take the average old fart customer for scanning stuff; they call Kodachrome to be any slide like input; ie Ektachromes, Ansco, old Polaroid 35mm slides from the 1980's; Fujichrome slides; even Kodachromes. Any slide in that Kodak slide tray is a Kodachrome.;</p>

<p>Thus to the old grey retired crowd Kodachrome means 1/2 the time a SLIDE</p>

<p> Then we have the kids who are fighting over the slide trays after mom and dad have passed away and they have NEVER SEEN a projected slide; all they want is CD's.</p>

<p>Thus they call what is in the trays/wheels slides;</p>

<p>Kodachromes;</p>

<p>little pictures one can see thru"</p>

<p>Thus with time we already have today 20 and 30 year old that only know a Kodachrome is some sort of slide and they use it for Ektachromes too; ie for ANY slide.</p>

<p>We also have senile folks who call Instamatic prints in shoe boxes Kodachromes; and B&W box camera negatives Kodachromes too; besides any slide.</p>

<p>The real world of the Average Joe has never seen a slide projected in a generation; and that funkly tray when the parents pass is to be fought over; and thus a CD is made "of the little pictures"</p>

<p>The average person on the street today has never seen a slide projected; and does not know waht a slide or negative is either. It is a vastly different group than photo,net's crowd.</p>

<p>"Naming a lesser product "Kodachrome" is a sick marketing ploy by the very MBA mentality that has brought America to its knees over the past 40 years."</p>

<p>You mean things like actually expecting to make a return on investment?</p>

<p>A typical average (non pro) customer of mine in printing last shot a slide in the late 1970's; and probably last used their slide projector a decade later.</p>

<p>Their kids often have never shot a slide; their film cameras were often just 35mm P&S cameras with iso 800 used.</p>

<p>Thus the connection of the Kodachrome name to being a slide film is mostly lost; ie a generation already never used it at all.</p>

<p>Kodachrome to that 2nd generation often means just a some type of Kodak thing; Kodak color image; those boxes of stuff mom and dad have in round deals.</p>

<p>It is just an old funky name of some old product their dads used in the dark ages; ie like a Rocket V8 Olds; or a straight 8 Pontiac; or a Monkey Wrench; or a party line.</p>

<p>I have customers who bring in trays/wheels:) of slides and want a CD; they have me chuck the slides out to save space; ie more room for the womans shoes/hats in the bedroom.</p>

<p> Sure I wish Kodachrome would be sold forever too.</p>

<p>America, pre-MBA = best in the world, innovative, industrious, number 1<br>

America, post-MBA = sad state of affairs, 'rust belt', outsourced, unemployed<br>

Correlation?</p>

 

<p>People,</p>

<p>Please share this with your friends so that they can take part in the survey. And thanks a lot for your inputs, comments, counter points. And thanks for saving my <em>anatomically posterior part of the body</em> from Bill Lynch :-) </p>

<p>This survey is not from any actual company. This is created by 3 students (including me). The survey is long and thorough, so that we (students) get a real understanding of the consumer behavior. In this age (of eroding corporate social responsibilities - according to Bill) it is very important to understand what consumers actually want first and then develop product offerings accordingly. So, if from the survey, it becomes clear that consumers do not want a revival of kodachrome, then that is it. Ideally that would be the recommendation from a good marketer to his / her boss. On the other hand, if the survey shows that there is a strong emotional connection to kodachrome name, and consumers are willing to buy related products with that particular name, then this creates a market opportunity, particularly for a company like Kodak. This is how market opportunity is identified and explored. </p>

<p>However, please keep in mind that nothing actually is going to happen or change, as I mentioned again and again that this survey is just a class exercise. It would be interesting to know how people think about photography in general and kodachrome in particular.</p>

<p>I will share the results once this is over in 2 weeks.</p>

<p>Hey Bill,<br>

I am not that bad as you have assumed. Who knows, may be I will be a socialy responsible CEO one day, who is not driven by personal greed and ego, who understands the imporatnce of sustainibility, who listen carefully to the consumers etc etc. May be you do not know that the focus of MBA curriculum shifted a lot in the last 5 years from what perception you have about MBAs. May be you and I can sit down one day in future and have few beers together when I am visiting your town or vice versa. And who knows, may be I will be able to sell you few packs of reformulated "New Kodachrome" :-))</p>

<p>Subho<br>

</p>

<p>Mr. Lynch....</p>

<p>How dare you bring the heresy of truth into a cleverly thought out marketing scheme? Don't you know we are all fools, herded like sheep by our obvious betters? The wonderful marketing people are only here to give us morons a proper direction in life. How can you throw cold water on the valiant efforts of the same type of people who brought us past marketing successes, like the Edsel? </p>

<p><br />Mr. Flannigan....</p>

<p>Even though tongue in cheek, might I apologize for being one of the old farts who remembers what an Oldsmobile Rocket 88 really was? Now let's see...Oldsmobile, a one-time producer of stodgy, but serviceable products, actually upgraded its product first, then concocted a marketing program that pointed out the attributes of the new good stuff they had created. Their market share increased dramatically. The Rocket 88 became a household name. It was real branding where the branding was more than just a shallow, untruthful set of words meant to fool the general public into thinking they were getting something that they weren't.</p>

<p>Now come the '80s, the true era of people fooling people in both business and social circumstances, and the MBAs decide they can easily slip multi-level me-too products in under the Oldsmobile banner. Hell, just slip a Chevy engine into what is basically a lower level Chevrolet body and the sheeple will flock to the showroom and buy it, if we only stamp the Oldsmobile logo on the deck lid. Their battle cry was "Remember the Cadillac Cimarrron!" </p>

<p>Today, their wisdom has led to the abandonment of the once valueable Oldmobile brand and the insolvency of its parent, General Motors. Recently, we watched these same clowns in front of Congress, begging for money as an out-of-control teenager begs for an advance on his allowance. When asked simple questions, like what they intended to do with the money if they got it, these MBAs found themselves at a complete loss. <br>

<br />Mr. Andrews....<br>

Once again, you have brought to the table some interesting historical information. Could the stuff you're talking about above be the paper and process that enabled me to purchase rounded corner, wallet-size prints of Kodachrome slides between World War II and the Korean War? I still have many today. The media feels like plastic. I don't think the colors have held up as well as Kodachrome. I've often looked back and wondered what those little prints were made out of. I do believe they were marketed as Kodachrome Prints. At the time, I believe I did not see it as a Kodachrome product per se, but as a print of a Kodachrome product, in other words, a Kodachrome print. I guess the difference really comes down to no more than whether I should use an upper or lower case "p" for the word "print." <br>

<br />Mr. Basu....<br>

I took your survey and gave my best answer to what I saw as some very poorly worded questions. Long before your day, I exercised the opportunity to take a continuing education post-graduate level class entitled "Survey Research" from Dr. Oskar Kaplan, who was then the guru of political pollsters and opinion polling. He is now dead (1994). Although home-based in San Diego, California, he had the distinction of having the most accurate political polls for the 1960 election. I learned several things from the great man. One was that you avoid at all costs wording in the poll questions that would tend to slant the poll towards a conclusion that you either have or would like to see. Another was you had to know enough about the product,issue, politician, or political race to be able to properly word and select questions so that they will produce accurate and meaningful survey result. Another was that one had to include in the polling universe an unbiased and non-selective random pool of people who will be answering the questions. I feel your survey has not met any of the big three I just mentioned. Your answer to Mr. Lynch hinted at a noble intent and purpose that could possibly help you be a responsible future CEO whose actions benefited society. Perhaps it's my advanced age and failing mind, but I see no connection with your survey and your statement to Mr. Lynch. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke<br>

<br>

 </p>

<p>When Kodak used the Ektra name again in the mid 1970's for 110 Instamatic cameras 35 years later the complainers werer most older folks and not younger folks.</p>

<p>A generation had passed and the good or bad memories of the Kodak Ektra of the 1940's had mostly passed.</p>

<p>Some old farts were enraged that the super high end 35mm RF Kodak Ektra camera name was being used on Joe Six packs camera; and being hawked on TV by Little Joe too. It was like if Leica made a disposible called a Leica M3; the old fiesty Leica board here would go totally nuts.</p>

<p>In many big companies older trademarks that are sort of retired are purposely re-used on minor products to add a sense/stance that they are not abandoned or discarded; for legal reasons. The old paper and Drafting makers like K&E; Post; Dietzgen would do this; and the brand names would be used as needed as nouns and adjectives on pencils, papers, transits, plumb bobs; slide rules, planimeters,vellums; rulers .</p>

<p>The Kodachrome name has a value thus worth something to reuse in the future. As old folks die off or go senile there is less issues with the grumpy factor of reusing good brand names on other products. If I take the average old fart customer for scanning stuff; they call Kodachrome to be any slide like input; ie Ektachromes, Ansco, old Polaroid 35mm slides from the 1980's; Fujichrome slides; even Kodachromes. Any slide in that Kodak slide tray is a Kodachrome.;</p>

<p>Thus to the old grey retired crowd Kodachrome means 1/2 the time a SLIDE</p>

<p> Then we have the kids who are fighting over the slide trays after mom and dad have passed away and they have NEVER SEEN a projected slide; all they want is CD's.</p>

<p>Thus they call what is in the trays/wheels slides;</p>

<p>Kodachromes;</p>

<p>little pictures one can see thru"</p>

<p>Thus with time we already have today 20 and 30 year old that only know a Kodachrome is some sort of slide and they use it for Ektachromes too; ie for ANY slide.</p>

<p>We also have senile folks who call Instamatic prints in shoe boxes Kodachromes; and B&W box camera negatives Kodachromes too; besides any slide.</p>

<p>The real world of the Average Joe has never seen a slide projected in a generation; and that funkly tray when the parents pass is to be fought over; and thus a CD is made "of the little pictures"</p>

<p>The average person on the street today has never seen a slide projected; and does not know waht a slide or negative is either. It is a vastly different group than photo,net's crowd.</p>

<p>So Kelly, the 'market' is divided between Elitist, Senile,Old Grey Retired Farts that are Grumpy and about to die or have died and Average Joes that are kool kidz and on the Street Today.</p>

<p>What you're saying is a company's heritage and quality are of no importance as long as they can leverage a former quality name for further profit. Disregard the bastardization of that name as long as more money can be made and your legacy customers are senile or dead anyway so what matter.</p>

<p>Yep, that sums up the American MBA mentality pretty well.</p>

 

<p>Bill;<br>

The average person alive today who has ever shot a single roll of Kodachrome film has not shot a roll in say 25 plus years ; ie 1/4 century or more. There really is no market.</p>

<p>If Kodak launched a new inkjet printer and ink system and called it "Kodachrome" ; the average person who once shot Kodachrome would just know it was that old stuff color slide stuff the used 1/4 to 1/3 century ago. They would not get there pants in a knot like a typical photo.neter.</p>

<p>Re using older names has been down for eons and is nothing really new.</p>

<p>The average consumer whos last roll shot of Kodachrome 1/4 century ago is what marketing folks target; not the few part per milion photo.net crowd who knows lens curvatures of each Summicron variant; or 123 subtle things why a Leica IIIa is different than a IIIc.</p>

<p>It probably doesnt matter if you or me in the few parts per million crowd of photo.net is upset with "company's heritage and quality are of no importance as long as they can leverage a former quality name for further profit. Disregard the bastardization of that name as long as more money can be made and your legacy customers are senile or dead anyway so what matter."<br>

<br /><br>

Companies dust off valuable Brand/Trade names all the time; they weigh gaining new customers ie Joe The Plumber in 2010 at Walmart buying a new great printer versus irrating old folks who used the older gizmo with the same name when Nixon was President. <br>

<br /><br>

Most all folks on photo.net do not run a business; thus understanding why products get dropped is not understood.<br>

<br /><br>

The few parts per million crowd of photo.net is not a cross section of the average person who shot a Kodachrome roll; more like a super saturated filtered; culling of folks; that 1/2 have no business sense. </p>

<p>Thus they cry when products get dropped; that were really kept alive a decade past where a normal outfit would have dropped a product; ie Kodachrome was probably a charity for the last few years. <br>

<br /><br>

Dropping of Kodachrome does not require a MBA; a New York hotdog vendor with no grade school who barely speaks English knows when to cut their losses with products that loose money; it is called "street sense" </p>

<p>Kelly, You love your polarized generalities, don't you?</p>

<p>As a point of reference, although I can't speak for the Photo.net community, I have worked inside some of the largest corporations in America, in and out of marketing departments, for over 30 years. I do know the mentality of these organizations.</p>

<p>As far as the dropping, sunseting, abandoning, or cutting of a product I am also very aware of market realities.</p>

<p>I have only two points here:</p>

<p>1) The Kodachrome product name is very specific and narrow. </p>

<p>It is not a generic name that can be broadly applied to much real effect. As you say, most people don't even know or care what Kodachrome is. If you were to apply this name to inkjet printers or any sort of digital technology it would only be a curiosity and might even have a negative impact on market perception.</p>

<p>Kodachrome is also very specific and narrow in its application to transparency film. It has built its reputation on color representation and archival longevity. This comes from its unique formulation and process. To apply the Kodachrome product name on a common (e6) transparency film that does not guarantee those attributes would be crass and disrespectful.</p>

<p>If Kodachrome becomes no different than dozens of competing products, its value as a 'brand' would be lost in very short order.</p>

<p>However, if Kodak were to reformulate Kodachrome for easier, more cost effective process, yet retain its legacy qualities then, yes, there could be tremendous value. Somehow, given Kodak's current marketing philosophy, that does not appear possible.</p>

<p>If Kodachrome is truly dead, let it die honorably.</p>

<p>2) Viral Marketing. My main point is that Corporate America is just recently discovering the value of Viral Marketing and working out how to use it to advantage. </p>

<p>Mr. Basu's point of this thread is to direct people to his university study project which, supposedly, is an exercise in market polling and study.</p>

<p>Beside its obvious Push Polling, as pointed out by A.T. Burke, this effort has 'underground' viral marketing stamped all across its proverbial forehead.</p>

<p>Certainly I am wrong in this suspicion and Mr. Basu has the truest of intentions. </p>

<p>But I remain cynical due to my background, exposure, experience and mostly by the number of publicly available statements, videos, appearances and releases from Mr. Jeff Hayzlett, Kodak's current Chief Marketing Officer.</p>

<p>-Bill</p>