KRR wrote:
But, the labs sat on their hands and the film companies did to. Now, they are both going out of business and they could have delayed the inevitable if only they had had some creative and confident managers willing to collect ideas from the field.
This is downright insulting to anyone who was in a lab at the time. They tried and struggled to stay afloat, most didn't make it.
>Why not a Fuji POS display at the color lab?
There were many.
>Imagine rolls of film in the cooler at the lab for customers to see.
Yes, most decent labs did this back in the film days, when they sold many rolls of film a day.
>Why not offer a free roll of film with 4 rolls of developing?
Again, many labs that offered a free rolls of film with developing. Heck when I was in college I worked at two different labs and both had a deal where if you were a member of our loyalty club and paid something like a $20 annual fee, you'd get a free roll of film with every roll you developed or free doubles... between 2002 and 2004 the tide drastically shifted. More people were bringing in digital cards and asking to get doubles on those and didn't want the film.
>Why not a used film camera for sale bulletin board at the lab?
Many places would do this, particularly for "short dated" film. Meaning stuff that was getting close to expiration date (but had been kept in refrigeration so it was probably good as long as you were going to use it soon.)
>Did your lab ever give you a tour of their back room with their equipment?
If you were a large customer, ANY decent lab I knew would do this.
>Where was the scanning service education programs. Coolscan was really good.
Not so much
>Why not film photo contests sponsored by film companies?
Kodak still does this. You get your picture on their website.
>Did your lab ever say thanks for your E-6 business?
As of 2004 there were maybe 2 labs anywhere near central New Jersey that were processing E-6 so every lab was outsourcing to them. If you've ever run a lab you'd know that those machines and chemistry are only cost effective if they're running a LOT of film. Also the best way to keep the chemistry at top quality is to run a LOT of film. Setting up a machine every day for the 10 people who drop off a roll once a month and the pro who shoots 10 rolls of 120 every other week isn't cost effective. And those clients also don't want hear that you only develop on Thursdays, they want their film in 1 hour. I can do that but to keep the business open I'm going to have to charge $100 per roll for developing. Most labs kept themselves afloat by branching out and offering digital services, framing, portrait sessions, etc.
>How about an open house with a film photograper, sponsored by local camera retailer?
Many places I know offer open houses with photographers. But they don't care if the photographer shoots film or digital, if the photographer is good, they're good, period.
>Buy a new film camera and get free introductory processing discount coupon?
Again, I worked at two labs who had a loyalty program which we'd offer if you bought a camera. By 2004 no one was buying film cameras from us, just digital.
Cross-merchandising works, but only if you try it. Film and camera companies should have merged their efforts in the early days of digital. Too late now. #
It was tried, trust me. People wanted digital.
Edit: I'd like to add, I'm not saying film is a bad thing. But it's not what the masses wanted. It's a niche thing, and the market cannot support a 1 hour lab every 5 miles. There will still be some labs here and there, but you may have to drive an hour and you may have to wait a day or two to get your film developed. The entire one-hour lab economy was dependent on MILLIONS of rolls of film being processed every day. The production of film also was built on an economy of scale. It was inevitable that with digital cameras and now with smart phones that far fewer people were going to need film, and that was going to drastically reduce anyone that relied on moving huge numbers.
