Selling Snow to Eskimos, Dept.

Why spend hundreds of dollars on a digital camera that's complicated and confusing?

Seems like a final exam for a marketing program, doesn't it? "Right, then, you've got a client with a warehouse filled to the rafters with a product that has become, though no fault of his own, essentially valueless. Find a way to pitch 'em at an advantage so you the client can squeeze a few remaining bucks out of his property...."

Can't blame 'em for trying. And it's a game try, you've got to admit, old people stereotyping and all.

Mike
(Thanks to several tipsters)

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Comments

[raizans]

lol, when i'm at the pharmacy, the ones buying film or dropping it off are seniors or teenagers.

[Stan B.]

Imagine if they made those with interchangeable lenses!

[iñaki]

Funny, but not funny.
Thing is, there is a big underlying truth there. And a big market as well, somehow hidden.

[Daniel]

It worked for Lomography... :-)

[georgie]

Great pull! I agree with all of it and I ain't old or a teenager no mo' ;) Over the past couple of years my shooting has been entirely film (mostly 35mm) and doing some street stuff whenever the time and opportunity offered. In the street, one of the ways I get people to lay back is promising to give actual printed picture. Amazingly that works most of the time. For the record, I do send the pictures to the people I meet. Digital ain't nuthin'! Film rox!

[misha]

Next, selling air conditioners to Eskimos.

[Dennis Ng]

The first thing comes to mind is actually about how expensive to get film in UK. I got one in this August and it cost me more than 4 quid.

Unfortunately it cannot possibly have included free shipping to UK. Otherwise, the battery and the film may actually cheaper to get them through this deal -- dump the camera (snow) but get the goodie (the film or Scene watched by Eskimos). I bet one can sell this camera for 2 quid and one may even get a profit!

Back to adv., it is actually quite a good one. Except, the film and processing are not that cheap and I guess just take a photo is not that easy. But may the old man in the adv. do not push the button so hard. The camera does not have VR in the body or in the lens, doesn't it?

I appreciate very much technique. I learnt this phrase Snow/Eskimos from a marketing guy who talked about his experience of selling tickets for new jersey basket teams of NBA. It is hard as people would support the team of New York across the river. The normal trick of trying to improve or sell your team would not work. Hence, he did the "strange" twist i.e. instead of selling his team, he sell the opponent. Want to see XXX (Magic Johnson ... etc.), come to see here in New Jersey!

The selling of using the whole process as a selling point is great. It would work here in Hong Kong. Last time I tried to print 100+ photos and found the minilab so full of people that I have to wait the queue for hours for that. Film and the whole process, as long as it is cheap, still sell!

[Marty McAuliff]

Please may I never get old enough that a pitch like that might work on me... ...brings to mind an ad for digital TV someplace, where a couple of seniors were pitching the new product (all the while grinning like they were mainlining crystal meth), and the wrap-up sell was "and best of all...ITS DIGITAL!!!", as if legions of seniors are sitting around lamenting their Price Is Right being delivered via that vastly inferior analog signal.
So nowwww the truth comes out...dagnab those meddling kids and their megapickles!!!
I got a couple of film cameras on ebay right now, case any o' you fossils buys this line.

[Richard]

Some young kids are fascinated by film. They have only ever known digital cameras, and when they discover film, it is new, hence cool.

[Keith Loh]

Mike, half the time I'm at the drug store to drop off negatives to be processed I see people looking slack jawed at the digital photo kiosks. They invariably have to get the help of the cashier while I wait to drop off my roll with simple instructions. The problem is 1) the user interface is usually really bad and 2) those machines (or their little computer) are sometimes just plain broken and the store doesn't trust even their own computer retail people to reboot the thing. So no wonder that older or non-technical people think it was easier the old way.

[Mike Jones]

Funny how no one is shown looking through the viewfinder! They’re all doing it the “digital” way. Me, I’d never buy a camera that didn’t require me to squash my nose against it.

[R. Edelman]

Two cameras and two rolls of film for $10.00. Wow. Do they have any medium format deals?

[Player]

That's classic lol. Technology never rests. Whoever could have imagined that you could capture an image on this new film medium instead of using digital sensors and flash cards. Genius!

[Syam]

I noticed that the lady didn't even put her eyes up to the viewfinder to shoot......Yes granted that most of the time you don't even need to focus but at least you'll need to compose

[James W.]

It's easy to forget that there are a lot of people in the world who have never owned a computer, aren't comfortable using one, and just want 4 x 6 prints in an album. My mother would be an example. Having digital files archived on a CD at the lab isn't very reassuring without a computer at home. I think in this case, a good film point-and-shoot or compact AF SLR and colour negative film are still the way to go. That is, provided there's a local lab doing decent, affordable prints and scans and which won't scratch the film. But there are so many such cameras going cheap second-hand that trying to sell these Vivitars is still a bit of a stretch.

[john robison]

I love my old film cameras but....I also remember piles of mundane prints that wound up back in the envelope(why save them at all?)for the 3 or 4 that went into an album. Now, for B&W I still use film but for color this old goat has finally started to use his DSLR. I can squrit the files I want to print over to Costco and if I have a 'masterpiece' I can get a perfectly adequate enlargement. So digital has some advantages but the cameras leave me cold compared to the glorious glass and brass of my MMM 35mm cameras. And, every stroke of the advance lever positions a new, single use sensor in back of the lens. And, when I pull the roll from the wash I have the back up files in my hand. Something no hard drive with a sudden heart attack can take away.

[Steve Damascus]

Something I find very interesting is that at 1:05 the woman taking the photo of the child is holding the camera like you would a digital; by not using the viewfinder she's giving away the fact that she is herself, a digital camera user!

[Bruce Appelbaum]

This is a great product -- two for $10. You can take a shot without ever looking anywhere near the viewfinder AND you can get portrait shots while holding the camera in landscape orientation.

[Tom Brenholts]

What I think is funny is that a good point is actually made: There is nothing wrong with film. Digital has supplanted it for a number of reasons, but still, there is nothing wrong with it. It still works. And at $5 a camera, it will probably work out to be cost effective for the geezers, too.

[latent_image]

For the vast majority, a well designed P&S film camera is a much better choice than ANY digital camera, providing they can access photofinishing at a reasonable price. For keeners and pros, sure, digital is the great new thing. But for folks who just want to snap the occasional picture, digital photography--at any level--is a PITA.

As for this: "Please may I never get old enough that a pitch like that might work on me...," I'd be careful what you wish for. Getting old is often preferable and a lot more enjoyable than the alternative. I'm sick of hearing old people getting dissed, as though they were some other species.

[B Grace]

One of the selling points for digital image capture was the stability of image storage in camera. We were told we could simply drop our memory cards instead of film canisters off for prints at our local lab or 1-hour counter. The industry didn’t follow through on supporting that claim and today, I believe, most folks don’t realize (and no one informs them) that for less than the price of a completed set of prints and film negatives they can have prints and their image files on archive quality CDs, all without post processing. It’s tragic that during a time when more people may be taking photographs than ever before there are fewer people who seem to have any results to show for their efforts. The implication that digital capture requires post-processing pervades the hobby to the point that, without my knowing, one of my relatives took a Photoshop class at a local community college because he was convinced he had to use the software if he wanted to shoot with a digital camera. Perhaps it's time for the industry to step up by reminding us that we can keep digital photography simple.

[Ludovic]

I may be silly, but - isn't that a parody? When I checked, there was no mention of it on the actual Vivitar website.

[Holga]

This is a shameless exploitation of old people, since the camera lacks the "Lomography" label!

[Bryce Lee]

All that was old is new again?

Film, the new method for
recording images; and colour prints; the new pass around object of desire?

[Ed Kirkpatrick]

I am guessing this is a film student's Senior Project... No 800 #, no address to mail my $$$ to... Nope, it's a joke friends. I hope so. The American Consumer couldn't be stupid enough to buy some recycled technology...?

[Andrew]

What I like best about the film is the magical trick that the camera plays at the kid's birthday party. Take a picture in landscape and the camera automagically realises that a portrait crop will look much better - voila!

Wish you could do that with digital :-)

Greetings from Addis
Andrew

[Paul Glover]

Heh...the funny thing is, as a full-time IT guy for a good 15 years now, and part time photographer, the idea of not having to spend even more seat time at a computer than I already have done is quite appealing.

Of course I go and screw it up by shooting film only to wind up dropping it off for develop-only and scanning it at home.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

A friend is just back from Australia, with her first-ever digital camera (a P&S; I didn't see it close enough to identify the manufacturer). She's shot lots of film in the past, but hasn't brought prints or albums around to show people. This Saturday, she had the camera with her, and was showing people her Australia pictures right on the LCD. Also she was commenting on how getting this "better" camera has greatly improved her photos (longer telephoto reach, primarily).

We were also talking about the benefit of immediate feedback, and the low cost of trying again.

My observation is that, overall, I see a lot more people's photos in the digital era than I did in the film era. People run slideshows on their laptops, and circulate URLs to their Flickr albums, and post photos to Facebook. Facebook is particularly interesting in that I get notified when somebody tags me as being in a photo; so when strangers post photos from events I was at, I still sometimes find them.

[Till Scheel]

If you watch the clip on youtube you can see a Kodak-clip in the link-list on the right side. Its exactly the same clip. But this time its not a Vivitar ("the name you know and trust") but a Kodak ("the name you know and trust"). Only difference: The Kodak is more expensive. You have to pay about 30 bucks for the camera, a roll of film and a package of batteries. But on the other hand... well... its the name you REALLY know and trust.

[GKFroehlich]

I can't say whether this is a parody or a senior project or if it's authentic, but I can say that these are the same Stepford people who wear Snuggies -- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xZp-GLMMJ0 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeM4GMGWInY&NR=1.