[pure-silver] Re: Product marketing; was agfa film


----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryuji Suzuki" <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:10 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Product marketing; was agfa film


From: "Koch, Gerald" <gkoch02@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [pure-silver] Product marketing; was agfa film
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:12:10 -0400

My only complaint is with the naming of their Neutol developers. I
think most people had a difficulty with there being more than one
product with that name. Granted that there was an two letter extension
like WA or NE. But still confusing nonertheless. A real marketing
mistake. Another example is Fuji, who overuse the name Neopan. Even
Adorama seems confused -- the description on their website for Neopan
100 SS is really a description of Acros 100. If the film's name is
Acros then why does it have to be called Neopan Acros?

That complaint should go to Adorama, not here. It's their mistake.

Following your logic, Eastman Kodak overused "Kodachrome,"
"Ektachrome" and "Kodacolor." How many Ektachromes are there on the
market? And we photographers can be readily confused by WA and NE,
while we talk about VPS, VPL, TX, TXP, TXT, and so on to indicate
films. It's just silly argument.

Neopan is a name Fuji picked when they started making decent b&w
negative emulsions, and this name, together with the number of S to
designate speed, became a common standard in their main market during
1960s. They just don't want to change the Neopan part, nor should they
introduce different name just for small export market. Of course, if
they had different names for different market, someone will complain
about that too. Look at Ilford in 1990s and Canon EOS line, for example.
(Neopan 400 and 1600 actually have different names for export, though.)


You are right to choose Kodak as an example. Kodak tends to use nearly the same trade names for products which are similar in some way but not identical. For instance, there are two different emulsions sold as "Tri-X" and there were two sold as "Plus-X" until the shteet film was discontinued. Kodak also does this with color film. Kodak tends to recycle trade names but that is acceptable because the products are not sold simultaneously, For instance, "Ektar" which began as a lens name was recycled many years after Kodak got out of the lens business for a color film.
Agfa did a horrible job marketing in the US. They did little advertising and products were often not available in stores. I don't think this entirely accounts for the failure of the photographic division but it was a factor.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: