SteveX Compiled

I was waiting in line at a Wal-Mart tonight when I noticed that by the checkout line there were a variety of rolls of 35mm film near the cash register. People still use those?

I can understand having some in the store somewhere, probably with the VHS tapes and blank floppy disks, but the cash register aisle is prime real estate. On the other hand, Wal-Mart is a master merchandiser, so either they’re there because they sell, or because Kodak is paying them good money to put them there.

I wonder which it is.

The film I was looking at was $9 for 3 rolls of film. Developing those 3 rolls of film is probably another $10/roll, so someone buying that item is spending $39 on film and prints. Digital cameras give you the freedom to take lots of pictures and delete the ones you don’t like, so even if the cost of prints is the same (and I don’t think it is), film would still be a waste of money.

I guess there are old school camera users out there who take so few pictures that a roll lasts them a year or two and then they get prints and put most of them in an album. For those folks maybe it doesn’t make sense to upgrade. But I haven’t seen one of these people out on the streets with a camera in years. Look around; it’s a digital camera world. It’s hard to believe there are that many people using film cameras in 2008.

Which would mean that it’s Kodak paying for the shelf space for their film. Why would Kodak do that?

Not many companies show a straight downward trend on the 10 year chart. Maybe they’re having a hard time letting go.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 pm and is filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.