Generally, I don't disagree with what's being said here (and I do wish Kodak and other film manufacturers would make some sort of a marketing push), but there are a few factors that make me think this strategy would be ineffective at getting the general public into using (more) film.
Originally Posted by kb3lms
For starters, the lack of easily-available film cameras is a big impediment. Sure you can get some crappy P&S at the local pharmacy or top of the line Nikon F6 or rangefinders but the variety isn't there. And you need to know and be determined enough to find the cameras that do exist. (Not everyone has the time or desire to seek out used gear in good condition.)
Shooting with a crappy P&S is not a good way to showcase film (just like shooting a crappy digital P&S are not a fair representation of what digital is capable of). You may end up doing film a disservice by pushing people to try film with a crappy camera when people think they can get similar results by using a crappy digital camera but without the perceived hassle of film.
Now, think of yourself as Joe Consumer (or mom) who already has a digital camera that's "good enough" (often as part of their cell phones). What incentive is there to try film when I already have what I need and is predictable?
So, ultimately, Kodak ends up trying to sell film to the artist or photography enthusiast, people who typically know what they want and know where to get it. Advertising would basically be preaching to the converted, so what's in it for them? Would it grow their film market? It's hard to predict whether it would.