The problem for film is almost entirely economic.
It is far more expensive to use or promote film.
Each roll costs money as does processing and printing/scanning. there's no instant gratification like with digital.
So if you want to keep film as a viable medium, you actually have to make the higher cost something that is a benefit, not a problem.
It's like slow food, or a day long BBQ, or a 7 course French meal. Patience is a virtue. The suspense is worth the wait. A few extra dollars for a product with character is better than a cheap shot.
Film is not mainstream and never will be again. It's the path less walked. The road less traveled. This is a good thing and a market can be reconstructed out of that.
Being pro-film should not mean being anti-digital. Anti-digital is counter-productive. Digital services and crossover users are now the lifeblood of film.
Ironically, people from digital like to try film in part because they can waste a zillion shots on digital perfecting technique without blowing money on practise rolls (sorry Kodak). That's the new normal gateway into film photography and should be embraced. Think of all the people who guy from APS-C digital sensors to Medium Format film. That's quite a leap, yet it's made possible entirely because of the practice phenomenon.