Choice and "The Morning Show" : Wedding photography

[ricktas]

Yesterday morning Channel 7 aired a segment on their "The Morning Show" about Wedding photographers and brought in 'Choice', the consumer advisory group to discuss wedding photography.

During the segment the Choice spokesperson, Tom Godfrey, stated "Ask the best man or maid of honor to call the photographer telling them it will be just a party". He did so based on the assumption that wedding photographers charge more, and told consumers to LIE to the photographer about what the event is to get a better price.

The actual segment has been pulled from the Channel 7 website, so I cannot link to it.

The Choice facebook page has been inundated with complaints from photographers about this : https://www.facebook.com/choiceaustralia

The entire segment on The Morning Show began with a quick comment about one photographer who is being investigated by fair trading: https://www.facebook.com/whereismihaja
http://www.rentacam.com.au/blacklist/caroline-grimmond-fogg-mihaja-photography-blacklist.html
http://www.qls.com.au/For_the_profession/Practice_support/Resources/Trust_accounting_resources/Notices_not_to_employ

The segment basically was then driven by this one case to give the public the mis-assumption that ALL wedding photographers are rip-offs. Needless to to say, the AIPP was not happy, along with a huge number of photographers who shoot weddings and do so professionally, in their approach, conduct, pricing and final product: https://www.facebook.com/AIPPOfficial/posts/10151721439763687

My reason for posting this here, is that if members are in the photography business and you are approached to photograph a 'party', it might be in your interest to have a clause added to your contract along the lines of full disclosure about the type of event you will be photographing, being required. Otherwise you could find that 'party' booking you took is a 6-8 hour wedding!

[Iscariot]

That is disgusting.

[macmich]

maybe their should be a face book page started, with people finding out the dirt on prime( channel 7) employees , who have deceived people over the years and tarnish
the whole organisation because of as few fools
cheers macca

[ricktas]

Found out the reason the segment was pulled from the Channel 7 website. During the segment, they had a background video running of a photographer shooting a wedding. This photographer was shot for an entirely different segment some time ago, and they re-used the video footage. Thus that photographer was linked to a segment on photographers doing the wrong thing/scamming etc, when she in fact has never been accused of such, and was in no way associated with the segment that went to air yesterday.

Very un-professional on behalf of Channel 7, The Morning Show and Choice.

[Retro]

Thanks for this information and further update Rick. It's disappointing to see such behaviour from the media; clearly this should have been better investigated with proper due diligence prior to any decision to report on this.

And to have the Choice spokesperson actively condone misleading behaviour...very disappointing indeed. I know a few people in my circles involved in this type of business and will be sharing this with them.

[ricktas]

someone has loaded the segment onto youtube: http://youtu.be/gT3BsSqF-IQ

[JDFSandH]

Thats disgusting. I heard poor words from Choice about photographers last night in regards to the PixiFoto vs. Single Mum thing so was already peeved with them. This is just unbelievable. They are disgraceful yet I know so many people who base huge, important decisions around what they hear from Choice.

Thanks for posting this, and the update as well as the video. Not in the industry at all but I know people who are. Might pass it along.

[mechawombat]

You know what I get it!

but this should not apply to photographers. I will explain

When I was doing the wedding planning thing with the wife there was a party price and a "WEDDING PRICE". Many venues would add on an extra margin just because you were having your nuptials. So if you contact venues then sure see if they have separate list prices.

The thing that was wrong was not just a Choice spokesperson telling you to lie but the stupidity of the matter. When you hire a wedding photographer you hire a wedding photographer. Why? because they are the best at that genre. If I want Steve Parrish to shoot my wedding sure I might some nice shots but if I hired Jerry Ghionis I am going to get #$^% AMAZING SHOTS!!

I skimped on a photographer and had my best friend and his brother shoot my wedding. Best $400 bucks I have ever spent! but looking back I still would not have changed a thing with them shooting as they did a most excellent job as they are almost like family anyway so there was no uncle bob moments.

[Mathy]

Ooops! That was a total clanger :D, cheers Deb

[ricktas]

Choice issued a limited apology on the AIPP facebook page:

Quote:


CHOICE Thank you for your post, CHOICE recognises that comments made on the Morning Show on 23 September have upset some wedding photographers, and we would like to apologise.

We accept that not mentioning that your event is a wedding to your photographer is not appropriate advice. Better options are to shop around and also to look for recommended providers through friends.

Thank you for drawing our attending to the photographic industry ethical code. We are not taking issue with photographers who put in more time and effort getting paid more for the service they provide. However, we believe consumers shouldn't be charged a premium for a like-for-like service simply because they mention the word "wedding”. We have serious concerns over the “wedding” mark-up being applied across a range of industries.

I believe they are just trying to appease those who complained the most, they have not redressed the issue with the consumers who saw it on The Morning Show, in any way. Tell the photographers they are sorry, but let the consumers who watch The Morning Show and the original segment, continue on believing it is OK to lie to photographers when conducting a business negotiation. I doubt many who saw the original segment are members of the AIPP facebook page, and thus they have no reason to believe the original advice by Choice spokesperson, Tom Godfrey, is anything other than good advice.

[ameerat42]

Simple: DON'T come to the party (if you're the photographer).

Well, drivel masquerading badly as substance.

(And how about the serious/concerned/attentive visages broadly sported on that program, and others?)

[snappysi]

Imagine for a moment someone organising a "party", paying the photographer and then said photographer turns up to the "wedding" and then the photographer turns arounds and walks out stating that "this is not what i was hired for". The fallout would be monumental, and all because they thought they where doing the "right" thing based on info from choice.....
I would for one obviously have no hard feelings for the wedding party for being what would be blatant deception. If i can see that, how in hell would a supposed reputable organisation not see that this is wrong... the mind boggles
In saying all that, i would find it hard to believe that a photographer could not see the signs along the way that they would be shooting more than just a party....

Simon.

[Mark L]

In saying all that, i would find it hard to believe that a photographer could not see the signs along the way that they would be shooting more than just a party....

Like that.
If you're hired for a party, give them party photos. Renegotiate the release of the wedding photos after that.:confused013

[freelancer]

Just charge more for party's.
Jon

[pearson]

Unless you were hired ONLY for the wedding then the leadup to the actual event would almost have to give it away. Things like engagement photos, the 'party couple' asking for photos at somewhere other than the venue, etc, etc. If you turn up and find this is a wedding, renegotiate on the spot. If they aren't happy to pay for you to shoot a wedding, walk away. You would be better to be upfront rather than play deceitful games as your employers may have.