Ethics in Professional Portrait Photography [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

Helen S

02-12-2009, 2:17pm

Not sure if this is the right place for this query, so Mods, please move it if it's in the wrong place. :o

My daughter and her best friend went and had some photos taken at a rather well-known photo studio yesterday. This was supposed to be a "free" session that she got for visiting their stand at the Royal Show.

The got made up and had a rather lengthy session and all-in-all had a fabulous time, however, they were each charged a bond of $95 to make sure that they would turn up to a viewing of the photos when they are completed. If they don't attend, they forfeit their money (so much for being free). Yes, they were silly and agreed to this, though in fairness, the $95 was probably well spent on the makeup artist who did an excellent job. The girls did look gorgeous when they got home.

Anyway, daughter came home with a price list... the cheapest option a 5" x 4" unedited print for $200. :eek: Packages start at $1200 for 2 x 10" x 8" + an album of small photos and go to nearly $6,500 for the top package.

Would have loved a 30" x 40" photo of her, but the asking price is $3,750. :eek: :eek:

Personally I'm overwhelmed and completely shocked at what they're charging, but am I the only one who think this? :confused013

ricktas

02-12-2009, 2:21pm

Wooo..those prices do seem very steep.

Dan Cripps

02-12-2009, 2:27pm

I'm not sure that anything unethical has occurred, after reading your brief outline, so the thread title is a little confusing.

It seems that perhaps your daughter and her friend were either not given a decent explanation of the studio's workflow. That's probably the only area you could fault the studio.

I assume the girls received their deposits back upon honoring their end of the bargain by turning up for the scheduled photo viewing?

Ultimately, everyone has the right to price their work at whatever level they deem to be necessary to achieve their own unique business goals.

para

02-12-2009, 2:30pm

My partner had a shop in a shopping centre quite regularly had a kids photograph stall work near her, the add was similar $9.00 a sitting then a few weeks later they would come back with the photos to sell from the sitting not as expensive as that but were not cheap and not that great one day saw one of the "photographers" practicing on a teddy as she hadn`t done it before although all the settings on the camera were taped down. 1/125 f8

Kym

02-12-2009, 2:31pm

Other than being extremely overpriced I don't think they did much wrong.
Free sitting and make-up, but I guess they should publish their prices up front.

Maybe you should haggle to a more realistic price anyway?

JM Tran

02-12-2009, 2:41pm

this isnt really commercial photography..........this is a professional portrait and marketing business

just like Studio 2000 and NuoVogue in Adelaide, same deal, same pricings as you wrote earlier.

and there are ppl dumb enough out there to fork out 5k for those stupid packages!

Studio 2000 appeared on Today Tonight a few times in the past for their aggressive marketing and call ups to customers asking when will u come in to see the photos? Coming in is where they pull the hard sell on u and try to make u cough up that amount, even on installment plans!

ving

02-12-2009, 2:42pm

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/faint2.gif <--says it all

Helen S

02-12-2009, 2:52pm

Studio 2000 appeared on Today Tonight a few times in the past for their aggressive marketing and call ups to customers asking when will u come in to see the photos? Coming in is where they pull the hard sell on u and try to make u cough up that amount, even on installment plans!

Surprise, surprise. I didn't want to mention names, but...

Zeke, they haven't got there yet, but my husband will be in attendance in an official capacity when they view their photos on the 16th as I'm rather worried that they will try to con and manipulate my girl who is still rather naive in the ways of the outside world, even though she's 21.

I think what I found unethical in this whole affair, was that word "free" when it actually wasn't. One of the other things mentioned at the show stand was that part of the bargain of the "free" shoot was that they'd be able to enter her photo in a in some competition. Unfortunately I have no actual details of the verbal agreement, just what my daughter said had transpired. Until the shoot however, she hadn't signed anything which is good.

...and the prices!!! There's no framing involved there, just a straight print. :(

Kym, I'll mention the haggle option to Graeme, but something tells me they won't come to the party. :rolleyes:

elgoogoogle

02-12-2009, 3:24pm

they have simply paid a refundable deposit, it was a free session they just want to make sure they go back so they have another chance at selling you something.

Dan Cripps

02-12-2009, 4:47pm

I think what I found unethical in this whole affair, was that word "free" when it actually wasn't.

I still think it's free.

If the girls go in, don't purchase anything and get their deposits back - the whole experience was ... free. :)

My studio workflow is similar, except I don't offer free portrait sessions. We shoot one day, then meet another day to present the images and offer prints for purchase. The whole process is totally transparent, though. Everyone has the opportunity to go through our comprehensive pricing before booking a session. :)

Kym

02-12-2009, 4:53pm

Kym, I'll mention the haggle option to Graeme, but something tells me they won't come to the party. :rolleyes:

Well, take your calendar ;) - tell em your a 'tog.
Mum & Dad means they can't talk you kid into it.
Suggest a realistic price - the worst is thay say no and make no money.
If they are smart they say yes and get something. Its not like you could not do better yourself.

MarkW

02-12-2009, 7:55pm

etherial

02-12-2009, 8:19pm

Helen, I agree what most have said here. It is hard to say if it is unethical but it certainly isn't up front and honest. I'd be turning up, looking at the photos, taking my $95 and going home.

Now what you need to do is organise an AP meetup, bring the girls along, plenty of people can take photos for nothing, and in return got hold of the ones they like and get them printed! Win win! :th3:

jasevk

02-12-2009, 8:26pm

The way it was described here, it seems that they may be targeting a certain client profile who may not understand how things work. I'd also go along, get the money back and take my business elsewhere

hoffy

02-12-2009, 9:43pm

A work mate's girlfriend used to work for the one with 2000 in the name. Her job was to make sure that people didn't leave without purchasing something. She quit because it became way too stressful for her, as there was a very high expectation that every shoot would result in a sale.

Expect them to try every damn trick in the book when they go back for the viewing. They are very aggressive.

As for unethical, possibly by the letter of the law, no. But morally, yes

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 8:44am

Some of the comments in this thread are a prime example is why talking business on a public forum is useless.

ricktas

03-12-2009, 8:46am

Some of the comments in this thread are a prime example is why talking business on a public forum is useless.

hmmm. But isn't everyone entitled to express their views? Just cause some might differ from your own, doesn't make them wrong and you right!

oldfart

03-12-2009, 9:15am

There's no such thing as a free lunch........

Longshots

03-12-2009, 9:53am

Thats true - but as many find out the its not really free if there is a compulsory $95 charge. On that point alone I'd be checking with your states Fair Trading policy. Doesnt matter if its a refundable charge either.

I would ask that someone changes the title though - this is not Commercial Photography, but Portrait Photography, as JMTran has already pointed out - and its an important point.

IanB

03-12-2009, 10:02am

I bet it was Studio 2000; they have been on ACA type programs serveral time for the wrong reasons :eek:

don't pay it; LOL I'll do your portrait photography for $480 and no more to pay ;)

Sadly there are too many 'professional" photographers/studios ripping off the public. And it has to stop!!! :action:

kiwi

03-12-2009, 10:09am

I think that's a blatant misrepresentation of professional photography...what's too many 1 ? 10000 ?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with so called "agggressive" marketing. It's how the world goes around. You think the marketing department at Coke go to bed cuddling teddies ?

Bait and switch stuff and misrepresentation is wrong, otherwise it's just business.

maccaroneski

03-12-2009, 11:19am

Sorry but this is unethical and may well be a breach of the trade practices act. At least it would be if it was in NSW. There have been a number of presedent cases fought in NSW on this issue and the tog lost every time. I can't for the life of me remember the company but they went down badly - it was somebody photographic Studios.

Unless it was clearly stated that a photographic session did NOT include provision of free photos to the client then this is a clear breach.

This is like buying a car. When you buy a car you buy the whole lot. You don't have to pay extra just to get the tyres and if registration is not included - a usual term at an auction - then this is clearly discosed prior to the act of agreement.

I know the laws differ from state to state but this is still a scum bag act designed to entrap the niave.

The Trade Practices Act is a federal one, therefore applies across Australia. Each state has its own "version" - in NSW it's the Fair Trading Act - and these state versions generally mirror the federal one but pick up anything that falls through the cracks for various constitutional reasons (e.g. the federal one generally only applies to companies but the state ones can catch sole traders). The state acts also establish the various local tribunals like the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.

Ultimately though going through expensive court proceedings is only worthwhile if you've lost any money - the general principle is that you can only claim in relation to damage that you have suffered (i.e. money you have lost). In rare cases the court can award punitive damages (i.e. designed to punish the "offender" rather than compensate the "victim"). Assuming that the $95 deposit is returned, there has been no such loss.

Accordingly then the best thing to do would be to complain to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. They suggest:

"Report a business if you think it may be:

*
misleading or deceiving a consumer or doing something that is likely to be misleading or deceptive
*
putting undue influence or pressure on an especially disadvantaged or vulnerable consumer or using unfair tactics against them (acting unconscionably)
*
using undue harassment or coercion to get a consumer to buy or pay for goods or services"

Here's a link to the relevant form:

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/54217

If you go that far it would be very interesting to follow the progress.

Brodie

03-12-2009, 11:24am

i just about spat out my mouthful of water when i read those prices. I think its disgusting the way some studios operate like this.

ricktas

03-12-2009, 11:28am

In the end it comes down to 'buyer beware'. Everyone should ask questions about prices, get quotes etc, before undertaking any commitment. We provide every single patient a quote, whether it be $50.00 or $25,000.00. It is printed and handed to every single one, before we undertake any work.

The patient is then informed and can therefore make an informed decision.

Lani

03-12-2009, 11:30am

If people are willing to pay those prices, then why not charge them? But be up front about it though.
Anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, if you can market stuff successfully then why not. eg pro golfers and tennis players...are they worth it? who knows but as they keep raking in the dollars, someone must think so.

Raven

03-12-2009, 11:40am

I think they are going about their words a bit wrong. Offering a sitting with a $95 bond if the photos are viewed is a good way to ensure that the person isn't waisting the photographers time, but the mistake I see is it being offered as "free". Poor choice of words really.

From a personal POV, I've had this type of photography done (not by that mob though) and there is a LOT of pressure to buy and no room to think. I'm no shrinking violet but I walked out of there in tears after the badgering from the salesman who told me "we were clearly wasting each others time" and he will just destroy the images if I walked out. All I wanted was for my husband to see them because if I was going to spend that kind of money I at least wanted him to like them ;)
Make sure someone strong willed goes with them to both get the money back and fend off the guy waving a credit contract under their noses. I was so disgusted at the salesmans attitude that I didn't go back.

Kym

03-12-2009, 11:44am

In SA (this case) its OCBA (http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/) who handle this sort of issue.
Give them a call!

Miaow

03-12-2009, 12:00pm

Those prices are very high :/ I think in a way its bad though making someone pay a refundable deposit just to make sure you turn up to see the pics :eek:

Remember when ej was 6 months had some professional pics done cause had one of those vouchers got in baby bag for a free sitting and pic - problem though was you had to pick at the time which shot wanted and as you had no idea how they turned out (they said was a film camera) it was hard to know exactly which pic was the best for the free one - to get the free one you had to come back for the viewing and of course the prices were quite high for the prints and they had them all framed nicely to tempt you to buy them - but no where near the prices mentioned by that other company :eek:

maccaroneski

03-12-2009, 12:02pm

Although if this link:

http://www.search.asic.gov.au/gns001.html

Indicates that the "offender" is a company, then the ACCC has jurisdiction under the TPA as well.

Dizzy Photographics

03-12-2009, 12:05pm

I had to go through this with my then 14 year old daughter, at the same place you're referring to. She had been nominated by a friend who had gone in to have this done also. That i thought was a bit rude also...they ask you to list 10 people who they can offer the same package to and they'll give you a $100 voucher to use on your purchase. She went through the whole process of hair and make up etc and then we filled in the paperwork that said that if i didnt show back up on the date that i would have $95 debited from my credit card. I really didnt want to go back because i had been there and had the same thing done more than 10 years prior to this and they were bad enough then. But she really wanted to go see them so we took her along, personally i would have preferred to have lot the $95 then have gone through the rest of this process. She walked out of that vewing room absolutely shattered and in tears because she just couldnt understand why i would not pay $200 for just one photo...and a small one at that. My mum said to them that we would use the voucher they had given her and we would pay the other $100 but they refused, saying the voucher could only be used when purchasing a complete package starting from $5,000. You could also only use the installment plan if you were buying complete packages oh and you still don't get the photos until it is all paid for either...this was just ridiculous and NEVER will i return to that place and as evil as i may sound to others i am the first to jump up screaming DO NOT PUT YOUR KID THROUGH THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE $$$$$$$ TO PAY FOR IT!

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 1:02pm

hmmm. But isn't everyone entitled to express their views? Just cause some might differ from your own, doesn't make them wrong and you right!

Of course everyone has a right to their own views, but I have read so much opinion and heresay dressed as fact in this thread that in some instances it probably crosses the line into libel.

By all means, let the members here name and shame companies based on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand information - but just hope no one from said companies get wind of it and decide to exercises their own legal rights.

ricktas

03-12-2009, 1:11pm

Of course everyone has a right to their own views, but I have read so much opinion and heresay dressed as fact in this thread that in some instances it probably crosses the line into libel.

By all means, let the members here name and shame companies based on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand information - but just hope no one from said companies get wind of it and decide to exercises their own legal rights.

I disagree.

People's opinions above, that comment directly about said companies are first hand experiences. Other have made comments about fair trading etc, but not listed company names. I do not see anyone saying a friend of a friend told me that..so where is the 3rd/4th hand posts you refer to?

The opinions above are no different to a food critique bagging out a restaurant based on their own experiences.

TOM

03-12-2009, 1:15pm

there is a better option right at your front door...Vanessa Size Photography in Claire. Those prices are high and there is nothing that is free.

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 1:40pm

The opinions above are no different to a food critique bagging out a restaurant based on their own experiences.

Negative food critiques do not use words like 'scam', 'unethical', 'offender' and 'con'. :cool:

ricktas

03-12-2009, 1:55pm

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/forum/forum_posts~TID~5485.htm

http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/assets/medicomms/mrelease_studio2000.pdf

jasevk

03-12-2009, 2:08pm

I think there's a fine line between aggressive marketing and deliberately targeting a certain clientele who will most likely feel pressured to make a purchase. If this is actually what's happening in this case.... that is NOT how business is done. You can't compare a photography studio with the likes of Coke or McDonalds.... a photography studio does not have shareholders to please.

Charging a bond to ensure a client turns up to a viewing is outrageous.... if you're any good at what you do, you should be willing to do the shoot and cut your losses if someone doesn't purchase a product with the view that other clients will spend up. It's OK to say that the client just has to say no, but what are the chances of the studio making it bloody hard for a young girl to say no..... pretty high I'd suggest.

If they're worried about the costs involved associated with make-up, they should offer it as an optional extra to pay up front.

arthurking83

03-12-2009, 2:11pm

Negative food critiques do not use words like 'scam', 'unethical', 'offender' and 'con'. :cool:

So the OP clearly said that her daughter was offered a 'free' session after visiting the show stand ...

....This was supposed to be a "free" session that she got for visiting their stand at the Royal Show.

The got made up and had a rather lengthy session and all-in-all had a fabulous time, however, they were each charged a bond of $95 to make sure that they would turn up to a viewing of the photos when they are completed. If they don't attend, they forfeit their money (so much for being free). Yes, they were silly and agreed to this, though in fairness, the $95 was probably well spent on the makeup artist who did an excellent job....

So having offered a free session, it turns out that they were charged a bond of $95, I'm guessing before they got to the MUA's chair.

That's called a SCAM. It's deceptive, manipulative, unethical, immoral(praying on younger/naive folks like that), and most of all a CON job!

I'm now hoping that someone from the aforementioned company is reading my comments and would like to take up their option to sue. :th3:

**note: these comments are my own personal thoughts and opinions, and are not warranted, endorsed or sanctioned by AusPhotography.

Had they offered the opportunity to the OP's daughter for a session with a MUA for $95, and then afterwards have their photos taken.. etc, etc.. there'd have been less chance of such a harsh outlook by those folks that have been affected by these offenders business practices.

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 2:39pm

So the OP clearly said that her daughter was offered a 'free' session after visiting the show stand ...

I understand that is the case.

So having offered a free session, it turns out that they were charged a bond of $95, I'm guessing before they got to the MUA's chair.

That's called a SCAM. It's deceptive, manipulative, unethical, immoral(praying on younger/naive folks like that), and most of all a CON job!

Well, no.

That's called a deposit. Deposits, bonds, retainers etc are a legitimate business practice across a plethora of industries. I once hired a car that was advertised at $89 per day, but the rental company asked for a deposit that exceeded that $89. Is that a scam?

This may be a shock to some readers, but studio portraiture is a tough business. It is not made up entirely of crooks, scammers and con artists. Many of us a legitimate business owners working our bums of trying to pay the mortgage. I don't know the studio in question, so I'm not totally up to date with their individual style and policies, but I would bet a large sum of money that the bond in question was not implemented to trap, deceive or con innocent civilians, but rather to provide an incentive for people to actually make a commitment to turn up at the studio and have a look at the photos. What is the point of offering free portrait sessions if half those you photograph never make time to come in and look at the results. By taking a bond you are putting a value on the appointment and providing a legitimate incentive for people to attend.

If they show up, they get their bond back. No currency has changed ownership and the client has indeed received a free photo shoot.

The overreaction here is mystifying.

Had they offered the opportunity to the OP's daughter for a session with a MUA for $95, and then afterwards have their photos taken.. etc, etc.. there'd have been less chance of such a harsh outlook by those folks that have been affected by these offenders business practices.

So you would prefer they charge for sessions up front instead of offering free sessions?

You're angry they're giving their time, experience and skill for free?

Fair enough, whatever floats your boat.

arthurking83

03-12-2009, 2:49pm

Well, I'm more curious as to the eventual outcome of this saga, and more importantly the ease with which the young girl(girls) will be getting their 'deposit' back.

Topgunn

03-12-2009, 2:55pm

IMHO
If the company in mention preys on a certain type of client and then offers that client a voucher to try and get another 10 of same type of people then surely that is more than just wrong...
I agree that aggressive marketing is used everywhere and is warranted for those "hard to bring round" customers at the viewing but I think trying to intimidate timid people with an over priced product is disgusting.
If the company thinks their work is worth the money and openly say so and clients have the money to buy it then I see no problem with that.
Most people know there is no such thing as a free lunch but it sounds like they are after the people that haven't worked that out yet. (no offence intended)

ricktas

03-12-2009, 2:55pm

You're angry they're giving their time, experience and skill for free?

I think it is more that they say it is free, when it isn't, unless you meet all their obligations, when these obligations are not readily explained or detailed at the time they say it is free. If I called you up and we discussed a portrait session and you said come in next monday, its Free. I get there and then am told I need to put down a $95.00 deposit, I wouldn't be happy. But if on the phone you said the session is free but I require a $95.00 deposit, it is clear, and I have a full understanding of what is required of me, to undertake the session. It is a disclosure issue.

Kym

03-12-2009, 3:00pm

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/forum/forum_posts~TID~5485.htm

http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/assets/medicomms/mrelease_studio2000.pdf

The fact the SA Govt Minister (OCBA) put out a formal warning about Studio 2000 is damming. (Read the 2nd link above).
It looks like S2000 are still doing the wrong thing.
It ceases to be libel if you tell the truth and at least two posters have direct experience that supports the Govt. warning.

Are all portrait businesses shonky? No.
Are there bad apples in the industry? Yes, at least one.

From the SA Government warning re Studio 2000 (and this cannot be libellous)...

People have contacted Consumer Affairs about a range of allegations including:
· Incorrectly informing people that they’d won a competition;
· Discounts offered enticing clients to sign up were never honoured
· Not divulging prices to the customer until after he/she had signed a contract for a photo sitting.
· Being offered a $100 voucher to put toward photos, but following the shoot were told that the
voucher was conditional upon a minimum amount being spent.

The majority of complaints have related to being pressured into signing contracts.

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 3:10pm

Well, I'm more curious as to the eventual outcome of this saga, and more importantly the ease with which the young girl(girls) will be getting their 'deposit' back.

As am I.

I'm just not comfortable with the mob mentality that seems to rise up in online forums.

I abhor dishonest or unethical business practices, but everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

The two girls may be subjected to a high pressure sales pitch and that is regrettable, as I don't think it does the industry any good at all, as evidenced by many people's reactions to this thread and the general feeling of scepticism that is evident.

kiwi

03-12-2009, 3:12pm

I fail to appreciate the need to defend stupid consumers

JM Tran

03-12-2009, 3:17pm

As am I.

I'm just not comfortable with the mob mentality that seems to rise up in online forums.

I abhor dishonest or unethical business practices, but everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

The two girls may be subjected to a high pressure sales pitch and that is regrettable, as I don't think it does the industry any good at all, as evidenced by many people's reactions to this thread and the general feeling of scepticism that is evident.

well my 'reaction' is more based on experience of them as I am a full time professional photographer, and have had ex clients from Studio 2000 come to me instead for work done because

1. its a lot cheaper
2. better quality
3. transparent and I dont have hidden fees or make u buy individual photos or packages, u get all of it
4. its more comfortable
5. another million reasons

I have also been to 2 viewing sessions there with my ex and a friend over the years, simply because I wanted to see how they operate and compare, as well as pose as an unknowning person instead of a photographer. And I was quite disgusted by the way they try to keep u in the room. Coffee anyone? Tea? Coke? Let me get u some cake!

if u go on www.seek.com.au and type in Photographer for Adelaide, there are always at least 4-5 ads from Studio 2000 seeking consultants and photographers and make up ppl every week - thats how high the staff turn around is, due to ppl quitting from not agreeing with their work ethics and expectations and goals to reach etc.

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 3:18pm

I think it is more that they say it is free, when it isn't, unless you meet all their obligations, when these obligations are not readily explained or detailed at the time they say it is free. If I called you up and we discussed a portrait session and you said come in next monday, its Free. I get there and then am told I need to put down a $95.00 deposit, I wouldn't be happy. But if on the phone you said the session is free but I require a $95.00 deposit, it is clear, and I have a full understanding of what is required of me, to undertake the session. It is a disclosure issue.

I think you're right. I don't disagree with anything you have said.

What I do know (from experience) is that sometimes people don't hear the details even though they appear to be listening to them. Once someone hears the word 'FREE' they often get stuck there (emotionally) and don't pay attention to the details (intellectually). This is why con artists have had willing clients since day one and will always have a steady stream of candidates for future offers.

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 3:20pm

For the record, I'd never even heard of the studio in question until I read this thread...

Kym

03-12-2009, 3:22pm

I abhor dishonest or unethical business practices, but everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Well in the case of Studio 2000 a consumer warning has been issued, so the business practices are at least in the unethical category.
So NOT innocent at all in this case.

kiwi

03-12-2009, 3:23pm

Maybe the $95 was worth it just for the entertainment and fabulous time. How much does it cost to go the movies after all ?

Hello. Revelation. Get up and leave.

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 3:24pm

Well in the case of Studio 2000 a consumer warning has been issued, so the business practices are at least in the unethical category.
So NOT innocent at all in this case.

Well at least give them the opportunity to do something wrong in this instance before you condemn then, eh? ;)

JM Tran

03-12-2009, 3:30pm

Well at least give them the opportunity to do something wrong in this instance before you condemn then, eh? ;)

ummm the official warnings and legal action to make Studio 2000 change its practices AND cut back on the aggressive and incessant follow up calls which lasts for months, and done weekly mind u - was several years ago. But the issue still pops up from time to time as the managers still likes to push the boundary a bit, hoping the local ppl in Adelaide have forgotten about their multiple appearances on ACA and Today Tonight.

so really, they already did something wrong, got a very big slap on the wrist and publicly humiliated in the eyes of the photography industry in Adelaide.

try researching more before u vehemently defend something, eh?

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 3:39pm

ummm the official warnings and legal action to make Studio 2000 change its practices AND cut back on the aggressive and incessant follow up calls which lasts for months, and done weekly mind u - was several years ago. But the issue still pops up from time to time as the managers still likes to push the boundary a bit, hoping the local ppl in Adelaide have forgotten about their multiple appearances on ACA and Today Tonight.

so really, they already did something wrong, got a very big slap on the wrist and publicly humiliated in the eyes of the photography industry in Adelaide.

try researching more before u vehemently defend something, eh?

Calm down, buddy.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just suggesting that we wait and see what the outcome of THIS SITUATION is before we all start playing judge, jury and executioner.

I couldn't give a rats clacker what ACA and Today Tonight producers do with their gutter journalism and lowest common denominator tabloid shows. If I based my life around their reporting I'd never leave the house. It's actually hilarious that anyone would even contemplate using either of those entertainment programs as a source or basis of anything even remotely resembling the truth! Seriously.

If the studio has been found to be operating outside the law in the past, well that's wrong and hopefully it's stopped. If I could only choose to do business with companies who have never breached any laws I'd have no one left to buy my groceries from...

Let's say the two young girls turn up to view their images, are subjected to some pressure sales, say 'thanks, but no thank', take their deposit back and go home. Case closed, surely?

kiwi

03-12-2009, 3:48pm

JM Tran

03-12-2009, 3:50pm

I couldn't give a rats clacker what ACA and Today Tonight producers do with their gutter journalism and lowest common denominator tabloid shows. If I based my life around their reporting I'd never leave the house. It's actually hilarious that anyone would even contemplate using either of those entertainment programs as a source or basis of anything even remotely resembling the truth! Seriously.

I did a diploma/masters of Journalism at UniSA, so I can say im partly a journalist also - and while we abhor ACA and Today Tonight, and various papers in this country. We also acknowledge the fact that both ACA and Today Tonight CAN bring about some decent change to unethical trade and business practices, when they get their stories right and havent ran out of things to 'investigate' about.
Consumer Affairs reports led to > ACA and Today Tonight coverages led to > SA Govt putting its foot in which led to > customers being better off

As much as I hate those shows, they did bring the attention of the powers that be onto Studio 2000.

Let's say the two young girls turn up to view their images, are subjected to some pressure sales, say 'thanks, but no thank', take their deposit back and go home. Case closed, surely?

If only, wait until the incessant phone calls and emails come in. Asking are u sure u do not want to come back we can offer a custom package, throw in some free enlargements? How about one of our installment payment packages which can be tailored to suit your mortgage payments?

I havent met or heard of someone who walked out of Studio 2000's door cleanly yet without some form of follow up. But hey, hopefully they have changed their ways!

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 3:52pm

Isnt the issue with this purely

a) originally according to the OP the photo session was advertised as "FREE" when picked up at the Sydney Show
b) it's only "FREE" if they then turn up to view photos at studio, otherwise it costs $95

I think this is misleading, but Im not a lawyer so can't determine.

Everything else is related to pressure selling practices and pricing which is subjective.

That's exactly how I see it, so I'm naturally quite baffled as to the rest of the hysteria... :crzy:

Surely this forum does not represent the cross section of the Australian community which actually watches ACA and TT? I might have to rethink my membership if that's the case... :eek:

kiwi

03-12-2009, 3:57pm

What % of the population watches either show ?

You'll find it the same here I'd suggest.

No different here than having a similar discussion with 20 people at a pub. 1 person will be right, 1 person will be wrong, and 18 just want a fight.

Kym

03-12-2009, 4:04pm

Forums or the Simpsons...

On an ordinary day, a bear strolls onto Evergreen Terrace. It is quickly subdued by the police, not before accidentally shooting and capturing Barney Gumble. Homer rants about these "constant bear attacks", even though this is the very first bear Ned has seen in his forty years of living on that street. Homer then leads an angry mob and demands that Mayor Quimby do something about this. Soon, the Bear Patrol is created, a useless organization which even makes use of a B-2 Spirit. Homer then gets just as shocked [as] when he saw the bear when he discovers that taxes have been raised five dollars to maintain the Bear Patrol.

After that, the angry mob returns to the mayor’s office, yelling "Down with taxes! Down with taxes!"

The mayor has to do something...

Quimby: Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?

Assistant: [Takes a moment to check his clipboard] Dumber, sir.

Quimby: They want the bear patrol but they won't pay taxes for it. This is a situation that calls for real leadership. [Opens the door to his office to confront the angry mob.]

People, your taxes are high because of illegal immigrants!

Moe Szyslak: Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.

:D :D :D

ricktas

03-12-2009, 6:17pm

Surely this forum does not represent the cross section of the Australian community which actually watches ACA and TT? I might have to rethink my membership if that's the case... :eek:

I find this statement mildly amusing. You don't want members here to judge a business until we find out the outcome from the original poster, but are going to judge members based on whether they may spend 18 minutes of their day watching a particular tv show. :confused013

Debra Faulkner

03-12-2009, 6:27pm

I don't watch TV 'cos I don't have one and haven't for years so I guess my opinion wouldn't count anyway.

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 6:58pm

I find this statement mildly amusing. You don't want members here to judge a business until we find out the outcome from the original poster, but are going to judge members based on whether they may spend 18 minutes of their day watching a particular tv show. :confused013

It was supposed to be mildly amusing, so I'm glad it was read in the same spirit it was written. :th3:

Ausnapper

03-12-2009, 7:23pm

IMHO
If the company in mention preys on a certain type of client and then offers that client a voucher to try and get another 10 of same type of people then surely that is more than just wrong...

If you were on the Do Not Call register then would that be a breach, or if they contact you via email is that not Spam and we have very stringent rules about both. I am sure it says something about you, rather than your friend gives approval to receive these calls,emails etc...

As for strong sales push, while I may not agree, it is not wrong unless the people are under 18 and having an adult hard sell. That would seem a little unfair.

I too would look at them, make my decision (No perhaps) ask for your refund as stated. Finally I would turn it around and take a written document stating that you do not wish to receive any further communications from them, have them sign it and leave with your money in check. Play their game.

Best of luck with it.

MarkW

03-12-2009, 7:57pm

That's called a deposit. Deposits, bonds, retainers etc are a legitimate business practice across a plethora of industries.

You got to be kidding

A deposit, bond, retainer or any other form of payment is yes legitimate for nearly all forms of business transactions with the exception of a transaction which is described as being 'free".

The term free implies that whilst a transaction for goods or services is in force that there is NO exchange money or implied goods or services in return.

Zeke have you ever done any business studies? Especially ones which include business psychology and ethics. There aren't any shades of grey. A business is either truthful and honest - nominally called "transparent" or it's deceptive and certainly less than honest - no ifs or buts. Yes some are worse than others but sooner or later they all fold as they run out victims and shown for their dealing in the current affairs spotlight or the courts.

Dan Cripps

03-12-2009, 8:12pm

You got to be kidding

A deposit, bond, retainer or any other form of payment is yes legitimate for nearly all forms of business transactions with the exception of a transaction which is described as being 'free".

The term free implies that whilst a transaction for goods or services is in force that there is NO exchange money or implied goods or services in return.

Zeke have you ever done any business studies? Especially ones which include business psychology and ethics. There aren't any shades of grey. A business is either truthful and honest - nominally called "transparent" or it's deceptive and certainly less than honest - no ifs or buts. Yes some are worse than others but sooner or later they all fold as they run out victims and shown for their dealing in the current affairs spotlight or the courts.

Sigh... Now we're just arguing semantics!

Free is free.

No currency changes ownership. A deposit may be held in trust by one party until obligations have been fulfilled on behalf of the other party. It is the vendors prerogative whether or not they attach terms and conditions (such as a deposit) to their 'free' offering.

'Buy one get one free' is a similar principal. The 2nd item isn't really free, because it's only offered on the condition that you first purchase the first item. It's free as long as you fulfill your end of the deal.

The only issue that I can potentially see with the OP's scenario is if the girls were not informed of the terms and conditions before they accepted and signed on to the offer. That's what should be questioned, not the vendors otherwise perfectly legitimate marketing effort.

maccaroneski

03-12-2009, 9:51pm

You'd be surprised to learn how loose the term "free" is - when I get a few minutes I'll dig out some statements from the relevant case law.

And Mark, there aren't any shades of grey when it comes to ethics? I wanna live in your world!

Frpom he St James Ethics Centre (google it for an interesting read) one of the premier think tanks on the subject:

Most people would agree (possibly for quite different reasons) that people ought to tell the truth. These same people will hold that one ought to avoid causing harm. But what happens when to tell the truth will cause another person harm?

Each principle seems to be valid on its own account, but when put in combination with other values an irreconcilable tension may arise.

This is not a trivial point. It reminds us that the ethical landscape is painted in shades of grey and not black and white.

hoffy

03-12-2009, 9:53pm

Zeke, just one thing. Please, please don't think this thread is tarring all studio portrait togs with the same brush. The mentioned company in this thread are notorious in Adelaide. Why they are successful (I am assuming, by the time they have been in existence, massive advertising budgets, etc) sometimes begs belief. I liken them to a car yard of the worse type (I.E., those who take into consideration the maximum you can afford to pay off per month, as opposed to what you actually want to spend). The prey especially on the vulnerable and those who lack confidence and self esteem (Make the before shots especially bad and then make the customer look like they have never looked before. For someone who may have never looked like that before, its surely a recipe for a certain sale).

virgal_tracy

03-12-2009, 11:23pm

I will preface the following by saying that I in no way agree with the heavy handed tactics displayed by said studio. I would like it clarified as to whether the girls were informed of the bond upon arrival and before the makeup and the shoot occured.

The answer to this still doesn't absolve the studio on getting the girls into the studio without informing them of further costs. what would they have done if they had no money or credit cards?

The more I get into the business side of photography the more of these practices occur and in the most part are seen as acceptable practices.

And I was quite disgusted by the way they try to keep u in the room. Coffee anyone? Tea? Coke? Let me get u some cake!

Sorry Jackie but these tactics seem perfectly reasonable to me. This doesn't indicate a hardsell but is probably a part of it.

How many wedding and portrait photographers provide an album package quote including a set number of sides and then deliberately design the album with more sides to make further sales?

I am wondering if the outrage would be so great if the package was only $250 instead of $5000.

Flame suit on.

JM Tran

03-12-2009, 11:36pm

I will preface the following by saying that I in no way agree with the heavy handed tactics displayed by said studio. I would like it clarified as to whether the girls were informed of the bond upon arrival and before the makeup and the shoot occured.

The answer to this still doesn't absolve the studio on getting the girls into the studio without informing them of further costs. what would they have done if they had no money or credit cards?

The more I get into the business side of photography the more of these practices occur and in the most part are seen as acceptable practices.

Sorry Jackie but these tactics seem perfectly reasonable to me. This doesn't indicate a hardsell but is probably a part of it.

How many wedding and portrait photographers provide an album package quote including a set number of sides and then deliberately design the album with more sides to make further sales?

I am wondering if the outrage would be so great if the package was only $250 instead of $5000.

Flame suit on.

oh theyre definitely reasonable! usual punch lines from sellers and promoters, but it doesnt mean I enjoy playing along with their games! :D

Helen S

04-12-2009, 7:44am

Sorry I haven't been back to respond (net problems) and kind thanks for everyone's thoughts and opinions on the matter. Either myself or Graeme will be attending the studio with the girls to make sure a) my daughter's credit card details are destroyed and b) her friend gets her $95 back.

I do understand what everyone here is saying (on both sides of the fence) and am very grateful for all opinions and the information given. I'll certainly be letting everyone know the outcome after the 16th.

Just as an aside... if the girls try and change their appointment time (unavoidable other commitments), they will still be charged the $95 fee. The studio clearly stated this. I was hoping they could have changed it so that hubby didn't have to take a ½ day off work or me having to go and have my other daughter in tow. :(

I have no aversion paying for a service or even a deposit for a service, but the whole deal from these people has been nothing but misleading from the outset and was the reason I questioned their ethics. My daughter, naive as she is, said she would not have taken up the offer of a "FREE" photo shoot had she known a) exactly how the deal would pan out and b) how much they were charging for their packages, let alone individual photos.

Edit: ...and thankyou to whoever changed the title to this thread. :) At the time I was too wound up to think straight.

Helen S

04-12-2009, 3:23pm

An addendum to my posts if I may. This quote directly from Studio 2000's website:

May we invite you to our studio for a Free PHOTO Shoot experience.
You may also bring along a friend to have twice as much fun.

Your photo shoot sessions are valued @ $125 - each!

Your session will include:
- Free styling sessions
- Free photogenic make-over
- Free photo shoot sessions

We will also include 2 x $100 vouchers - one for you and one for your friend to use toward
a package purchase. Total Combined Value $450!

By requesting this offer you are under no obligation to purchase a photography package.
We do promise however that we will make portraits that are world class with the intention
of making your images 'just beautiful' and naturally irresistible.

...and this:

You've got nothing to loose by experiencing a Free Photo Shoot

if you're street smart. :(

Note the word FREE bandied around?

Now, according to the PDS for the Styling Session, the $95 is for an appointment to view the photos. This to me in addition to the above, whilst not illegal, is stretching the truth to breaking point. A con job in my personal opinion and certainly is not mentioned on their website nor mentioned to my daughter.

Also in the PDS it specifically says that if the girls change, cancel or don't attend they will be charged $95 (too bad if one of them got too sick to attend or was in an accident)... and yes, my daughter, naive and gullible signed this before having any clue as to what the Studio Pricelist was. This was only supplied after the session.

The thing that swayed Lisa into attending in the first place was a "chance" to Win a Photoshoot in Paris (http://www.studio2000.com.au/hotparisinfo.htm).

Funny 'bout that, it appears they already have the Grand Finalists!

If that is indeed the case, wouldn't this be classed as false advertising? :confused013

Sorry to prattle on about this, but it does make it somewhat easier getting it off my chest and the responses (all of them) have been very informative.

Part of me would like my daughter to just "wear it" and learn a valuable lesson, but the parent in me is stronger and wants to protect her and not see her trusting nature get stomped on. :)

Kym

04-12-2009, 3:29pm

Exactly what the SA Govt consumer warning talks about.
No question, It is fair to say it is deceptive and unethical business practice, while not strictly illegal.

Colloquial terms like sham, rip off merchants, scammers, shonks etc. are probably quite appropriate to express opinions regarding this sort of practice.

Win suggests some form of chance and everyone is a winner there is no chance factor involved - personally I think that is a lie.

Clubmanmc

04-12-2009, 3:38pm

hmmm these guys just dont stop..

i have had a few experiences with these guys, i sat in on a viewing of images for two female friends, they were offered every package under the sun... including the we will use you in our TV ad campaing... for a small fee of 3200 its only the cost of a big mac a week (for the rest of your life.... **** evil laugh ****)

one couple i photographed, (after they had been to a studio in the year 2000) had a portrait done of his wife, she was a little light in the bust department, so they had her air brushed so it looked like she was almost 3 cup sizes bigger...

his comment was if he had spent the money on her cups instead of the picture.... he would have appreciated them much more... instead of taking the picture down as it had no resemblence of her...

but its the people like the studios that make us realise that there are people out there that will pay good money for our work...

as much as they rip people off, they also make us look dignified...

wedding photography can be put in the same boat...

M

IanB

04-12-2009, 3:45pm

By all means, let the members here name and shame companies based on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand information - but just hope no one from said companies get wind of it and decide to exercises their own legal rights.

My comments are based on first hand (my family) experiences ;)

Dan Cripps

04-12-2009, 8:15pm

My comments are based on first hand (my family) experiences ;)

This is the internet, they always are... ;)

Anyways, it seems (from Helen's added info) that the studio in question was not up-front about their terms and conditions from the start. That's just not on. All portrait studios (or any business for that matter) should be up-front, transparent and accountable.

It just makes the rest of us look bad, unfortunately.

MarkW

04-12-2009, 8:24pm

Rick, Kym - I'm concerned about some of the comments - could you consider closing this thread.

Helen S

04-12-2009, 8:36pm

Mark, what's the problem? :confused013

I got onto OCBA this afternoon to get some advice from them. The lady I spoke to was extremely helpful and I will be in contact with her again next week with everything I've found out... and it seems my daughter and her friend are not the only ones to have been stung.

Indeed I was correct about Paris Photoshoot prize, it is definitely closed... the dates are in another one of their T&C. So the paperwork that my daughter signed is actually null and void as it was signed after the competition's closing date.

Just hope when all this is over that it goes a long way to stopping other naive folk from ending up in the same boat. :)

ricktas

04-12-2009, 9:02pm

Rick, Kym - I'm concerned about some of the comments - could you consider closing this thread.

We have been watching and as long as members discuss the issues and don't start making it personal about each other, we will let the discussion continue. Note that we have already removed some comments in this thread.

Longshots

06-12-2009, 3:36pm

I fail to appreciate the need to defend stupid consumers

Its certainly been an interesting discussion. And there's clearly a distinct difference between different personalities here.

I'm surprised at the comment above - even knowing Kiwi reasonably well. There is a need to protect people from business's breaking the law. Thats why there are Federal and State FAIR TRADING LAWS. Note the word FAIR.

Anyone can be given a title such as "stupid". Doesnt matter if its large number of investors in a business that fraudulently fleeced them and then fled the country. Speak to those who had faith in Skase, and many more, who go out of business owing billions, claim that they're penniless, and then return as multi millionaires. Or a couple of young girls who believed the printed material and been convinced to agree to something that is at the very least bordering on the distinctly unpalatable and at the other end quite possibly breaking various state and federal Fair Trading laws.

So maybe a little more heart eh ? After all, there is a strong possibility that all of us are at some point in time going to be, or have been caught by some business or company doing something that the rest of the industry its born from, feels is abhorrent, distasteful and is an embarrassment to the rest of those who work in the industry and strive for a FAIR moral and ethical business dealings.

Good luck Helen :)

kiwi

06-12-2009, 3:50pm

In context of the discussion just preceding my comment my comment was fair. Im not sure why it should be not be obvious to every consumer that in business there is no free lunch - if it's so advertised treat with suspicion and read the fine print.

Even the most naive consumer should appreciate that when a business says "free lunch" it should be treated with skepticism. Much like the Nigerian letters.

Im all for protecting the consumer against fraud, misleading advertising etc. But come on, some people are just suckers.

People that get fleeced by Skaise etc aren't stupid, but Id say they are greedy and if they were remotely clever would have not invested ALL their life savings in one rusty bucket. Spread the risk

My point was the law can protect, and should, but you should take some responsibility for checking the details out of it seems to good to be true

IanB

06-12-2009, 4:35pm

LOL. I had a site at a local market today and the bloke beside me had also been stung by S2000!!!. Same thing; free session...........$2000 later :(. He told me it had turned his family off ever using a "pro" photographer again, however I'm happy to say that he was very interested in how and what I was offering.

It only takes a couple of bad apples to spoil it for the rest; no matter how good they are. So many likely clients no longer stop to look at a photographer's display because they have, or know someone who has been "ripped off" by a pro photographer.

:)

kiwi

06-12-2009, 5:08pm

...Longshots the word Stupid was not needed, I apologise for that. Naive would have been more appropriate.

MarkW

06-12-2009, 5:27pm

...Longshots the word Stupid was not needed, I apologise for that. Naive would have been more appropriate.

Kiwi

I actually think that the word "stupid" is appropriate especially in the context of "the terminally stupid" ie for those that no matter how you try and help them, they succeed in deliberately circumventing all the safety protocols to get themselves into difficulty.

Whereas the naive have little or no life experience and need protection of society just as would a child.

ricktas

06-12-2009, 5:38pm

Kiwi

I actually think that the word "stupid" is appropriate especially in the context of "the terminally stupid" ie for those that no matter how you try and help them, they succeed in deliberately circumventing all the safety protocols to get themselves into difficulty.

Whereas the naive have little or no life experience and need protection of society just as would a child.

And in society we have both the naive and the stupid, and the law is there to protect the naive, unfortunately the stupid also can lay claims to use of the same laws.:D

MarkW

06-12-2009, 5:55pm

And in society we have both the naive and the stupid, and the law is there to protect the naive, unfortunately the stupid also can lay claims to use of the same laws.:D

But the terminally stupid are sufficiently clever in a stupid kind of fashion to by-pass the laws that protect them. For this reason the Darwin awards were created.

Longshots

07-12-2009, 7:44pm

But the terminally stupid are sufficiently clever in a stupid kind of fashion to by-pass the laws that protect them. For this reason the Darwin awards were created.

This is a clear breach of fair trading laws and I sincerely hope that those blaming the customers dont find themselves in a similar position in the future - that would be karma.

Personally I dont find this funny at all. I think this is quite sad that the photographic industry can be tarnished by such outrageously unfair business ethics. Shame on those who havent read the entire story and convince themselves that they are so much more intelligent than the recipients of this so called business!

Gregg Bell

07-12-2009, 8:56pm

Surprise, surprise. I didn't want to mention names, but...

Zeke, they haven't got there yet, but my husband will be in attendance in an official capacity when they view their photos on the 16th as I'm rather worried that they will try to con and manipulate my girl who is still rather naive in the ways of the outside world, even though she's 21.

I think what I found unethical in this whole affair, was that word "free" when it actually wasn't. One of the other things mentioned at the show stand was that part of the bargain of the "free" shoot was that they'd be able to enter her photo in a in some competition. Unfortunately I have no actual details of the verbal agreement, just what my daughter said had transpired. Until the shoot however, she hadn't signed anything which is good.

...and the prices!!! There's no framing involved there, just a straight print. :(

Kym, I'll mention the haggle option to Graeme, but something tells me they won't come to the party. :rolleyes:

some of my friends in the UK were given a "free" photoshoot in London, well 3 of them, though they both went to different studios. Hannah and Lucy went there, got dolled up by the artist, and they took photos, but they had to pay for the photos to be developed. So instead they paid $200 for high-res DVD images.

Serena had a free shoot and paid $450 for a DVD and 1x 10x12" photo...

Helen S

07-12-2009, 9:15pm

I didn't get the opportunity to get back onto OCBA today, with an upset and in pain (other) daughter, but we do have all the evidence that they require. In the end it will be up to them on any legal precedings, but as long as my daughter and her friend come out unscathed (and Marie reimbursed) and not post-appointment harrassed, we should be able to call it a win.

Hopefully OCBA will rap this company over the knuckles hard for going against the assurances they made back in 2007 and that there are not too many other victims . :)

Helen S

09-12-2009, 11:49am

bigdazzler

11-12-2009, 5:53pm

I just read the whole thread ... wow. Id never heard of this studio 2 bla bla in SA until now.

I dont care what anyone says, whilst not technically illegal, it is blatantly misleading, deceptive, and utterly disgraceful ..... BUT ..... at the end of the day all you need to come out of it unscathed is to show up with a little resolve and compunction, flat out refuse to purchase a damn thing, get your 95 bucks back and walk out. Seems simple to me Helen, and if I were your husband Id be VERY VERY stern about any follow up contact from their marketing hounds.

Longshots

13-12-2009, 3:48pm

Rang OCBA today and am a little disappointed. The fellow I got on the phone was obviously not too interested in the events that have transpired and didn't seem too fussed that my daughter had been blatantly misled by said company.

All I got was, "Write them a letter and if they don't respond satifactorily within 7 days, then we'll look at it." I have the proof in B&W and it's on their website!!! What more could they possibly want?!!! :confused013

Helen

If you dont write a letter, the official response will be nothing. On the other hand if you do write a single letter - with all of the details printed out and contained within that letter, the official response will have to be made. It will also assist others into stamping this type of behaviour out.

I urge you not to just waste any more time - but to actually put this into an official letter of complaint to the regulatory authorities. Without that, nothing will happen, and you will just be part of the problem as opposed the start of the cure.

bigdazzler

15-12-2009, 12:44pm

Yep i agree .. If you dont make it official, it never happened ... unfortunately.

Helen S

15-12-2009, 1:08pm

Tomorrow's the big day where they will read (and be read) the riot act. Official letter of complaint to be handed to the manager in person and a copy handed in to OCBA.

No photos will be viewed, my daughter's friend will get her $95 back and my daughter's CC details will be handed over.

kiwi

15-12-2009, 2:28pm

That's the attitude !!

stoogest

15-12-2009, 10:40pm

Keep us posted!

pirate59

16-12-2009, 2:40am

while not related to photography, me and my wife ended up staying at a hilton reslort near seaworld in orlando, and we were called up by the front desk telling us that they have a special breakfast for first time visitors to the hilton. and they had big discounts on theme parks also. sounded too good to be true.

ended up that it was a 'buyers' seminar for the hilton timeshare. and to get the discounts we had to sit through the whole speel. and did they have that practiced well. beautiful rooms, the palce where they do the one on one presentations was quite smick. 30 inch touch screen monitors the lot. there was definately plenty of people handing over cash at the time too.

just another example of making you enter their 'buy it now chamber'...

and fyi we didnt buy the timeshare =)

macca67

16-12-2009, 7:14am

Walking past those stupid Pixie Photo stalls in malls I always have a little chuckle. They rope you in with the complementary pic. I am by no means a pro and do not berate them for what they do, considering that the photographer is generally a subbie trying to make a living working for a higher power, however they should be more upfront with pricing. I did an in store shoot not long back for a charity store the charge was that they pay for printing. I ended up with 53 printed at 8 x 10, outsourcing to a local reputable print shop I got pro rates at 1.50 per print. Do the math, sometime I do wonder on the justification of pricing. The store was very happy with results.

kiwi

16-12-2009, 7:20am

the price of the actual printing is meaningless

virgal_tracy

16-12-2009, 12:28pm

the price of the actual printing is meaningless

Agreed. Costs for your time, depreiation and especially skill must come into it somewhere; and if a business everything else associated with it eg insurance, advertising etc.

Not that any of that escuses the studio in the OP for charging outrageous amounts.

I hope hubby gives them hell today Helen.

Helen S

16-12-2009, 5:31pm

Thanks Folks. :)

Just got a phone call from Graeme, who indeed did give them hell. The general manager still insists that they did nothing wrong!!! :eek: However, CC details were destroyed in the presence of all and Marie got her $95 dollars back, but how's this? It was only after Graeme threatened to call the police as they were hedging and farting about so much.

A copy of the letter to the manager and supporting documentation is on its way to OCBA. Hopefully they're not a toothless tiger and investigate further. Will let you know how that part pans out. :)

Clubmanmc

16-12-2009, 5:52pm

three words...

ACA and Todaytonight...

Good luck

M

NickMonk

16-12-2009, 10:50pm

Good outcome.

Like it or not there are a disturbing number of photographic companies that run this way. I think it is about time that this type of business is read the riot act by government and the photographic 'unions'. That way people can have confidence that when they go to a photographer like Dan (Zeke) they will have a professional and enjoyable experience....people stung by the like of Studio 2000 are not likely customers of any photographic studio at all in the future.

dbax

17-12-2009, 12:13am

I think if you take the photographic element out of the discussion and rename the thread Business and Ethics we would all think differently just because it photographically based doesn't mean there aren't sharks( for want of another description, legal advice pending;)):D

Helen S

20-12-2009, 6:23pm

three words...

ACA and Todaytonight...

Good luck

M
Actually did that and no response from either. Probably because we never actually got screwed over for the money.

I know what you mean, Nick. Thankfully we're aware that not everyone operates in this deceitful way and when things have settled in the new year, we'll look at getting a nice shoot done. But yes, you can see how one bad apple can destroy the reputaion of many. :(

One thing Graeme noted whilst he was there, was that each of the names of "clients" had a dollar value next to their name. Lisa had $1500 next to hers, Marie had $1800 and another person had nearly $3000 next to theirs... doesn't take Einstein to tell you why this was so.

Graeme was very polite in all his undertakings with the staff and the manager, however the same could not be said in return. The manager especially, was just shy of abusive when told that the girls would not be viewing the photos.

We await with baited breath as to an official response.

Yep David, there are a lot of businesses out to fleece the little guy. Most of us are wise enough to see passed the BS, but sadly there are still those that are naive and get stung. :(

The saga continues... ;)

Bear Dale

25-10-2010, 11:48am

Interesting thread to read.

Clubmanmc

26-10-2010, 2:35pm

dig up the past much JimD??

M

Bear Dale

26-10-2010, 2:43pm

I was doing a search and came across this thread and read it.

Mason

27-10-2010, 7:14pm

I was doing a search and came across this thread and read it.

I am glad you did. Your response bumped this to the top and I found it an interesting read too :)

Sobriquet

08-11-2010, 4:26pm

It is a complete con, they tell these girls they have WON! It is the old if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

Kym

08-11-2010, 5:00pm

Thread closed - its been done to death and the company involved have had an SA Govt OCBA consumer warning notice issued.

Thread re-opened. Please keep this discussion sane :D

Kym

13-02-2012, 3:14pm

In the press again... http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/staff-help-revive-photography-firm/story-e6frede3-1226269070490

STRUGGLING portrait group Studio 2000 Photographers has been thrown a lifeline by its creditors and staff. Studio 2000 was placed in voluntary administration last November with debts of about $2.5 million.
The downturn in South Australia's retail sector was blamed for the collapse.
A meeting of creditors unanimously agreed to accept a Deed of Company Arrangement proposal under which all of the company's priority creditors - such as its financial institution and employees - will be paid in full, including staff superannuation and long-service leave.
The arrangement includes unsecured creditors having their agreed debts settled over a period of up to five years.
Among those who have helped inject money in the business were some of Studio 2000's staff.

Edit:
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/20111125-adelaide-photography-studio-placed-in-administration-as-retail-industry-flounders.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-22/studio-2000-administration/3686356

MMF

13-02-2012, 3:25pm

Have seen these "Free" sessions myself at a few different places. Once I've asked more its been similar to your daughters scenario and I've walked the other way. Unfortuantely there are a lot of people out there that will take advantage of a young girl who doesn't look to deep. Good Luck when your hubby goes with them and hopefully they get the deposit back.

Kym

13-02-2012, 3:58pm

john99

08-04-2012, 8:31pm

Sobriquet

08-04-2012, 8:57pm

They got sucked in, they are not the first and won't be the last and those places will keep going and giving photographers a bad name, very much unethical IMO. Now I would pay Sue Bryce close to that but she would be upfront about it and worth every penny, they are not! They can't get business in an honest upfront way so they do that and use pressure selling that leaves women feeling like shit and very wary of going anywhere near a photographer again.

Epicaricacy

09-04-2012, 5:31am

A great read at 3.25am.... Didn't realise the thread was originally a couple of years old!

I 'won' a free shoot via a fill in form at the vets. Was made clear about a $50 deposit, took the family along, and had a great shoot.

The sales tactics weren't too strong, but the emotional attachment to the images was very string, making me want to buy them all! Ended up with one very large one and three small ones, somewhere around $800 or $900 then a couple of hundred for framing.

Extremely pleased with the pics... Superb stuff, and fantastic framing. The post processing was done really well, and they rally listened to our requests and suggestions.

Was well worth the money, kids are only kids for a short time, and I would definitely consider going back to them in another few years for another snapshot of my family life.

Not all cowboys that's for sure.