Photographer or scammer

[jbimages]

This photo is portion one taken by a so called 'Professional photo studio' It has taken around 2006 and was delivered as part of a mini album last week. The girl "won" a free photographic shoot but had to pay for the photos.
This is portion of one of the photos in the $880 "mini album", which consisted of 32 images, each 90mm square and mostly a colour and monochrome version of the same image.
There isn't a lot about the mob on the 'net. This article is one I found http://nowra.yourguide.com.au/articles/508656.html?src=topstories

The girl told me that in the original photograph she had her arm on the boy's upper arm. This is an unretouched scan of portion of the photo, showing the pitiful attempt at relocating the hand to his shoulder. They also did things like change his shirt colour and her dress colour in some of the other photos.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2155/2237750597_552e8709f4_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbimages/2237750597/)

[agent.media]

Sounds pretty bad to me! And looks even worse!

[daleftw]

What the hell is going on in the bottom and bottom left? It looks like there is a big arm on the guy coming out of the shirt wtf

[crawford]

It looks like they have touched up the image and put a reflection of the image in the bottom left. You can see the mans face and collar, the hand on his arm is actually a reflection of the hand on his shoulder. Me thinks this is to mask problems they've created moving the hand to the shoulder. If it's intentional, it ain't pretty IMO.

[Bruce_B]

Yuck!

[I Simonius]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2155/2237750597_552e8709f4_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbimages/2237750597/)

that is digraceful!:evil:

[jbimages]

If there was a prize for the worst photoshop work this one would be in the running.

A quote from the article in the link at the thread start:
"The women were told that graphics staff from the Matrix movie would be working on the photos, so the end product would be very professional."

It looks like they copied the layer, flipped it horizontally, rotated and moved it down and left to get the hand on the shoulder, removed and reattached the little finger (have a close look at the angle and join to the hand). At the bottom of the photo just right of centre you can see her arm upside down where the layer was rotated.

This link is about their other studio in Adelaide. http://todaytonightadelaide.com.au/story.php?id=512

[MagicallyDelicious]

theres random bits of face everywhere!! lol

[DocFrankenstein]

ROFLMAO

There's a sucker born every day.

[Trainboy]

He's exploding. Poor guy.

[3Turner]

That is such an awful thing for those studios to do to people. I've never heard of anything like this happening where people are charged in the thousands of dollars for photographs...terrible, just terrible.

[crash331]

I don't get this scam.

Photographer: "Hey, you won free photos. Come on in!"
Me: "Wow, cool."
Photographer: "OK, all done, now give me 5 grand."
Me: "Um, no. Cya."

Why would anyone fork over the 5 grand, especially if they can't afford it? It's not like they have her baby as ransom.

[MJPhotos24]

Before reading the article I didn't think there was anyone actually that stupid...I have never been so wrong.

[azpix]

wow. can't believe she paid.

to the OP, where did you get that photo, i didnt see it in the article.

[jbimages]

wow. can believe she paid.

to the OP, where did you get that photo, I didnt see it in the article.

Different person to the one in the links, she is somebody I have known for a long time. That photo arrived in the mini album that was mailed to her. The photos were taken in 2006, however she only just got them. They offer a time payment option which she took as she couldn't afford to pay outright.

From what I have been told they have "competitions" in shopping centres. it appears from what I have read that everybody "wins" a free makeup and photo shoot which they value at somewhere around $800. She went to what they call a "couples shoot". Her experience was similar to the ones in the two articles. Makeup done, nice music, nibbles etc., everybody being so nice, no pressure. Nice photos of their work on the walls. They shot film which was developed and scanned, one of the promo videos I saw shows the photographers using Hasselblad cameras. That gives an excuse not to have instant feedback as the film has to be processed. A week of so after the shoot she went back to have a look at the proofs, which by this time were scanned. She was shown the images on computer, picked out the ones she wanted as 8 x 10 and the ones for the mini album - all helped by the salesperson controlling the computer. Then comes the price, the discount offer for the commercial and the "hard sell", sign up right away tactic. They don't show the finished printed proofs, the only way you get to see a print is pay.


Photographer: "Hey, you won free photos. Come on in!"

Not quite, the phone call is along the lines of "you have won a free photo shoot and makeup, valued at $800"

They work on most people wanting something from the shoot. I read somewhere about a single 6 x 4 black and white costing $145.00

If you google their name you'll find their website - I'm not going to give them an extra link. - They promote themselves as Fashion, Wedding, Studio portraiture and Architecture photographers as well as doing Graphic and Web design and TV commercial production. There are no contact details on their website.

[cdifoto]

This is similar to the threads with titles somewhere along the lines of:

"5D for $350!"

Unsolicited notifications of winning something = ulterior motive. Always.

[Box Brownie]

The "fact" that such cowboys and ripoff/hardsell 'artists' have come to the world of photography surely is no surprise. The offer of being flattered, pampered and made to look good would appeal to many folks vanity.

The hardsell methods and the costs for such, in this case, appallingly bad images is unforgiveable. But sadly even the most savvy folk can fall victim to this method of selling & ultimately the consumer law has to be robust enough to help protect all cutomers of the ilk of these type operators photographic or not.

On a side note there are studios that do such promotions and charge what on the face of it are high prices but they do a good job - I have seen results of friends and family - and their reputations will get so damaged by these cowboys but their prices are nothing AFAIK as exhorbitant as mentioned in this case.

:)

[cdifoto]

But sadly even the most savvy folk can fall victim to this method of selling

Not true. If you're truly savvy, you'll know that NO ONE* can dictate how you spend your own money or force you into a financial transaction. And if you're truly savvy, you'll also have a spine.






*governments and spouses notwithstanding.

[I Simonius]

thesimple fact is no one , but no one, will ever give you something for $500, $800, $1000 what ever, unless you are going to spend ten times that

I.e. no one ever gives anything away any thing for nothing

If you think they do, just keep watching and listening, ...

What is sad is that tehre are popel who are genuinely ignorant of this and/or who just don't have the wit to see it coming, or who are just too easily bullied into these tings, and it's not always their fault that they aren't, they may just not be very bright or compos mentis

I know someoen who got a job ( that he left the first day) where salesmen would go round old peoples houses and basically 'persuade' them ( through an elaborate sales patter) to part with a lot of money for a relatively cheap product. There are vulnerable peole in all walks of life and those that take unfair advantage of them are vermin:evil:

[Box Brownie]

Not true. If you're truly savvy, you'll know that NO ONE* can dictate how you spend your own money or force you into a financial transaction. And if you're truly savvy, you'll also have a spine.






*governments and spouses notwithstanding.

Hmmm!!! true, perhaps the caveat I should have said is that many could be sucked (or should that be suckered) in but the true test is to tell them they can put "it" where the sun does not shine once 'you' are being given the hard sell part of the arrangement.

[Box Brownie]

thesimple fact is no one , but no one, will ever give you something for $500, $800, $1000 what ever, unless you are going to spend ten times that

I.e. no one ever gives anything away any thing for nothing

If you think they do, just keep watching and listening, ...

What is sad is that tehre are popel who are genuinely ignorant of this and/or who just don't have the wit to see it coming, or who are just too easily bullied into these tings, and it's not always their fault that they aren't, they may just not be very bright or compos mentis

I know someoen who got a job ( that he left the first day) where salesmen would go round old peoples houses and basically 'persuade' them ( through an elaborate sales patter) to part with a lot of money for a relatively cheap product. There are vulnerable peole in all walks of life and those that take unfair advantage of them are vermin:evil:


Double :evil::evil::evil::evil:

[cdifoto]

Hmmm!!! true, perhaps the caveat I should have said is that many could be sucked (or should that be suckered) in but the true test is to tell them they can put "it" where the sun does not shine once 'you' are being given the hard sell part of the arrangement.

Yes exactly what I've done on more than one occasion. I tell them if they really have a leg to stand on that's what courts of law are for.

[poloman]

You are all missing the real problem! I think I see that alien thing coming out of his shirt!!! :) :)

[Rachel B]

My friend got aproached in the street while shopping one day and was goven a voucher to have her and a friends make up, hair and photos done, i was the friend we both knew what we were expecting when we arrived, the session was in London, they had a nice studio and they did our hair and make up nicely, we had been asked to bring various out fits and we had lots of fun.

at the end of the session they take you to a nice small office and show you all these nice photos of your self and offer you an amazing deal £3000 or something for all the photos! we were expecting something like this so we knew to decline, we birth decided to purchase five photos each, the five photos were £100 including all the make-up and hair we had done, I also think we paid £20 to reserve the appointment so I think we did well for a complete make over and a few photos for proof of our makeover! we also had a 21st birthday to go to that night so we were all glamed up for it....its very easy to see how people are pressured into buying the photos, especially if you are not overly confident, as these photos have away of making you look very glamorus

[jbimages]

This is similar to the threads with titles somewhere along the lines of:

"5D for $350!"

Unsolicited notifications of winning something = ulterior motive. Always.

Exactly, except in this case it wasn't unsolicited. This mob hold competitions, people enter and are then phoned to say they won. Of course there a difference between the real value of a service and what the provider decides to put on it. In this case they say its worth somewhere around the $800 mark and some people look at that as a tangible thing.

[crash331]

But sadly even the most savvy folk can fall victim to this method of selling & ultimately the consumer law has to be robust enough to help protect all cutomers of the ilk of these type operators photographic or not.

:)


Sorry, but I vehemently disagree with you here.We don't need a law to protect these people. It's common sense. If you can't resist a hard sell on something you don't want, you fail as a human being and it's not the governments or my responsibility to protect you or to pay for your legal fees or reimburse you in any way.

[andrew748]

er.....

Vaig studios??

lmao

vauge

oh never mind :p

[I Simonius]

Sorry, but I vehemently disagree with you here.We don't need a law to protect these people. It's common sense. If you can't resist a hard sell on something you don't want, you fail as a human being and it's not the governments or my responsibility to protect you or to pay for your legal fees or reimburse you in any way.

If they are conning people then of course we need consumer laws to protect people from such fraudsters; who except fraudsters would object to a law that protects people from what clearly should be illegal activity??? ( except fraudsters would disagree of course;))

[crash331]

If they are conning people then of course we need consumer laws to protect people from such fraudsters; who except fraudsters would object to a law that protects people from what clearly should be illegal activity??? ( except fraudsters would disagree of course;))

Maybe people who think induvidual responsibilty is key, and who hates government to intervene in what could obviously be handled by the consumer.

If you pass all kind of laws to protect the consumer, then the consumer loses all interest in trying to protect themselves. They will agree to all kinds of things willy-nilly knowing that big brother government will bail them out.

It's this kind of socially irresponsible legislation that is ruining America these days. And it doesn't apply to just the consumer. Heard about the sub-prime lending crisis? The banks got screwed because they exercised 0 responsibility. Now the government is going to bail them out, and guess who pays for it; the American people.


And really, do you think a law is going to stop these cons? They are already breaking moral laws, they obviously have no integrity, so I doubt writing down in a book somewhere that this behaviour is "illegal" will make them stop. I'm sure they will all say "Wow guys, what we are doing is wrong. We really should stop".

[cdifoto]

Kinda like the Brooklyn scammers. Best way to make them go away is to get real. It's already illegal to bait & switch but it's not like these companies are saying, "My bad! Didn't know I couldn't scam people! I'll stop. No worries. I gotta close up and go to church anyways."

[I Simonius]

And really, do you think a law is going to stop these cons? They are already breaking moral laws, they obviously have no integrity, so I doubt writing down in a book somewhere that this behaviour is "illegal" will make them stop.

of course not , don't be silly, the point is to have some legal recourse after the event:rolleyes:

[crash331]

of course not , don't be silly, the point is to have some legal recourse after the event:rolleyes:

Or common sense before.

[I Simonius]

Or common sense before.

for sensible people yes, but I know a couple of partners I had in the past on whos part I'd be miffed if they fell for this sort of thing, which they just might have , not out of stupidity but out of timidity

Not everyone is an alpha male;)

[crash331]

for sensible people yes, but I know a couple of partners I had in the past on whos part I'd be miffed if they fell for this sort of thing, which they just might have , not out of stupidity but out of timidity

Not everyone is an alpha male;)

Let's just chalk it up as a difference in ideology.

[cdifoto]

Let's just chalk it up as a difference in idealology.

Ideology, chromosomes. Potato, potahto.

[sandpiper]

But sadly even the most savvy folk can fall victim to this method of selling & ultimately the consumer law has to be robust enough to help protect all cutomers of the ilk of these type operators photographic or not.

On a side note there are studios that do such promotions and charge what on the face of it are high prices but they do a good job - I have seen results of friends and family - and their reputations will get so damaged by these cowboys but their prices are nothing AFAIK as exhorbitant as mentioned in this case.

:)

I have to agree with Crash 331 here, with regards to consumer law protecting people from schemes like this.

The people who will, like the woman in the article, sign a contract to pay $5,000 +, then walk out crying because she didn't want to buy the pictures, don't need protecting from these businesses. They need protecting from themselves! I would suggest a fitting a gag and a straightjacket before allowing them out into the real world, then they can't make any verbal or written agreements to anything they don't want to do.

The rest of us can make do with the tried and tested protection of simply saying "no, thank you" and walking out of the door. Government intervention and legislation is NOT necessary. Just say NO!

There is a big problem with enacting legislation, to protect those who seem unable to pronounce the word 'no' and sign for everything instead (incidentally, why did that woman go for the $5,000+ 'buy everything' package - if she didn't want to say no, why not just buy a small print for a $150). You cannot write such legislation to just pick off certain people, the more precise the written law, the easier it is to just adjust a couple of details in the way you operate and carry on legally. This means that the laws have to be very vague and encompassing a wide range, so they not only hit a few unscrupulous schemes, they will also knock out hundreds, or possibly, thousands of legitimate professional photographers whose operations run along similar business models. Big franchises, such as Venture, operate in much the same way and charge similar money (Venture in the UK: £75 for a framed 5x7, £115 for a framed 10x8). The difference is that Venture produce better quality images and, whilst customers may get a shock when they find out the prices, the biggest complaint usually seems to be that they can't afford to buy more shots.

So, should all these legitimate professional photographers suffer to protect a few weak people who can't say no? You seem to be worried that their reputations might be damaged by cowboys, then happy for them to potentially be shut down by legislation. It won't be just photographers of course, such legislation will hit a number of industries.

Here in Britain, we live in a 'nanny state'. The public are continually complaining about all the legislation that is enacted to 'protect us from ourselves', but which seems to simply take away liberties and priviledges as it stops us doing things the way we want to.

As Crash commented, there seems to be no requirement for people to take personal responsibility for anything any more. If something happens to us, as a direct result of our own actions, it must always be somebody else's fault. Sometimes, it is the government's fault for not stopping us from doing it, so the government tries to stop us doing anything that might not be good for us, regardless of how much we might actually want to do it and be willing to accept the risks.

[Box Brownie]

I do not think I said that 'we' need laws to protect us from ourselves ~ I stiil find for example posts I read on fora of folk in the USA thinking they have found a bargain that turns out to be a "bait & switch", something I do not recall having come across here in the UK. It will always be caveat emptor.

But there will always be the unscrupulous waiting to take advantage of the unwary and legislation in the main is a blunt instrument the fact that the high pressure sales tactics are exerted on in the OPs post younger people is IMO no different to the cowboy builder who comes to the house of someone in their 80's and takes advantage of that persons vulnerability. If the end result is a poor, unworkmanlike job/result for a price that was not disclosed up front then unless "you" are going to sue the company individually we need some legal controls to curb their enthusiasm for ripping people off, don't we?

One thing that is guaranteed we will all get old & infirm one day and become less robust in our abilty to say "no", what place then for a little protection by some of our fellow man against the banditry of the minority.

Life is never completely black & white, it is the shades of grey we need to take account of.

[cdifoto]

But there will always be the unscrupulous waiting to take advantage of the unwary and legislation in the main is a blunt instrument the fact that the high pressure sales tactics are exerted on in the OPs post younger people is IMO no different to the cowboy builder who comes to the house of someone in their 80's and takes advantage of that persons vulnerability. If the end result is a poor, unworkmanlike job/result for a price that was not disclosed up front then unless "you" are going to sue the company individually we need some legal controls to curb their enthusiasm for ripping people off, don't we?

All scammers have one thing in common: they prey on the greedy and/or, in the case of this "studio", their greed AND vanity. What we really need is people to wise up, curb their greed, and grow a spine. Once people realize they won't ever get something for nothing, scammers won't have an angle. No amount of legislation is going to do that.

[I Simonius]

Never mind scammers,frankly I think there should be laws against people not parking straight, especially in supermarket car parks , another against old ladies using a blue rinse and one to stop women putting makeup on when they're drunk.:D

A law to stop people walking too close behind you and clipping the back of your shoe would be good, as would a law to stop louts swaggering, they really should learn to walk properly, a spell in the army might do them some good, but there again probably not, send them to dance school, that's a better idea!;)

I could go on but I have to do some work, mind you I think there should be a law against that too:p

When to comes to people taking unfair financial advantage of the disadvantagd though I think this should be encouraged. Serves them right after all. :rolleyes:

Don't ask me what I'm on about I have woken up in a very silly mood. I'llbe better when Ive eaten someone.:lol:

[I Simonius]

What we really need is people to wise up, curb their greed, and grow a spine. .

you missed 'pull their socks up';)

[I Simonius]

I

Here in Britain, we live in a 'nanny state'. T
As Crash commented, there seems to be no requirement for people to take personal responsibility for anything any more.

I wonder where we Brits inherited that from -oops getting political -(slaps own wrist)

[I Simonius]

Life is never completely black & white, it is the shades of grey we need to take account of.

quite right! ( as long as it's not shades of blue rinse;))

[HoRnYTuRbO]

looks like they were on mushrooms when the edited the photo. looks at the guys left arm coming through the sleeve and the bottom left looks like a ghost is about to give him the reach around

[slimninj4]

I tell my wife never to sign a contract for anything without me. Since English is not her main language I have seen people try to take advantage of that from going to a dealership for a car to one of those people that stand out and give out cards to be models.

There will always be people who are intimidated and will just do what ever the salesperson says just to get out of there. Not everyone is street smart. That needs to be learned. Others are just too trusting.

I do feel sorry for the lady that paid for this but if she used her credit card she could of at least tried to contest it. 5k for pictures is way to much. Even for a wedding, dang.

[crash331]

I do feel sorry for the lady that paid for this but if she used her credit card she could of at least tried to contest it. 5k for pictures is way to much. Even for a wedding, dang.


Heh, I'm gonna try that.

"Um, yes, American Express? I was at Best Buy the other day and they just insisted on selling me a 65 inch TV for 10 grand. Of course I just couldn't say no. Now that I made it home, I realized I can't afford it. Can you pay for it for me? I'd greatly appreciate it."

Social responsibility people, it ain't hard. The same instinct that tells you not to jump off a building or in front of a train, well use it to stop yourself from doing other stupid things.

[I Simonius]

Social responsibility people, it ain't hard. The same instinct that tells you not to jump off a building or in front of a train, well use it to stop yourself from doing other stupid things.

A rather different interpretattion of what happened in the OP's story:eek:

[crash331]

A rather different interpretattion of what happened in the OP's story:eek:

Um, duh. That's why I said use the same instinct. I didn't claim that the OP jumped off a building.

[I Simonius]

Um, duh. That's why I said use the same instinct. I didn't claim that the OP jumped off a building.

yes you did:p:lol:

[crash331]

Jesus Christ dude, think I'm just gonna ignore you from here on out. I said USE THE SAME COOMON SENSE THAT TELLS YOU NOT TO JUMP OFF A BUILDING.

I never said the OP jumped off a building, but dang, if someone is that dumb then I can't say they wouldn't if they got close enough to a ledge.

[ofdphoto]

Interesting thread.

There are two sides to everything.

Should the more vulnerable members of our society be protected from the attacks of salespeople trained in psychological warfare?

Probably.

Should society bear the cost of protecting people from their own silly decisions?

Probably not.

One possible solution: cooling off periods that are upheld by the government.

That way the vulnerable people (e.g. mothers with soft hearts who just get too emotional to make a rational decision and just sign so that they can get out of there -- not saying anything bad about mothers with soft hearts here, just concocting an example) will be able to get their husbands to go in and terminate any silly contracts. Or do it themselves the next day. Whatever.

Just a thought from both sides of the debate.

[cdifoto]

One possible solution: cooling off periods that are upheld by the government.

That way the vulnerable people (e.g. mothers with soft hearts who just get too emotional to make a rational decision and just sign so that they can get out of there -- not saying anything bad about mothers with soft hearts here, just concocting an example) will be able to get their husbands to go in and terminate any silly contracts. Or do it themselves the next day. Whatever.

That would only work in Utopia where everyone is 100% honest.

[I Simonius]

Jesus Christ dude, think I'm just gonna ignore you from here on out. I said USE THE SAME COOMON SENSE THAT TELLS YOU NOT TO JUMP OFF A BUILDING.

I never said the OP jumped off a building, but dang, if someone is that dumb then I can't say they wouldn't if they got close enough to a ledge.

er... I was joking:rolleyes:

(hence the - ":p" and ":lol:" - that's waht emoticons are for - to prevent misunderstanding of the tone of comments as otherwise they can be taken the wrong way;) , so in this instance the ":lol:" meant I was joking, and the ":p" meant my comment was 'tongue in cheek', an expression to mean 'not seriously' -although I am never sure whether the ":p" emoticon can also be interpreted as a rasp; lets hope so, eh? :p )

[ofdphoto]

Not at all, cooling off periods are a legal requirement for plenty of contracts around here. Real estate purchases, insurance, etc. You don't even need to explain why you're pulling out!

It would be difficult to enforce tho.

In the end life would be easier if sales people were nice and buyers weren't silly.

[cdifoto]

Not at all, cooling off periods are a legal requirement for plenty of contracts around here. Real estate purchases, insurance, etc. You don't even need to explain why you're pulling out!

Hm. Good thing I don't operate in Australia then. I think that's BS.

[agent.media]

Cooling off periods exist in Australia predominantly for door to door sales. (see your state's Fair Trading Act and Door to Door sales act)
Thus recognizing the pressure people can put on your in that sort of selling position. A selling position which in my opinion is not too dissimilar to the one described by the OP.

I don’t think a cooling of period would hurt at all if you had originally made the representation that the initial shoot was free and that there is no obligation for the Photog to begin work on the photographs until the cooling off period has expired.

If you shoot well enough, I’m sure enough will pay and keep coming back.

Well, maybe not for $20,000. :P

[DocFrankenstein]

That way the vulnerable people (e.g. mothers with soft hearts who just get too emotional to make a rational decision and just sign so that they can get out of there -- not saying anything bad about mothers with soft hearts here, just concocting an example) will be able to get their husbands to go in and terminate any silly contracts.
Ok... I think it's the society that needs protecting from suggestions like yours.

My girlfriend already thinks she can change her mind any time she wants. Now you're giving the legal right for "mothers" to terminate any agreement? Imagine the havoc!

It works fine. The darwin theory eliminates the losers.

[zacker]

"cooling off" periods are in place here in the states for certain things like Divorce, they make you wait like 6 months, time to cool down and make sure its what you want.. Bank loans, same thing although this could be the banks thing, I re-did my mortgage this summer and they gave me 3 days to change my mind about it.. I think alot of people are acting out of greed when they say a cool off period is BS. Imagine it was YOU who made a bad call ( i know i know, you would NEVER do that, would you?) but imagine it was someone you cared about.. mom? dad? wife? GF? baby sister? now Imagine it took them for alot of $$, how would YOU feel then? Again, a cool down period (maybe just a couple days) would be fine, I really dont see the hurt to business, if anything it gives em more of a leg to stand on when the Pidgeon...umm person take them to court to try to get out of a contract.

[cdifoto]

"cooling off" periods are in place here in the states for certain things like Divorce, they make you wait like 6 months, time to cool down and make sure its what you want.. Bank loans, same thing although this could be the banks thing, I re-did my mortgage this summer and they gave me 3 days to change my mind about it.. I think alot of people are acting out of greed when they say a cool off period is BS. Imagine it was YOU who made a bad call ( i know i know, you would NEVER do that, would you?) but imagine it was someone you cared about.. mom? dad? wife? GF? baby sister? now Imagine it took them for alot of $$, how would YOU feel then? Again, a cool down period (maybe just a couple days) would be fine, I really dont see the hurt to business, if anything it gives em more of a leg to stand on when the Pidgeon...umm person take them to court to try to get out of a contract.

It's not greed it's business.

Having the ability to just out of the blue cancel a contract without penalty or reason would undermine the entire legality and integrity of contracts in the first place.

The time to think things over is BEFORE you sign the dotted line, not after.

[zacker]

but its not just a case with contracts.... its also with salesmen of ANY kind, can you imagine you go to walmart and bought something and then find out after you get it home that you dont want it.. so you go back and try to return it and they say, Sorry, shouldnt have bought it then... we cant take it back. that would stink no? esp when they tell you you should have known better and NOT bought it. I think the cool off period, even if just a day, will keep people from getting suckered, and keep people out of court and maybe then we could use all the free time to prosecute real criminals instead of worry about Mrs Johnson who bought a new car because te salesman was shifty and slick.

[ofdphoto]

The AIPP (professional photographer association in Australia) stipulates a 3-day cooling off period for all of its members.

I can't think of any good reason why I wouldn't be more than happy to comply with that as a photographer.

And DocFrankenstein, you totally missed my point. I was simply making up an example of someone who might be vulnerable to a hard sell. Your girlfriend obviously isn't vulnerable to such things. Good for her. Other people are (and of course plenty of them are men). My wife, for example, even though she's not a pushover, finds it very distressing to say "no" to pushy salespeople. She's just too kindhearted, she wants to be nice to everybody. It's not hard to imagine someone similar falling victim to a hard sell and promptly regretting it.

Little old grannies, for example, can be incredibly vulnerable to these tactics. Pushy salespeople would probably get them so close to having a heart attack they sign just to say alive!

I'm staggered that there is so little sympathy here for those less capable of handling stress and tension. 3 days is nothin'.

[I Simonius]

It's not greed it's business.

Having the ability to just out of the blue cancel a contract without penalty or reason would undermine the entire legality and integrity of contracts in the first place.

The time to think things over is BEFORE you sign the dotted line, not after.
The general rule in the UK is that there are 14 days after the signing of any contract to change your mind

It recognises the kind of high pressure tactics *( and subterfuge)that some (alright many) salespersons use, that people are frequently misled, missold, misinformed etc,. There are somany examples to illustrate e.g endowment morgates in the 1980 etc. i.e, sales people will rip you off if they possible can with no regard for the consequences for the cunsumer ("that's business")



I'm staggered that there is so little sympathy here for those less capable of handling stress and tension. 3 days is nothin'.

Si little sympathy by sales persons I imagine?

In other words what we have here is an argument from opposing sides of the fence

A -Salesparersons who think they should be able to wrap anyone up with a contract that is irrevocable from the moment it's signed (i.e. plays right into their hands), and
B -the consumer rights bodies that recognise the need to make a contingency plan for this sort of tactic

As IM the sort that prefers to provide a service where the customer is 100% happy I have no problem with cooling off periods etc, those that really couldn't give a Rodents posterior for the customer will of course object

Each to their own; my vote goes firmly in the customers right box;)

[cdifoto]

Yeah I'm a fraudulent salesperson that doesn't care about the customer just because I believe contracts are and should remain legally binding. Right. :rolleyes:

Basically what those cooling down periods do is protect the people who fail to read the terms of the contract they just signed. It's promoting irresponsibility.

Sorry but no that's not how it works. I believe customers should be held to contracts because I give them NO pressure from the outset and they have plenty of time before they sign the dotted line to do their thinking. I don't force anyone into anything, and therefore they SHOULD be held accountable when they sign the papers. They know what they're getting into, period.

Yes, there are frauds out there, high pressure salesmen, etc. But the option is always there to say no. It only takes a spine and a little common sense that no one can part you from your money without your consent and it's not a difficult word to pronounce.

I'm not allowed to change my mind when a customer signs a contract for my services, so why should they be able to?

[I Simonius]

Sorry but no that's not how it works. I believe customers should be held to contracts because I give them NO pressure from the outset

That's what they all say;)

[cdifoto]

That's what they all say;)

Yeah I guess I'm just like the high pressure salesmen, what with my encouragement of the potential client shopping around first and taking my contract home with them before signing and all that. :rolleyes:

Believe you me, if I was a sleazy salesman I would have a lot more money than I do. ;) My problem is that I'm too open and honest about things.

[Alexajlex]

That way the vulnerable people (e.g. mothers with soft hearts who just get too emotional to make a rational decision and just sign so that they can get out of there -- not saying anything bad about mothers with soft hearts here, just concocting an example) will be able to get their husbands to go in and terminate any silly contracts. Or do it themselves the next day. Whatever.

Just a thought from both sides of the debate.


Are you saying that women are incapable of making sound decisions under pressure?

I'll venture to say I'd get emotional if I walked into a Chevy dealership and they had a smoking deal on a C6 Vette.

I guess I can get my girlfriend to cancel my "mistake" the next day.
:)

As far as cooling off in the US there is a 72 hour period for cars.

If you made the cool off mandatory for everything then the scammers would just move onto a new scam. I'm already getting a glimpse of this. Restocking fee. Best Buy Circuit City, and nearly all retail stores use it on electronics. 30-90 return policy but 15% restocking fee.
So the scamming photog would just say $5,000 for the pics and you have a 90 return policy but with a %15 restocking fee. That makes $750 the minimum that he can make on any deal. Pretty good for a few hours of work.

[crash331]

But really, who can blame the big box stores for this?

Does a mom and pop store usually offer returns? No, every one I have been to usually says "ALL SALES FINAL" because returns cost money, and mom and pop doesn't want to pay for your stupidity.

Big box stores like Walmart, CC, BB, etc. can afford returns in order to keep customers happy. However, abuse in recent years is making it very expensive even for them, so they must institute restocking fees. Hell, I can remember when you could take music and games back to walmart after you played them, or buy a videogame from EB Games, keep it for two weeks and get full credit on return, like a free two week rental. When people abuse this, that's when stores have to start protecting t hemselves.