Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk
Thread started 17 Jan 2015 (Saturday) 07:31
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Wedding Album "Cover" Charge Story

 
ksbal
Goldmember
ksbal's Avatar
Joined Sep 2010
N.E. Kansas
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by ksbal.
Jan 20, 2015 15:34 |  #16

From the photog's response, it sounds like she DID try to offer the cover and 'move on' but was either rebuffed or not given enough time. The couple DOES have a low res CD already.. so I think speculation is probably futile, and getting all the facts is the only way to get to the bottom of it. Sad the couple did not take the photographer up on her offer of the cover and now we are resorting to social media rather than one on one to solve the problem and move on.


YN622 English User Guide/Manual by Clive
https://drive.google.c​om ...Ig0gMMzZFaDVlZ1VNTE​0/view (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,843 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by memoriesoftomorrow. 3 edits done in total.
Jan 20, 2015 17:19 |  #17

benji25 wrote in post #17391560external link
This is the game changer. If the order form clearly said the cover for the Album was more and the client over looked it then that is on the client. I want to see what the attachment in the PP article is to see how obvious it was that the album cover is an additional charge.

I find it hard to believe the photographer would not have mentioned it in the meeting as I assume she has done this before with many other clients and it is probably always a question that comes up.

It is a poor business model / approach they are using. Prone to create problems and confusion which could be entirely avoidable with better contract, clearer communication, better expectation management and most of all not calling pages an "album" if it doesn't include a cover.

Can they deliver an album if it doesn't have a cover? My guess is no. In which case they need to stop calling it an album because it is NOT. Even in this responseexternal link they say "while they have already paid the cost of an album". Bottom line if that "album" can't be produced without a cover it is NOT an album... so they can't have paid the cost for it. The photographer can't be upset by the client's reaction to the situation but it is completely created by terrible wording and a daft sales model.

It does in my view hold a good lesson to anyone starting out in business to think very carefully about possible outcomes from policies, models etc that they implement in advance. If it can go wrong it will at some point go wrong... but if you have to chance to prevent it ever going wrong in the first place you're crazy not to take that route.

On a side note.... $250 archiving fee now that is a ridiculous.


Peter

LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Jan 20, 2015 18:34 |  #18

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17391803external link
It is a poor business model / approach they are using. Prone to create problems and confusion which could be entirely avoidable with better contract, clearer communication, better expectation management and most of all not calling pages an "album" if it doesn't include a cover.

Can they deliver an album if it doesn't have a cover? My guess is no. In which case they need to stop calling it an album because it is NOT. Even in this responseexternal link they say "while they have already paid the cost of an album". Bottom line if that "album" can't be produced without a cover it is NOT an album... so they can't have paid the cost for it. The photographer can't be upset by the client's reaction to the situation but it is completely created by terrible wording and a daft sales model.

It does in my view hold a good lesson to anyone starting out in business to think very carefully about possible outcomes from policies, models etc that they implement in advance. If it can go wrong it will at some point go wrong... but if you have to chance to prevent it ever going wrong in the first place you're crazy not to take that route.

On a side note.... $250 achieving fee now that is a ridiculous.

I think it is a little of both. That is why I want to see the form they order from - to see how clear it is that the cover is not included. If this is her first client that it has happened from then how come none of the other clients ever got confused? Especially if she has been in the industry for 10 years.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Iscariotau
Senior Member
Joined Jun 2011
Sydney Australia
Jan 20, 2015 19:37 |  #19

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17391803external link
On a side note.... $250 achieving fee now that is a ridiculous.

I have not read the article but I get this gist of it. I do have one question though: What is an achieving fee?


MyFlickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,843 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Jan 20, 2015 20:01 |  #20

Iscariotau wrote in post #17392047external link
I have not read the article but I get this gist of it. I do have one question though: What is an achieving fee?

Meant to be "archiving" (typo). Basically it is an excuse by the photographer to charge an extortionate amount of money for copying some files on to a hard drive (i.e. Ctrl + A, Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V). The perfect example as to why the public think they are getting screwed by photographers. I mean it isn't like copy/paste is a highly skilled task that only an "artist" can do.

In this case it appears to be being used as a fine, dished out to the clients for not getting back to the photographer within their time frame. Let's call a spade a spade... it is a fine, a late tax not an archiving fee.


Peter

LOG IN TO REPLY
Iscariotau
Senior Member
Joined Jun 2011
Sydney Australia
Jan 20, 2015 20:03 |  #21

Given that any decent photographer should be backing up images on a drive until all is done and dusted makes the change even more ridiculous to me.


MyFlickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
rincon
Member
236 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Tucson, AZ
Jan 21, 2015 08:12 |  #22

As always, there seems to be two sides to the story. In the open letter from the photographer, she says that she did offer to provide the CD to the bride as well as provide an album with no additional cost for the cover in an effort to bring the issue to resolution before any mention of the media by the bride. See the full letter on the photographers blog.

http://www.blogpolito.​com/?p=5757external link




LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeinctown
Goldmember
1,973 posts
Joined May 2012
Cleveland, Ohio
Jan 21, 2015 09:19 |  #23

the photog deserves to be called out on this. Regardless of whether it is in the contract or not, and as said above, an album is not an album without a cover. I could see if there were some special purchase options for gilded 24k gold covers, but there needs to be at least a bse standard to call it an album.

there may be two sides to every story, but even the photogs side doesn't look good.


Canon EOS 1D X | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM | Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C |

LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Jan 21, 2015 11:42 |  #24

mikeinctown wrote in post #17392891external link
the photog deserves to be called out on this. Regardless of whether it is in the contract or not, and as said above, an album is not an album without a cover. I could see if there were some special purchase options for gilded 24k gold covers, but there needs to be at least a bse standard to call it an album.

there may be two sides to every story, but even the photogs side doesn't look good.

Continuing to play devil's advocate here - why has no one else had the same confusion this client had?

If I have an order form that has the section for the album where it lists something like:

Number of Images Pages of the Album:
20 = $50
40 = $100
80 = $200

Covers for Album are an extra fee as availability and design vary. The minimum price for a basic cover is $150. Due to the limited availability and changing supply, it is only possible to order this at the time the album order is placed.

As a client I think that is pretty clear. Again, I would like to see what her order form looks like.

The other thing is the tenacity of the client. The photographer offered to fix it, but the client still contacts the media and goes on a social media smearing campaign? Most clients would leave a bad review and leave it at that. That makes me believe these clients must be at least somewhat unreasonable.

Summary:
1. How clear is the order form for the album?
2. How come her other clients didn't seem to have the same confusion?
3. Why are the clients running a smear campaign when the photographer offered them the solution they wanted?


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeinctown
Goldmember
1,973 posts
Joined May 2012
Cleveland, Ohio
Jan 21, 2015 12:21 |  #25

Benji, the problem is that the client was sold an "album" which apparently did no include a cover of any sort. At least that is what we've assumed by reading everything put out there. Only after the person complained, and even then more than onc, was a cover offered.

Even using your terms for pricing, one would assume that a given cover is included, and that anything extra would cost $x dollars. Even if you were to say a basic leather cover will be included, but others are available for an additional fee, then you would be fine.

Using your method is like going to a car dealership, then buying a car only to have to then buy seats for the car because some people like leather and some people don't. When in reality, a fabric seat is INCLUDED, and then you can choose to upgrade at an additional cost for that model.


Canon EOS 1D X | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM | Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C |

LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Jan 21, 2015 13:52 |  #26

mikeinctown wrote in post #17393176external link
Benji, the problem is that the client was sold an "album" which apparently did no include a cover of any sort. At least that is what we've assumed by reading everything put out there. Only after the person complained, and even then more than onc, was a cover offered.

Even using your terms for pricing, one would assume that a given cover is included, and that anything extra would cost $x dollars. Even if you were to say a basic leather cover will be included, but others are available for an additional fee, then you would be fine.

Using your method is like going to a car dealership, then buying a car only to have to then buy seats for the car because some people like leather and some people don't. When in reality, a fabric seat is INCLUDED, and then you can choose to upgrade at an additional cost for that model.

If the car dealership tells me that the car I am buying has very unique seats that are in addition to the price of the car and that supply and availability change on a weekly basis and that I will have to pick specific seats since in 12-18 months when I actually buy the car because the seats today will likely not be available then I would understand.

I would really like to see the order form.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
Cream of the Crop
scorpio_e's Avatar
Joined Aug 2007
Pa
Jan 21, 2015 17:07 |  #27

My album company charges for the cover. Why can I *LOL*.. Sad story and I think the truth is in the middle.


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,843 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Jan 21, 2015 17:44 |  #28

The order form makes no difference. You can't refer to something as an album if it isn't actually an album. As far as I see it the photographer is in breach of contract every time because of that.


Peter

LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
Gig Harbor, Washington
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by umphotography.
Jan 21, 2015 21:03 |  #29

Ive read this thing from top to bottom and read both sides responses. Here is my take

I think you have 2 people that deserve each other. This is what is commonly referred to as a pissing contest. A total social media nightmare.

Both of these 2 are trying to make their case on the net and trust me NOTHING on the net is accurate or remotely close to the truth. Its all what the other person wants you to think and believe.

You have a pissed off bride who is trying to bully a photographer

you have a photographer that stoops to used car sales tactics to run and operate a business

both of these 2 represent what is bad about the wedding industry. I have no respect for either one because they make the industry that I choose to work in look bad.

As pete has said many many times. There is no barrier for entry, there is no regulative body to control things, and you have a ton of people with limited skills sets parading around as big time business owners when in fact they are small fish in a very large pond.

This whole thing is a disaster and is primary reason why i want less and less to deal with social media. Its a necessary evil for a photographers and if you have poor business skills people like this dip**** bride are going to make your life miserable. This entire situation could have been easily avoided had the photographer had a base cover that comes with every album she sells. She decided to use crap sales tactics to grind her clients for a few more bucks to increase her profit line. She got a bride that balked and broke it off and now she is paying the price..........I frankly think they deserve each other

WHAT A MESS- that all us are going to have to deal with in the future with our own clients. This is everywhere you turn on the net including the bridal forums where brides exchange information

Use your heads photographers. You are in a service based industry. Be Smarter than the person you are dealing with.


Mike
www.umphotography.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
Cream of the Crop
scorpio_e's Avatar
Joined Aug 2007
Pa
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by scorpio_e.
Jan 22, 2015 09:42 as a reply to umphotography's post |  #30

*LOL* Mike I think you nailed it ...

I never did get the cover charge.. What if the Bride said.. ok I will take with album with no cover... Anyway at LEAST have a Faux leather cover and charge for upgrades to metal or whatever.


Yes these two deserve each other...


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,213 views & 4 likes for this thread
Wedding Album "Cover" Charge Story
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00527 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is radislavi4
988 guests, 491 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017