Ethics in Professional Portrait Photography

[kiwi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

In SA (this case) its OCBA who handle this sort of issue.
Give them a call!

[Miaow]

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

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

[maccaroneski]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'.

[ricktas]

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

http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/assets/med...studio2000.pdf

[jasevk]

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]

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

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.

**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]

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]

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]

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)