Ethics in Professional Portrait Photography

[ricktas]

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]

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

http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/assets/med...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]

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]

I fail to appreciate the need to defend stupid consumers

[JM Tran]

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]

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]

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

[Kym]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[JM Tran]

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]

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...

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...

[kiwi]

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]

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.

[ricktas]

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...

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.

[Debra Faulkner]

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]

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.

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