Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List
  

FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer
  
 
Littleguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


For a low end $500 entry point photographer maybe - that tactic is used to get to a low opening price and everything else is extra. That's from the Gary Fong school of wedding pricing. Ultra low advertised price to reel them in and built your way back up to your desired price point.

That's how you price if you are a no frills airline - $99 flights but food, luggage, seats assignments - all are plus plus plus.

That's not how you price a package for a luxury item and it didn't look like her studio was advertising $500 weddings. She was selling 6K plus packages - wrong sales tactic for that market.

LeeSimms wrote:
As crazy as that her you-gotta-pay-for-the-cover policy sounds in 2017, I'm sure in the past more than one A-list seminar at a major photography convention recommended this very thing. All the cool kids in the room probably agreed.

All businesses are in the midst of a consumer-centric disruption. Take a bite of the sandwich. It's as if customers are collectively saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."





Aug 02, 2017 at 04:18 PM
LeeSimms
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


> wrong sales tactic for that market

Agree. It does seem to get against everything I've ever read on pricing.



Aug 02, 2017 at 04:28 PM
Littleguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


Not sure about that - her blog didn't appear to have a large following - maybe in the hundreds or low thousands - certainly not millions of followers. Plus I believe her follows grew as a result of the news coverage which probably didn't help her in the lawsuit in the end.

I only heard about the story because of the local news coverage. I believe that the impact came from the news story not so much her blog. And the story only got picked up because of the charge for a basic cover, it wasn't an upgraded cover - it was for a basic cover - yes she waived it at the end but it was still asked for in the beginning.

George Orwell wrote:
If she weren't a blogger, the impact on the photographer would have minimal.






Aug 02, 2017 at 04:31 PM
LeeSimms
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


FWIW, we're going through a bit of what-does-the-market-really-want with video at the moment. Since starting it 2 years ago, we can't find a common thread. When you talk to a cross-section of successful videographers, you find the service/pricing is bespoke.

Makes it tough when our venues want easy price sheets.



Aug 02, 2017 at 04:32 PM
Littleguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


I don't believe they are doing it for the clients.

Bespoke service pricing makes comparison shopping difficult.

Price sheets invite comparison shopping and commodification.

LeeSimms wrote:
FWIW, we're going through a bit of what-does-the-market-really-want with video at the moment. Since starting it 2 years ago, we can't find a common thread. When you talk to a cross-section of successful videographers, you find the service/pricing is bespoke.

Makes it tough when our venues want easy price sheets.





Aug 02, 2017 at 04:41 PM
LeeSimms
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


Good point. The thing is, video clients are pretty diverse in their expectations. Some want art without a lot of talk. Others want a very linear presentation.


Aug 02, 2017 at 04:52 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



DmitriM
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


From my perspective, the photographer was wrong to charge a fee not mentioned in the contract. After the couple paid $6000, not giving the photos because of $150. That's very low. Sure, she may have mentioned it during the meeting, but most couples don't remember dozens of meetings they have with vendors and little details discussed.

The couple was right to be angry and involve TV stations and write truthful reviews if in fact that's the only thing that helped to get them the free cover upgrade. If they did get it upgraded prior to that then they are in the wrong big time.

What they did wrong is how far their went with their anger and writing defamatory style reviews instead of the truthful ones.

I have doubts the photographer will be able to collect this $1m though.



Aug 07, 2017 at 04:48 PM
amonline
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


DmitriM wrote:
...the photographer was wrong to charge a fee not mentioned in the contract. After the couple paid $6000, not giving the photos because of $150. That's very low...

...The couple was right to be angry and involve TV stations and write truthful reviews if in fact that's the only thing that helped to get them the free cover upgrade....

...What they did wrong is how far their went with their anger and writing defamatory style reviews...


Finally. We have a bingo.


Edited on Aug 08, 2017 at 07:16 PM · View previous versions



Aug 07, 2017 at 05:25 PM
Mikehit
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


DmitriM wrote:
From my perspective, the photographer was wrong to charge a fee not mentioned in the contract. After the couple paid $6000, not giving the photos because of $150. That's very low. Sure, she may have mentioned it during the meeting, but most couples don't remember dozens of meetings they have with vendors and little details discussed.

The couple was right to be angry and involve TV stations and write truthful reviews if in fact that's the only thing that helped to get them the free cover upgrade. If they did get it upgraded prior to that then they are in the
...Show more

As I understand it, the contract said they would get the cover when the whole album was ready and had placed orders. It seems they wanted the cover early so they immediately stepped outside the contract. So Polito had a case for charging them extra - we may not agree with it but I see nothing wrong in the principle.
I have worked in service companies for the last 25 years and clients asking for something out of agreed process is always liable for additional costs.


This is Politos version
http://www.blogpolito.com/an-open-letter/






Aug 07, 2017 at 07:35 PM
Littleguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


Mikehit wrote:
As I understand it, the contract said they would get the cover when the whole album was ready and had placed orders. It seems they wanted the cover early so they immediately stepped outside the contract. So Polito had a case for charging them extra - we may not agree with it but I see nothing wrong in the principle.
I have worked in service companies for the last 25 years and clients asking for something out of agreed process is always liable for additional costs.

This is Politos version
http://www.blogpolito.com/an-open-letter/



Not really - here is Politos's version to the Court.
https://www.scribd.com/document/261722957/PolitoCase-DocumentFragment-12063609#from_embed

“The Moldovans contended that they paid for the storybook album cover, when, infact, the cover must be purchased separately and only when the couple is ready to order the actual album, which had been disclosed by Polito from Day 1 in the initial consultation. Because the albums are internationally hand-assembled, cover options and prices vary from the time of initial consultation to the time after the wedding and honeymoon when a couple actually submits the order form, which can often extend 18 months. The order form details the different costs for the cover options, ranging from $125.00 to $225.00.

25. When Polito was apprised of the Moldovans’ persistent (and unreasonable)demands, she emailed Neely on January 14, 2015 and, in an upbeat and respectful tone,requested that Neely select the album cover, with the intention of waiving the cost of the cover. Polito was willing to make this further concession, in addition to the previous offer to release the photos once the album design was approved, not because the Moldovans’ gripes were legitimate, but because she believes in keeping her clients happy and wanted to put their concerns to rest. Polito simply requested that Neely submit the album order form so that Polito knew which photos to include in the album design and which cover Neely preferred.

E. The Moldovans institute a media campaign against Polito and APP.

26. But by the time Polito emailed Neely on January 14, the Moldovans had already been contacting local media about their frustrations based on their, at best, failure to properly read the contract and, at worst, flagrant disregard of their contract and numerous communications with APP.27. Specifically, on January 12, 2014, Neely began searching for local media through her personal contacts on Facebook, Twitter, and by phone. Andrew then emailed several news outlets, including WFAA, NBC DFW, KDFW Fox 4, KTVT, and NBC Universal. Then, on January 14, 2014, the Moldovans invited NBC 5 and journalist Scott Gordon to their home for an interview. The story aired on January 16, 2014 with an accompanying article.”

By contract Polito is correct - the album cover was an extra charge. Politico waived the charged on an e-mail on Jan 14 after going back and fore for a while. But I do find it interesting that her words:

"When Polito was apprised of the Moldovans’ persistent (and unreasonable)demands, she emailed Neely on January 14, 2015 and, in an upbeat and respectful tone,requested that Neely select the album cover, with the intention of waiving the cost of the cover."

The intention - did she make it clear to the Moldovans that she was waiving the cover fee on Jan 14? However, by Jan 12 - Moldovans were looking for media help already - should they have called off the interview after getting the cover fee waived - probably.

By contract Airlines can do a lot of things to their customers - has anyone ever read their airline ticket contracts?
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx?Mobile=1

What's legal under a contract doesn't always mean its the right business decision. That pricing model that Politico was using was so out of date - even in 2014.



Aug 08, 2017 at 04:57 PM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Couple must pay $1M for defaming their wedding photographer


A separate but related issue is terminating a contract with a couple. I had a bride to be who was very difficult to work with and I knew that it was not going to go well as the wedding (the groom chose that day to get stoned which was not an option for me). I tried to talk the bride into going with another photographer and comping the pictures from the engagement session but she wanted to stay with me. I had no legal recourse in terms of terminating the contract unilaterally.


Aug 09, 2017 at 11:24 PM
1      
2
       end






FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password