Save 15% On Excire Foto Software With Code: EXCIRE-EP

Paying to be on a recommended suppliers list?


mikehit 12 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
19 May 2015 11:38AM

Quote:Could the magazine producer / owner be sued for complicity to provide inadequate services or failing to ensure the quality on offer at their venue?


That is the sort of paranoid fear that insurance companies and lawyers just love because it fills their coffers with lovely money. Tongue
petebfrance 9 3.1k France
19 May 2015 11:56AM
Well, in my opinion if they didn't check the work out first it's a bit 'yucky' from the point of view of the potential client (I won't be oneTongue) because the client may naively assume that the recommendation is based on merit not the greasing of the palm with some readies - but that does seem to be how things work.
Again, if they aren't vetting the work, a (remotely?) possible downside for the tog would be that if somebody had a bad experience with the a 'recommended supplier' who just wasn't up to the job (people do seem to complain a lot on the internet) and word got around then it may not be such good publicity after all.
Sorry, the inevitable negative post - always happensWink
themak 8 1.0k Scotland
19 May 2015 12:08PM
From the original post, it seems they may well have been acquainted with the OPs work.
mikehit 12 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
19 May 2015 12:13PM

Quote:if they aren't vetting the work, a (remotely?) possible downside for the tog would be that if somebody had a bad experience with the a 'recommended supplier' who just wasn't up to the job


In my experience, the magazine uses the term 'recommended supplier' only to the people who may be stumping up the cash: it sounds great, right? But when the magazine is published the words 'recommended supplier' never appear, and instead are called 'sponsors'.
But I agree with your comment that in the days of the internet a complaint gets blasted at everyone remotely connected to the client's poor judgement so even the magazine needs to be careful how they do their advertising.
petebfrance 9 3.1k France
19 May 2015 12:26PM

Quote:From the original post, it seems they may well have been acquainted with the OPs work.

That's the impression I got, or that perhaps the OP provided sufficient information and so on. For a business of that sort it would be very risky to take pot-luck on 'recommended suppliers' because of their own reputation.
As far as paying to be on the list is concerned it seems a reasonable business approach. Can't comment on the price / value as I haven't a clue.
Overread 13 4.1k 19 England
19 May 2015 1:29PM
Far as I can tell:

1) The company is asking for payment to provide advertising space for the photographer. This sounds perfectly normal, if you want to advertise then most places are going to charge you to advertise. It's then your choice to weigh up if you think the advert will recoup its investment in more sales. It's also why many companies have that "where did you see our ad/find out about us" in QAs because part of marketing is finding out what does and doesn't really work for you.
That way you can end contracts for marketing which are not generating sales; or change the type of advertising you do there to best market to that market segment.

2) At no point has anything been said about if the company the OP contacted does or does not perform any validation of the services that are provided by those seeking to advertise. All we have is the message that the company will provide X services in advertising space for Y payment. Might be that an evaluation of the photographers skill and product will come later when they show proper interest in advertising; or might be the company is, as its a wedding fair, doing to have a huge number of advertising parties and as such is not really to worried about the skills and is more concerned with the advertising and revenue.

I would honestly say that derailing things to try and argue about how "companies are not vetting advertisers" and "photography is going to the pits because anyone can do it" is either a lame attempt at ranting and derailing the thread or a not so subtle way to snub the OP's photography skill. It's really not needed and honestly its nothing new - there were hacks and rubbish photographers in the film days (I mean heck look at the tonnes of old film cameras sold on ebay - do you honestly think that with that huge volume there were no bad wedding photographers?)
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
19 May 2015 2:33PM
Bad ones? There were some right charlatans. Not one had insurance. Only owned one Haselblad and you were lucky if you got 30 photos plus you had to wait for him to finish his cigarette before you got told to smile.
Wink
Fujiconvert 17 1.3k England
20 May 2015 6:33AM
Having just recently retired from weddings I have come across this and it just didn't sit right with me. I can't help thinking that it's a form of corruption. I didn't ever do it but I know people that do and it doesn't seem to bother them. But I suppose all's fair in love and business.
themak 8 1.0k Scotland
20 May 2015 12:49PM
I assume all the pros who are against this type of promotion are members of a professional institution. What's that body doing about it if it's so unfair and bad for the photography business? - it's what it's for, after all.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.