Shenanigans at the SWPP

[Richard King]

yes i realize that was the point

made me think that SWPP removed it so i *couldn't* see the comparison ?

the quality of the second one was no better or worse than the first one

I am clearly such a crappy out of touch photographer, I don't understand how winning images for most competitions are chosen

 

[David Kilpatrick]

Surely this is not only bad for the paying members, but also totally dilutes the quality of those entering as now not only can ANYONE join to begin with, but now it looks like you can get in for free.

The reverse. By 'signing up' MPA members for a 'free membership' (e.g. mining the MPA website for names and addresses) SWPP greatly improve the quality of those entering - they improve the ratio of genuine professional photographers to 'all comers'.

They did exactly the same thing to provide themselves with Associates and Fellows, and get lecturers. They targeted well-known MPA and BIPP names, and offered them free membership in return for doing a talk (or whatever). They then conferred 'reciprocal qualifications' so the unwitting mark became an FSWPP. Then, of course, when SWPP's spurious qualification awarding is questioned, they can point to list of illustrious Fellows of SWPP.

It's the old game of merit by association, and the suckers are those whose vanity or commercial interest persuades them to go along with it. In the process they unwittingly dilute the value of their real, hard-worked-for qualifications and distinctions, and weaken the position of the genuine trade or professional associations which enabled them to reach that level.

This is just extending the process to a lower tier - trying to recruit as many members of other associations as possible, to give SWPP credibility - 'they must be OK if X is a member'.

Ref later posts: SWPP/BPPA - The British Professional Photographers Association is not to be confused with the entity that actually 'is' both SWPP and BPPA - a company called British Professional Photographers Associates. It also happens to have the initials BPPA, but it is not the 'association' - it is the service company which is the actual identity of the operation.

David

 

[jamesoliverstone]

I am so glad I got to read this thread.

I was on the fence on who to join, but now I have joined the BIPP, as this thread has certainly taught me to do my homework on what you are joining.

I am also joining the RPS but thats for different reasons.

Oh, and seriously Dave, its not hard to see why you have joined here and trust me if you had joined my forum, I would have banned your account already...

 

[On the Huh]

Knowing one of the mods on here very well - I think that you haven't a clue - TP and the mods would actually listen and reason with thoughts expressed - they may not agree but would not be afraid to say why and not through phone calls but by posting on threads in question.

And no - I also suspect it wouldn't be closed as they aren't frightened of criticism - and tend to have broad shoulders.

Simon, you may well be right. I based my thoughts after seeing this thread close a couple of times, (and see it opened again.) Also, unlike yourself, I am at a dis-advantage of not knowing any of the mods very well.

Concerning Banned threads on the SWPP forum. Well I think one of the banned threads should had not even been started by the OP and should have not been continued by the Owners before it was banned. I believe that if a thread of that nature had started on here, it wouldn't have been eliminated altogether, but feel it would have been closed before it gained the momentum it had.

The post I referred to was very emotionally charged and IMHO was to bait the moderators (The Jones') and they made the mistake to bite. My point was that the mods here wouldn't have bit and just closed the thread. As I say, just my humble opinion, and may be wrong.

Jamesoliverstone: I agree that Dave may have joined here based on this thread, but banning his account wouldn't make you any better than the SWPP banning threads. Again, just my humble opinion.

Happy New Year everybody!

Nige.

 

[coldpenguin]

...

Thank you Nigel, for what is a considered post, in what appears to be a non-biased manner.

 

[Dave Routledge]

I am so glad I got to read this thread.

I was on the fence on who to join, but now I have joined the BIPP, as this thread has certainly taught me to do my homework on what you are joining.

I am also joining the RPS but thats for different reasons.

Oh, and seriously Dave, its not hard to see why you have joined here and trust me if you had joined my forum, I would have banned your account already...

Hi James

I am utterly perplexed, could you please tell me why you think I have joined this forum and what I have done wrong that would merit a ban?


God bless
Dave

 

[On the Huh]

Thank you Nigel, for what is a considered post, in what appears to be a non-biased manner.

I'm not here to fall out with others, and appreciate the points of view of others. I can only write my point of view. Some may change my point of view through constructive debate, but not if they are arguementive, not that I'm saying anyone is!

 

[Holden Caulfield]

could you please tell me why you think I have joined this forum

Let me have a go .... to help somone with the operation of a light meter The other 32 posts about the SWPP are proberbly irrelivent then...

 

[artona]

to be fair to Dave he probably joined to defend the SWPP but I am sure he will find a nicer home here at Talk and spend his time here

 

[Dave Routledge]

Let me have a go .... to help somone with the operation of a light meter The other 32 posts about the SWPP are proberbly irrelivent then...

Hi Holden

And that would merit a ban?

 

[Hacker]

As I asked before please keep this on topic gents. Talking about hypothetical bans on hypothetical forums isn't getting us anywhere.

 

[boyfalldown]

Hi Holden

And that would merit a ban?

I think not, and your posts are always polite and friendly but it does appear very much as though your only motivation for being here is to defend/promote the SWPP.

Hugh

 

[Richard King]

I think not, and your posts are always polite and friendly but it does appear very much as though your only motivation for being here is to defend/promote the SWPP.

Hugh

so what...

if no one defends them - people moan, if people defend them - people moan. What way round do you want it?

Get a life

 

[jolsterj]

so what...

if no one defends them - people moan, if people defend them - people moan. What way round do you want it?

Get a life

 

[boyfalldown]

so what...

if no one defends them - people moan, if people defend them - people moan. What way round do you want it?

Get a life

wasn't a moan -it was an observation - simples. you can observe without some **** *** coming out with get a life comments

 

[Matt]

no need for that Richard, please dont descend to telling people to get a life.

 

[inaneredstripe]

is that the same SWPP who threaten to take you to court if you forget to pay your subs on time?.
and you have to give notice to quit their organisation, at least three months before you decide to quit?.
my mrs reckoned it was a joke having the tutoring settup run by the guys who,s charging money, and judging comps too.
my mrs is seriously considering her renewal.

 

[fracster]

This thread is great, keep it going please..................

 

[boyfalldown]

is that the same SWPP who threaten to take you to court if you forget to pay your subs on time?.
and you have to give notice to quit their organisation, at least three months before you decide to quit?.
my mrs reckoned it was a joke having the tutoring settup run by the guys who,s charging money, and judging comps too.
my mrs is seriously considering her renewal.

I have to agree with your Mrs................ I've been thinking along the same lines, although I have to admit when until recently I've been more then happy.

Was rather unimpressed that when my renewal was due last Sept, I got multiple email and phone call(although during normal office hours) 'reminders' before due date

Hugh

 

[Holden Caulfield]

And that would merit a ban?

I dont know David, but I do know how (and why) the SWPP was set up Derek and myself met on quite a few occasions in the 80's at trade exhibitions.

I am sure the organisation has moved on and developed since then to answer your question I think you joined the forum to defend an organistion that serves you well in your comercial ventures .

And by the way I care little 'how well' you get to know me in the new year , which sounds like a veiled threat IMHO.

Re-arrange these word in to a sentence Duck, looks , if ,walks , it sounds , duck ,like, it, is, a, like, duck, it , is

 

[Yv]

Frankly, no, it doesn't merit a ban. Whilst David has made a point of defending the SWPP, in the interest of a balanced discussion, his viewpoint is as valid as the next person who has expressed it in a reasonable and polite manner.
I hope his promise that people will get to know him means that he plans [and indeed to a small extent already has] to join in other forum areas, so I think for now, there needs to be no more references to his reasons for joining and perhaps focus more on the discussion at hand.

 

[Dave Routledge]

I dont know David, but I do know how (and why) the SWPP was set up Derek and myself met on quite a few occasions in the 80's at trade exhibitions.

I am sure the organisation has moved on and developed since then to answer your question I think you joined the forum to defend an organistion that serves you well in your comercial ventures .

And by the way I care little 'how well' you get to know me in the new year , which sounds like a veiled threat IMHO.

Re-arrange these word in to a sentence Duck, looks , if ,walks , it sounds , duck ,like, it, is, a, like, duck, it , is

Hi everyone

I would just like to point out that I am not wishing to keep off topic, but have asked for and kindly been given permission by the moderator to offer the following clarifying statement:

As I have been the subject of some rather fanciful speculation I thought it best to explain how I got here and what my intentions are.

Follwing Mark's resignation from the SWPP, I visted his blog, where he suggested that a search on the internet would throw up some bad experience stories, so I did that and found this site.

Having read the thread I found that Ali's post seemed to imply that the SWPP had cancelled the membership of Mark's staff, this was not quite the whole picture, as Mark had requested that they do so. I wanted to point that out, so I registered. Having posted, I then became involved with the thread and continued to comment on what I felt were unfair, biased, inaccurate and personally insulting comments, that, if legally challenged COULD have been libelous. Having joined initially to respond to this thread, I have always intended to participate in the forum as a whole, and will do this in due course.

I am not a "plant" or a "Duck", I am just an ordinary guy like everyone else. I have not been asked to comment here by the SWPP, nor do I report back to them (they can read for themselves).

To those of you who have expressed cynicism or suspicion I would say quite simply that your presumptions are in error and your fears unfounded.

Rory:

I think you need to brush up on your Duckology my friend, you are wrong about me!!! Not all people are "phonies" Holden, when I said people would get to know me better I meant just that. I am not some sort of forum terrorist who issues veiled threats! Think of me if you will as a child running through the rye, who needs someone to catch him

I do hope that we become friends Rory, as that, in a nutshell, is the reason why I intend to remain a member of this forum.

I wish you all a happy New Year.

PS: I have taken a little poetic licence with the homework you set me:

Nice man, looks , if ,walks , it sounds , nice man ,like, it, is, a, like, nice man, it , is

God bless
Dave

 

[Richard King]

no need for that Richard, please dont descend to telling people to get a life.

at least I didn't say **** *** - which is what the person who criticised my post did. However I stand by my original point, collectively we cant complain if someone doesn't defend something, and then complain when someone does.

 

[boyfalldown]

at least I didn't say **** *** - which is what the person who criticised my post did. However I stand by my original point, collectively we cant complain if someone doesn't defend something, and then complain when someone does.

Richard,

I replyed to your post - not criticised it, after you directly told me to get a life - as I said my post was an observation, not a complaint - the difference is easy to get.

Hugh

 

[AliB]

Dave, the "customers" who's membership was cancelled was in reference to another member, not Mark or his staff. I did however find it interesting that Mark's membership was cancelled immediately without the need for the obligatory three month notice period that SWPP enforce so rigidly on the rest of it's customers and also that Mark's staff had their memberships cancelled immediately too simply because Mark requested it.

The rather obvious precedent that sets is quite disturbing in that by the same token I should be able to contact HQ and simply ask for YOURS to be cancelled!

 

[Richard King]

RPS it is then - I have never seen such silliness in conversations about the RPS

Good enough for David Baliey, good enough for me

 

[inaneredstripe]

CONTINUES READING WITH INTEREST.

 

[jolsterj]

CONTINUES READING WITH INTEREST.

Me too strangely enough why I have no idea:bang:

 

[dod]

would all those looking for a train wreck please move to the next station :shake:

 

[mike weeks]

Having a Giraffe,

did a google for SWPP and the ninth listing is this http://www.uk-photographers.biz/art...ety-of-Wedding-and-Portrait-Photographers.asp so nice to start the day with a spot of humour - shame that the management do not enforce these policies for those that do work in a professional manner.

Mike

 

[artona]

I think the reason this thread has collected so much interest is that most would love to see The SWPP be what it claims to be.

It has got too big for the family to run. It could be time to get a board of unemotional directors in.

Of course the only ones who could decide on that would be the jones family themselves but I would put money on that descision making them a whole load of money and losing them a whole load of stress.

 

[mike weeks]

I think the reason this thread has collected so much interest is that most would love to see The SWPP be what it claims to be.

It has got too big for the family to run. It could be time to get a board of unemotional directors in.

Look at the MPA & BIPP and there are really 2 sides - the businesss and promotion and an elected council that decides policy and direction. At present policy and direction are decided by the Jones family with many policies being seen as being done because it makes them money and not because it is for the good of photography. The SWPP will never adopt such a policy because it is not to the benefit of the Jones family, but I would love to be proved wrong.

The SWPP has a bigger membership than the MPA or BIPP and has the potential to be a real force to do good, but unfortunately I do not see them working for the benefit of photography but for their own benefit. The Bowers incident was the perfect opportunity for the SWPP to show how professional it is, they were encouraged to do so by a number of photographers but instead they did nothing. Strangely most of those that spoke up are ex members, often not by their own choice - maybe that tells you something.

I would rather be able to discuss this within the SWPP and help it become what it could be but they withdrew that possibility.

Mike

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Think of me if you will as a child running through the rye, who needs someone to catch him

Right you are then

 

[RobH]

The SWPP has a bigger membership than the MPA or BIPP

Mike

I'm currently looking to join a society/association, but because I'm not a working pro it appears I can't, however as a aspiring tog i can join the SWPP and I've read this thread from the beginning and I can't offer any information as I''m not a member,but maybe a year or so won't be to harmful, though i would rather earn something than buy it!

I am fully aware that I'm a good way from becoming good enough to promote myself as a pro, but feel that being part of something like the BIPP/MPA/RPS etc could only benefit me, maybe this is why the SWPP membership is larger than the others stated.

Rob.

 

[Radiohead]

It has a bigger membership because anyone with £99 can join. It's no different to the AA in that respect.

Until there is some sort of peer review, of a minimum standard, then it's essentially worthless to anyone who is looking for a photographer with a meaningful membership/qualification and who does their homework.

Put it this way - I've never been asked if I'm a member of the SWPP.

 

[~Sam~]

"Put it this way - I've never been asked if I'm a member of the SWPP. "

Do you meet people who ask you if you are a member of ANY association? I only ask because I'm not sure the average person is even aware of these, though I bet some would be swayed a little when they saw a 'badge' on a web-site.

 

[Radiohead]

Nope - they book me on:

a) a referral/recommendation/google/venue visit
b) they look at my site and like what they see
c) I list lots of testimonials and always offer to put them in touch with any client they pick at random
d) I show them full weddings on a separate site to the main blog
e) they see sample albums and we have a full meeting

 

[boyfalldown]

Do you meet people who ask you if you are a member of ANY association? I only ask because I'm not sure the average person is even aware of these, though I bet some would be swayed a little when they saw a 'badge' on a web-site.

I'm not sure how many are aware of them as organisations, but one thing the SWPP are very good at is marketting themselves. I've had 4 bookings to date where people have found me just through the SWPP website - I don't advertise I'm a member on my own. Nobody other than those 4 has ever expressed the slightest interest though

H

 

[mike weeks]

"Put it this way - I've never been asked if I'm a member of the SWPP. "

Do you meet people who ask you if you are a member of ANY association? I only ask because I'm not sure the average person is even aware of these, though I bet some would be swayed a little when they saw a 'badge' on a web-site.

Unfortunately people are now asking this to ensure that you are not in the same organisation as Bowers was.

Big does not mean better, just the chance of more influence.

Mike

 

[RobH]

Thanks for the pointers about the membership status, maybe it's just a confidence thing that i feel i need to be associated with a organisation of this type.

I', waiting on several e-mail replies and away on a jolly for a few days tomorrow, so nothing likely to happen in the mean time.

Thanks to those who Pm'd me much appreciated.

Rob.