Shenanigans at the SWPP

[seriousrikk]

Some of the comments regarding the SWPP are moving away from professional concern into an area of personal slur.


Dave

And why should individual personalities of the people in charge of the SWPP not be brough into question? Quite frankly I think it is fully justified having read some open & honest accounts of how they treat people. Professional respect is earned not deserved

 

[mike weeks]

Surely comparing people's leadership style to that of the Nazis is grossly offensive and going way too far?

Some of the comments regarding the SWPP are moving away from professional concern into an area of personal slur.

Even the Nazis used to hold trials, something the SWPP has never done so I dont think that it is in any way unfair to the SWPP.

If you look at the SWPP site Phil Jones is FSWPP (hon) so he does not hold a high level photographic qualification through photographic endeavour - he is the CEO and has awarded himself it. His profile says the following;

Born into photography, Phil’s father ran a successful GP studio in North Wales for over 40 years.

Phil studied photography on the Wirral and after working for a while in the photographic retail sector, joined in the family business in 1984. Upon his father’s retirement Phil ran his own studio specializing in social photography for 12 years.

During the 1990’s Phil was a Regional Chairman of the Master Photographers Association and served on numerous committee’s.

In August 1999 Phil took over the running of the Society of Wedding and Portrait Photographers upon the retirement of Derek Avery FSWPP, and in January 2000 Phil took over the running of the British Professional Photographers Assoc.

On their own Whos Who section, 6 of the 11 featured are a Jones family member, so you get a job not because of your skill or knowledge in photography but because of nepotism and there you have it, the SWPP is a family business and that is the problem because it has no elected council which any real professional body has, just look at MPA and BIPP.


Mike

 

[Dave Routledge]

And why should individual personalities of the people in charge of the SWPP not be brough into question? Quite frankly I think it is fully justified having read some open & honest accounts of how they treat people. Professional respect is earned not deserved

Hi Richard


Thank you for your comment; I just think that calling someone a "failed photographer" and making comparisons with "Nazis" is unhelpful.


God bless
Dave

 

[Wildsnaps]

On their own Whos Who section, 6 of the 11 featured are a Jones family member, so you get a job not because of your skill or knowledge in photography but because of nepotism and there you have it, the SWPP is a family business and that is the problem because it has no elected council which any real professional body has, just look at MPA and BIPP.

To be fair, I don't think that there's too much problem with the nepotism shown here as the majority of the jobs are administrative. What is wrong is that one family has set itself up as what some perceive as a 'governing body' within our industry. The fact that they will not listen to what their membership is asking for is unacceptably dictatorial.

Simon

 

[MarkyP]

Are you lot still going on about SWPP?????

SWPP R.I.P.

Yes and long may it contunue.

The problem we have is that some of the Members within the SWPP are too frightened to speak out for fear of expulsion.

Threads like this are critical to give any prospective members a good balanced view of the SWPP.

If you look at the SWPP website it all looks rosey and professional. It is not until AFTER you have paid your beer tokens to join that you see the darker side of the organisation. At that point they don't care -they have already got your money.

So yes, threads like this are vital so people can see a debate and disccussion by those for and those against the organisation and keeps the topiv fresh and active.

For far too long the SWPP have ignored their Members. They have a very simple, and I have to admit, quite effective policy in place - Ignore everyone.

They are working the numbers in a way. If someone is griping today about the SWPP, then tomorrow that person will be griping about something else. So they know after a short time, it will all go away and they won't have had to answer a single question.

Threads like this really are important. For once, it won't go away and that is refreshing!

 

[spxxxx]

Hi Richard


Thank you for your comment; I just think that calling someone a "failed photographer" and making comparisons with "Nazis" is unhelpful.


God bless
Dave

Stew didn't say he was a failed photographer - just provided information on what he had heard ... you seem quite selective in what you are reading

Comparisons with other groups are the sign of free speech in a democracy and one that seems to be missing from the SWPP.

The way they threatened me with debt collectors etc actually puts them right up there with groups using bully boy tactics - and when shown to be total incompetents they didn't even have the good grace to apologise

 

[MARK AMIES]

I think the 'N' word is probably a bit on the strong side, and certainly to keep using it is not going to help. It is a deeply upsetting word to some people, and I think some restraint should be used.

 

[jolsterj]

Why if everythnig that is said is true would anyone want to be involved with this organisation?

Nobody is holding a gun to their heads......................just leave.

I really don't see the prob ''join something you like, leave something you don't like''


If they collapse because lots of people leave then so be it.

 

[AliB]

Nobody is holding a gun to their heads......................just leave.

Fair comment Jo and yes a lot of people are doing just that. The point of the discussion is simply to raise awareness to anyone in the photographic community that it may not be all sweetness and light as portrayed on SWPP. There IS another side to this particular organisation and if threads like this allow people to make an informed decision then it's entirely theirs to make.

 

[Dave Routledge]

Stew didn't say he was a failed photographer - just provided information on what he had heard ... you seem quite selective in what you are reading

Comparisons with other groups are the sign of free speech in a democracy and one that seems to be missing from the SWPP.

The way they threatened me with debt collectors etc actually puts them right up there with groups using bully boy tactics - and when shown to be total incompetents they didn't even have the good grace to apologise

Hi Simon, thank you for your comment.

I am not trying to be selective and I stand corrected, Stew did not say that he was a failed photographer, but the comment seemed to me to be heavily implying it. My apologies if I misinterpreted


God bless
Dave

 

[MarkyP]

Why if everythnig that is said is true would anyone want to be involved with this organisation?

Nobody is holding a gun to their heads......................just leave.

I really don't see the prob ''join something you like, leave something you don't like''


If they collapse because lots of people leave then so be it.

The problem is, in the majority of occasions, you don't find out what it is like until AFTER you have joined. You are then a member for 12 months as they sure won't give you a refund on your membership fee if you decide it's not for you.

The SWPP Management like to be in full control of any negative information both within and external to the organisation and where ever possible remove it, including the removal of negative threads on their own Forum. They love news - so long as it is the good variety!

Like many other businesses they have got their marketing nailed and anyone just joining the industry could be taken in by the marketing without hearing the FULL story.

And having the FULL story is only fair, right and proper. It gives prospective members sufficient information to make an informed decision without having to fall for clever marketing.

They could have chosen to answer the questions when asked by the members within the confines of the SWPP. They chose not to, so now those questions will be asked in the public domain, whatever medium is used.

Oh and just thinking about it, I did resign and I also DID get a refund of the balance my own and two of my other photographers membership fees so a precedent HAS been set. You wanna leave? Then you should be able to get a refund of any remaining Membership fees.

 

[susie]

There are obviously a lot of people contributing to this thread who are members of the SWPP, and considering the subject matter its really nice to see honest, well informed posts debating what is obviously a major issue in an intelligent reasoned way. Assuming the threads on the SWPP forum ran pretty much the same way and were as reasoned I really cannot understand the owners a) deleting the thread and b) pretending it is all rosy in SWPP land and will blow over so they can carry on as they are. From whats been posted on here it does not seem as if the members are asking for anything outrageous.

 

[jolsterj]

Thank you Ali for your reply and I agree with you completely.

Markyp........fair points there should be an opt out clause say at 3 month periods.

 

[MarkyP]

There are obviously a lot of people contributing to this thread who are members of the SWPP, and considering the subject matter its really nice to see honest, well informed posts debating what is obviously a major issue in an intelligent reasoned way. Assuming the threads on the SWPP forum ran pretty much the same way and were as reasoned I really cannot understand the owners a) deleting the thread and b) pretending it is all rosy in SWPP land and will blow over so they can carry on as they are. From whats been posted on here it does not seem as if the members are asking for anything outrageous.

An example for you...... if an SWPP member was to post a link on the SWPP Forum, to this very thread, chances are it would be removed as on the whole, the posts have not been very flattering to the SWPP.

If they were to repost said link, then chances are they would be told that they are "In contravention of the Forum rules" or some other excuse.

Freedom of information and the right to speak?

Not on the SWPP Forum when I was there.

 

[jolsterj]

An example for you...... if an SWPP member was to post a link on the SWPP Forum, to this very thread, chances are it would be removed as on the whole, the posts have not been very flattering to the SWPP.

If they were to repost said link, then chances are they would be told that they are "In contravention of the Forum rules" or some other excuse.

Freedom of information and the right to speak?

Not on the SWPP Forum when I was there.

Yes I agree again, but there is no freedom on the internet where someone owns or runs a site.They have the power to remove/delete and ban exactly who they want.

Not right i agree but a fact.

 

[AliB]

There are obviously a lot of people contributing to this thread who are members of the SWPP, and considering the subject matter its really nice to see honest, well informed posts debating what is obviously a major issue in an intelligent reasoned way. Assuming the threads on the SWPP forum ran pretty much the same way and were as reasoned I really cannot understand the owners a) deleting the thread and b) pretending it is all rosy in SWPP land and will blow over so they can carry on as they are. From whats been posted on here it does not seem as if the members are asking for anything outrageous.

There are a lot of very reasonable well balanced people who have been asking for change Susie and you are right in that members were not asking for anything that would necessarily have affected the profits for SWPP. None of us wish to see the Society flounder, we would like to see it an organisation proud to hold it's head up.

I have tried to be balanced and point out that it is not all bad at all, there are a lot of benefits and the comradeship can be exceptional. I just wish that extended to the running of it :shake:

 

[mercedes]

Every organisation from government down to the RAC have a veto on what level of dissent is allowed on their internal forums.
Everyone of the general public think they know how to run the country better and the same probably applies to the RAC members.

Reading this as someone with no connection with any 'club' it would seem that the SWPP have exercised their right to quell discussions on the running of their organisation too.
As has been said, if you don't like the way it's run then leave it to those who are getting the benefits.
It would seem from various posters that they are determined to be rabble rousers and continually harass the SWPP in whatever form they can.
This, especially after leaving, comes across as sour grapes that they weren't allowed to alter things, just because a few like minded members wanted changes.

It is, after all, a business and like any other business, if the owners, who from reading their descriptions on here sound like they're very experienced, decide to keep things as they are, then that's their perogative.

 

[AliB]

I think thats a tad harsh!

I have continually stated that there are plently of benefits in membership and I am still a member.

I am not "harassing the SWPP" in any way shape or form. I'm merely passing on my experiences and saying that it is up to others to make up their own mind regarding the benefits on offer, just make your decision in the knowledge that the SWPP is as heavily moderated as it is.

How else are you going to know that when all traces of any concerns are removed?

If you went from a forum like TP to that environment you could be quite surpised.

 

[mike weeks]

Mercedes,

you are missing the point here. The SWPP promotes itself heavily as being there for its members but when challenged or asked about services either closes down the thread or expells members.

Let us take a look at their landing page on their website;

When there is such a choice of representative organisations out there you may ask yourself, why the SWPP?

To us the answer is very simple. If you are a newcomer to the industry or considering a career change then we offer the most comprehensive range of educational seminars by inspirational speakers.

At last count there were at least organisations that cost £99 each to join, but there is only 1 forum with no dedicated areas for such things as wildlife, schools, press etc. There is in reality no training on anything other than portraits or weddings.

The profile of our membership contains many individuals who have enjoyed active careers in many of the traditional 'professions' and to whom 'professionalism' is second nature.

We are dedicated to providing quality training and mentoring to all that ask and want to progress in Professional Photography without prejudice or discrimination.

They will not publicly identify who is available and what their specialisms are. As an example they offered me assesment and mentoring for my equestrian work from somebody who has an RPS qualification in Cricket photography.

If you are already in practice and want to gain that all important edge over your competitors, then we can help you too.

Our invaluable 'Mentor Me' programme enables our members to receive a one to one appraisal of their work and advice for progression. All evaluation reports include recommendations for participation in training programmes pertinent to personal professional development and it doesn't just stop at reaching Licentiateship. In fact, that is only the beginning on a journey of lifelong learning.

This is one of the areas of upset. There is an additional program being offered called Mentor Me on Steroids (MMoS) which many believed was an actual SWPP offereing but have since found out that it is a private business. Why the upset? Those applying for an L or A etc. need to be assessed and who is one of the main assessors? well the person running the MMoS. It took a lot of questions and badgering on their forum before they would admit to such.

Go to the MPA or BIPP and you can obtain a list of mentors and assessors and it is run in an open and fair manner.

The SWPP has introduced a points system whereby you can gain photographic qualifications without having to submit a photograph, yes attend any of their seminars and you get points, and what do points make - qualifications - pay a lot and attend their convention and you get an even higher level of points - the more you pay them the more points you get - so next time you see somebody with an SWPP qualification just ask yourself 'did they work for this or did they buy it?' What is needed across the photographic industry is a totally independant assesment procedure that means that the likes of the SWPP can offer training but that they do not have a financial stake in your success or failure.

With effect from March 1st 2009 members will receive ‘Credits’ which accumulate and will go towards and subsequently gain the following photographic qualification/distinction -

Licentiate
Associate
Fellowship
New distinctions
Master (New distinction)
Grand Master (New distinction)

Each photography qualification/distinction will have a numeric value
Licentiate 100
Associate 500
Fellowship 1000
Master 2500
Grand Master 5000
Grand Master bar 5250

and then additional bars every 250 credits

Members can gain Credits with the following

Activity Credits
Monthly competition - Gold 2
20 x 16 Merit 2
Annual competition category Winner 25
20 x 16 category Winner 25
Overall Winner 50
20 x 16 Winner Overall 50
Seminar attendance 1
Convention attendance (Superclass) 2
Lecturing full day 75
Lecturing 4 hour 50
Lecturing 2 hour 25
Published magazine article below 1000 words 50
Published magazine article over 1000 words 75
Mentor Me advisor per report 25
Competition judging half day 50
Competition judging full day 75

so write 2 published articles below 1000 words and you can get your L

Mike

 

[MarkyP]

Every organisation from government down to the RAC have a veto on what level of dissent is allowed on their internal forums.
Everyone of the general public think they know how to run the country better and the same probably applies to the RAC members.

Reading this as someone with no connection with any 'club' it would seem that the SWPP have exercised their right to quell discussions on the running of their organisation too.
As has been said, if you don't like the way it's run then leave it to those who are getting the benefits.
It would seem from various posters that they are determined to be rabble rousers and continually harass the SWPP in whatever form they can.
This, especially after leaving, comes across as sour grapes that they weren't allowed to alter things, just because a few like minded members wanted changes.

It is, after all, a business and like any other business, if the owners, who from reading their descriptions on here sound like they're very experienced, decide to keep things as they are, then that's their perogative.

I think you have misunderstood a point or two:

This isn't diseent - this is members asking for clarification on certain point that they feel important to them. Not rabble rousing at all.

Second point. The SWPP has not renewed Memberships of members who appear to have made a noise. This is of course there perogative of course but draw your own conclusions from that.

Nobody is rabble rousing, nor SWPP bashing. It is merely a discussion on the benefits of being an SWPP Member and offering both sides of the story.

There are those who hate it with a passion, and there are those who find it a useful resource. No one is being judged for being a member or not being a Member.

 

[Garry Edwards]

so write 2 published articles below 1000 words and you can get your L

Fair point - but I was once 'awarded' and honoury F by a very respected organisation.
I felt flattered until I found out that they had awarded an 'earned' F to a doddery old boy just because he had written a history of photography, and another one to a couple who went on the camera club circuit giving clever slide shows... I didn't join, didn't pay the membership fee so never put the distinction after my name. But I can live with just my BA

It's worth remembering that a crop of new 'Professional bodies' were formed a few years ago when the EU were talking about making it compulsary for social photographers to be 'qualified' and so a lot of worried photographers joined a lot of dodgy new 'professional bodies' to get dodgy qualifications. Most of these newcomers didn't survive and I suppose it's inevitable that the ones that did survive have developed business practices that the real professional bodies wouldn't touch with a bargepole - but that's the difference between running a business and running a real professional body.

Personally, I've always been a bit suspicious of the SWPP but from running my own business, and from my association with another business, I've learned that even though the vast majority of customers may be delighted with the service/products, they very rarely say so on public forums, most of the forum posts are from people who, justifiably or not, are unhappy with the service or product. What I'm getting at here is that the more successful a business is, the more forum posts there will be about it, and most of those posts will be negative.
So, if 95% of forum posts happen to be negative, that doesn't indicate that 95% of the membership/customer base is unhappy

 

[chip]

An example for you...... if an SWPP member was to post a link on the SWPP Forum, to this very thread, chances are it would be removed as on the whole, the posts have not been very flattering to the SWPP.

If they were to repost said link, then chances are they would be told that they are "In contravention of the Forum rules" or some other excuse.

Freedom of information and the right to speak?

Not on the SWPP Forum when I was there.

A link to this thread HAS been posted on the SWPP forum (it's how I got here!), posted at 12.20pm and will be interesting to see how long it survives.

I too have questioned practices of the SWPP on a few threads, though not as vociferously as others..... and have been completely ignored.

I was surprised how warm and fuzzy the forum felt so soon after the Z debacle, then discovered all traces of any threads with controversial content had disappeared without trace.

Chris.

 

[AliB]

I have asked the member concerned to remove it on the grounds that content here at TP cannot be published elsewhere.

 

[spxxxx]

I have asked the member concerned to remove it on the grounds that content here at TP cannot be published elsewhere.

If it is a link then I don't see the problem

 

[Radiohead]

A link to this thread HAS been posted on the SWPP forum (it's how I got here!), posted at 12.20pm and will be interesting to see how long it survives.

I too have questioned practices of the SWPP on a few threads, though not as vociferously as others..... and have been completely ignored.

I was surprised how warm and fuzzy the forum felt so soon after the Z debacle, then discovered all traces of any threads with controversial content had disappeared without trace.

Chris.

Then you can expect the usual dummy-spitting over there.

 

[MarkyP]

I have asked the member concerned to remove it on the grounds that content here at TP cannot be published elsewhere.

Sorry........ the SWPP do not give you permission to edit any post after you have made it. The only way for it to be edited after sending is:

1. Request it be edited by SWPP management or

2. If they don't like it, or it "Contravenes Forum Rules" then they will remove it anyways.

No edit buttons on there

 

[AliB]

They can ask management remove it and that's what I have asked them to do.

 

[Pete W]

AliB

I will post what I want as a member of SWPP and a link is all I posted.... Do not bother with PM'ing me telling me I need your permission.... get a life...

 

[Pete W]

They can ask management remove it and that's what I have asked them to do.

Well true colours come out.......

 

[Simmotino]

AliB

I will post what I want as a member of SWPP and a link is all I posted.... Do not bother with PM'ing me telling me I need your permission.... get a life...

This has been a fascinating thread, covering both sides of peoples' experiences with SWPP, all carried out in a mature and dignified manner across 8 pages of comments.

Please don't spoil it by resorting to personal insults.

 

[AliB]

As the original author Pete, I think I am entitled to ask you to remove it.

I did not say you needed my permission I asked if you would kindly contact me before posting.

It is against the T&C's of this forum to publish it's content elswhere so it's TP you should really be asking.

And as for you attitude, all I can say is it you are fine advert for SWPP

 

[Pete W]

As the original author Pete, I think I am entitled to ask you to remove it.

I did not say you needed my permission I asked if you would kindly contact me before posting.

It is against the T&C's of this forum to publish it's content elswhere so it's TP you should really be asking.

And as for you attitude, all I can say is it you are fine advert for SWPP

I have not posted any content from this thread on SWPP only given them a link to here....... You may have started the thread but it has become many members thread now not just yours..... Where is the harm, Colin Jones on SWPP has already responded

 

[Pete W]

This has been a fascinating thread, covering both sides of peoples' experiences with SWPP, all carried out in a mature and dignified manner across 8 pages of comments.

Please don't spoil it by resorting to personal insults.

No personal insult other than AliB pm'ing me telling me I need permission..... to post a link to this thread on SWPP....

If worried should not have started or contributed to the thread...

 

[Pete W]

Well done AliB... Colin Jones has removed the thread as you requested.....


And i have asked it be reinstated

 

[spxxxx]

Ali .... the only thing I can find is:

You may not directly copy any of the content from this website for inclusion in any other publication, in any form

Which a link isn't doing - so why are you worried ?

 

[Simmotino]

Ali .... the only thing I can find is:



Which a link isn't doing - so why are you worried ?

Doesn't much matter now to be honest, as the thread has been taken down already.

To be honest, having read the debate across the preceding 8 pages, I doubt very much it would have stayed up for long anyway!

 

[AliB]

Funnily enough chaps I didn't ask SWPP to remove it.

 

[Yv]

Far be it from me to pre-empt anything, but this strikes me as good point to issue a reminder about playing nicely, season of goodwill, etc etc... thankyou

 

[Yv]

Doesn't much matter now to be honest, as the thread has been taken down already.

To be honest, having read the debate across the preceding 8 pages, I doubt very much it would have stayed up for long anyway!

I guess they have anyway - if I am reading right, Ali asked Pete, the poster [via pm] to ask them to remove it, he refused, but they have removed it anyway, which if nothing else just proves that they appear to not want to know, or dont want their members to know, anything about the concerns of some paying members.

 

[Simmotino]

Funnily enough chaps I didn't ask SWPP to remove it.

Sorry Ali, now I'm confused.

You said:

They can ask management remove it and that's what I have asked them to do.