"They publish your pictures", a prize or a con

[Phil V]

It's a valid point, but has one major flaw...

The TP calendar costs less than a self produced 'vanity' version would, whereas (if Phil's figures are correct) the book that we are talking about here costs more.

So all good then, just another curveball trying to dodge the issue.

If people want to submit a photo and 'get published' good luck to them. But can we at least acknowledge that there are several valid viewpoints.

 

[MartynK]

Fair enough! but I can't see how the cost is relevant?

It isn't. The principle is the same, and the cost is just a distraction.

 

[gramps]

(Windows Support)
What they actually sell is anti-malware software (which everyone actually has a use for) - they convince you that you need it by exploiting your own paranoia and ignorance. You could have used free products - but why should they tell you that, they're running a business.

No, they tell you (at least every time that they have called me) that your PC "has been found to be infected with viruses" ... that is a lie and hence everything else based on that lie is fraud.

Would a photography forum selling calendars with photos submitted by their members for free also be carrying out a scam? .... :shrug:

Based on the arguments of a few here, yes it would, the principle is exactly the same.
The TP calendar clearly shows that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with collating photos in this way and selling them back to the photographers ... why?
Because those participating understand the process, make an informed decision and agree to what happens - exactly like those buying the book.

 

[mid_gen]

Still trying to underhand what is being objected to. What is it about the proposed transaction that is not entirely clear? Send photo. May get printed. May get copy of book. What is deceitful here?

There's nothing 'abstract' about the idea that people are entirely free to give away their images.

Question : is the National Lottery a scam?

 

[mid_gen]

I don't believe that I mentioned fraud at all.

Consider this:

You have a car.

You don't particularly value your car.

You give me your car.

I lease your car back to you for $100 pcm.

You use your car.

Capice?

Someone needs to find a dictionary and brush up on their grasp of the English language. This is not a scam. Look it up. Feel free to share the definition here when you find it.

 

[DeeW]

From the opinion of someone very new to photography, a quote from their final replied email "We are in no way ashamed of what we are doing here and it is absolutely not exploitative."
Personally, I believe it is exploitive, and that they should be ashamed.
I see this no different than those pieces of junk mail that claim you have won a prize if you ring this number charging £1.50 a minute.
Yes, no one makes you pick up the telephone, but clever wording does not change the end result.
Just my opinion.

 

[POAH]

I never get this kind of thread. It is always supposedly Pros vs. Ams. People entering this kind of comp are no threat to my business, I am not even a full time pro. I just don't like to see people being taken advantage of. In the same way that I warn my elderly neighbours of the phone scam involving windows viruses, I simply do not like to see people getting ripped off.

People are not getting taken advantage of or ripped off. You read the rules and then make a choice of either to submit or not.

I really don't see what the big deal here is.

 

[DemiLion]

Someone needs to find a dictionary and brush up on their grasp of the English language. This is not a scam. Look it up. Feel free to share the definition here when you find it.

If you read my reply, you'll see that I agreed with you; ie that it isn't a scam. It is a con, however.

 

[Phil V]

Someone needs to find a dictionary and brush up on their grasp of the English language. This is not a scam. Look it up. Feel free to share the definition here when you find it.

The definition of a scam is:
To obtain by fraud or deceit.

Given that I gave out the details of the actual business model at play here half way through this thread - it's not obvious from the companies marketing of the competition, nor was it obvious to the various defenders of the 'book'. Is it therefore not true that the publishers of this book are using deceit for gain?

It's a genuine question, if all of the defenders are completely aware of exactly how this business practice works - then it's not a scam. However - if one single person sees the practice exactly as the publishers have described it - it's by definition a scam - as those people have been deceived.

 

[gramps]

I see this no different than those pieces of junk mail that claim you have won a prize if you ring this number charging £1.50 a minute.
Yes, no one makes you pick up the telephone, but clever wording does not change the end result.

If the recipient picks up the phone knowing that there is a £1.50 pm charge then it isn't a scam. The people buying the book know the conditions of the sale so it isn't a scam either.
If the 'prize' example conceals the £1.50pm charge then that would be a scam, similarly if the book publishers concealed what they were doing it would be a scam ... but they don't, so it isn't.

It is a con, however.

'Con' = 'confidence trick' ... def: "Fraudulent scheme to acquire access, information, money, or property by deceiving a trusting victim."

In this case nothing is 'fraudulent' and there is no deception.

The definition of a scam is:
To obtain by fraud or deceit.

Given that I gave out the details of the actual business model at play here half way through this thread - it's not obvious from the companies marketing of the competition, nor was it obvious to the various defenders of the 'book'. Is it therefore not true that the publishers of this book are using deceit for gain?

It's a genuine question, if all of the defenders are completely aware of exactly how this business practice works - then it's not a scam. However - if one single person sees the practice exactly as the publishers have described it - it's by definition a scam - as those people have been deceived.

For your claim to be true you will have to prove that someone has been 'deceived' and there is no evidence of that ... your suggestion that the publishers have used 'deceit' is baseless.

 

[viv1969]

My advice to these photographers would be to send pictures to the local BBC weatherman, you get to see it for free...............

Just to be as pedantic as many others here....No you don't get to see it for free, unless you are exempt from paying the License Fee.

 

[Phil V]

For your claim to be true you will have to prove that someone has been 'deceived' and there is no evidence of that ... your suggestion that the publishers have used 'deceit' is baseless.

You can see I offered an answer in my post - yet you skim past it, if anyone here believes that the purpose of this book is a general sale to a wide audience, then IMO they have been deceived because I don't believe that to be the case.

Many people appear to hold that belief - so you have an alternative answer and my claim of deceit is correct; founded on my belief that the purpose of the book is simply to make sales to it's contributors.

Of course, as I said before - if you can walk into any WH Smiths in the country and pick up this book in 12 months time - I will be wrong, and happy to admit it (as I've already said). I'm a grown up and I've been wrong before.

On the other hand, you don't appear to be able to comprehend that there's a chance you could be wrong . Your argument hanging simply on the basis that people are free to get involved if they believe they know the score (no acknowledgement that they might misunderstand the situation).

 

[Phil V]

Just to be as pedantic as many others here....No you don't get to see it for free, unless you are exempt from paying the License Fee.

I should have said 'for no further cost' making the assumption that if you're sending pictures to the BBC, you already receive their services.

 

[gramps]

You can see I offered an answer in my post - yet you skim past it, if anyone here believes that the purpose of this book is a general sale to a wide audience, then IMO they have been deceived because I don't believe that to be the case.

We are going to print 1000 copies of the book and take a risk that nobody will purchase a copy. This is a commercial venture and we are in no way pretending that it is not. Do you seriously believe that we should run this venture as a charitable exercise fully funded out of our own pocket with 100% of the risk taken by us and absolutely no possibility of a return on the investment that we are making?

Where is the deceit?

 

[On the Huh]

We are going to print 1000 copies of the book and take a risk that nobody will purchase a copy........Do you seriously believe that we should run this venture as a charitable exercise fully funded out of our own pocket with 100% of the risk taken by us and absolutely no possibility of a return on the investment that we are making?

That bit don't make a lot of sense to me. Or am I just having a senior moment? :shrug:

 

[Phil V]

Where is the deceit?

I would guess that the number of copies printed will have been calculated from the number of published photographers with an estimated multiplier*, and they appear to believe they've done their sums too.

As a side note; I think it's hilarious that you're quoting what they say as proof that it's a fact. Like religious people quoting the bible as a warning to non-believers - just really funny. BTW if you read it, there's no mention of their advertising or promotion strategy - they just say it's a 'commercial venture' and you read 'we're hoping for a bestseller' - of course it's a commercial venture. No-one runs a con to lose money.

*this would be known from people running similar schemes - for instance I know of 2 local amateur poets, who were 'published' both bought a book for themselves and one bought a copy as a gift for a parent, the other one's parent bought a copy to show off to her friends. I've never seen either book for general sale - though it was for sale to anyone who wished to buy it from the publishers at the time.

The 1000 copies could be an ambitious over-estimation or it could be the lowest practical number for the economy of scale. I'd generally guess that photographers have a reasonable disposable income (due to the amount of kit they buy), so each contributor purchasing multiple copies ought to be a banker - or so the publishers appear to believe - and I'd guess they're not wrong.

 

[gramps]

That bit don't make a lot of sense to me. Or am I just having a senior moment? :shrug:

Senior moment

I would guess that the number of copies printed will have been calculated from the number of published photographers with an estimated multiplier*, and they appear to believe they've done their sums too.

As a side note; I think it's hilarious that you're quoting what they say as proof that it's a fact. Like religious people quoting the bible as a warning to non-believers - just really funny. BTW if you read it, there's no mention of their advertising or promotion strategy - they just say it's a 'commercial venture' and you read 'we're hoping for a bestseller' - of course it's a commercial venture. No-one runs a con to lose money.

*this would be known from people running similar schemes - for instance I know of 2 local amateur poets, who were 'published' both bought a book for themselves and one bought a copy as a gift for a parent, the other one's parent bought a copy to show off to her friends. I've never seen either book for general sale - though it was for sale to anyone who wished to buy it from the publishers at the time.

The 1000 copies could be an ambitious over-estimation or it could be the lowest practical number for the economy of scale. I'd generally guess that photographers have a reasonable disposable income (due to the amount of kit they buy), so each contributor purchasing multiple copies ought to be a banker - or so the publishers appear to believe - and I'd guess they're not wrong.

It's clearly not designed to be a W H Smith best-seller, it's specific to the website that sells the books - it isn't a deceit and it isn't a scam and it has nothing to do with religion or the bible but clearly you are on your one man crusade ... happy disciple-making

 

[DerekL]

My opinion is you have too much time on your hands.

3rd post and now relevant to too many in this thread.
It's a load of nonsense about sod all.

 

[Phil V]

Senior moment



It's clearly not designed to be a W H Smith best-seller, it's specific to the website that sells the books - it isn't a deceit and it isn't a scam and it has nothing to do with religion or the bible but clearly you are on your one man crusade ... happy disciple-making

It's obvious that you and I will never agree on most things, we have a clearly different outlook on life, but I did hope that perhaps I could help you lift the curtain a little to see who the wizard really was on this occasion - it appears not.

I must get some of those dictionaries printed.


gullible [guhl-uh-buhl] mmmm

 

[POAH]

Hmm,

except... POAH, 2 crap contributions. If you have nothing intelligent to contribute then why are you here? Oh, 5000 posts, too much time on your hands?

Tis the truth however - you far too much spare time on your hands.

 

[odd jim]

I'm surprised they even bothered to reply to your original email. I wouldn't have.

I understand the pro debate but this is clearly for hobbyists so I really don't see the need to get precious about some otherwise worthless happy snaps.

 

[DeeW]

If the recipient picks up the phone knowing that there is a £1.50 pm charge then it isn't a scam. The people buying the book know the conditions of the sale so it isn't a scam either.
If the 'prize' example conceals the £1.50pm charge then that would be a scam, similarly if the book publishers concealed what they were doing it would be a scam ... but they don't, so it isn't.

I believe the word I used was exploitative - unfairly or cynically using another person or group for profit or advantage. Completely different to a scam, but just as immoral IMO.