Royal Camera & Video doesn't honor posted prices

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:EVbsd.194369$hj.64720@fed1read07...

> What do I have to complain about? I don't do business with any of the
> bait 'n' switch places who advertise there, only with B&H. Now, if I were
> B&H, I might pressure PopPhoto into cleaning up the mess, since the
> slimeballs who advertise there make B&H 1) look like they're of the same
> ilk, or 2) make B&H's prices look high and uncompetitive by comparison,
> since, of course, the bait 'n' switch guys have no intention of actually
> selling a camera at those prices.

Good point -- and let's note that Samy's and Adorama are also reliable --
but the individual magazine reader *does* have a complaint, too, or at least
the opportunity to inform the magazine that its credibility is being
undermined.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:KK_rd.193249$hj.53400@fed1read07...
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:IPSrd.112145$6w6.74445@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>>
>> Carol Ane A. Bloomquist wrote:
>>
>>> Royal Camera & Video of Brooklyn, NY, will not honor its WEB posted
>>> prices. This company uses discounted prices advertised for the Canon
>>> EOS 1D Mark II DSLR, $2999.00, to lure customers into ordering. When
>>> the invoice arrives, they charge the full undiscounted US price,
>>> $4199.99.
>>> I got stung by this racket, and am pursuing getting my credit card
>>> company to fight for me, hopefully to force these crooks to honor
>>> their advertised price to me. Beware!
>>
>> I would also contact Popular Photography and tell them exactly what
>> happened. Ask them to find out why one of their advertisers is scamming
>> you, and whether they will continue to be allowed to advertise.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
> PopPhoto couldn't care less. These guys, and others like them, have been
> advertising for years under a variety of names, PopPhoto has never done
> anything to enforce their supposed policy of ethics, despite numerous and
> constant complaints.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Wow! I'm shocked to hear you say this If Popular Photography (or any of
the other magazines that carry these thieves advertisements) enforced their
policy then they would no longer receive the advertising income paid by
Royal. That would be against Popular Photography's best interest and they
could care less about their reader's interests.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>I suggest that anyone who identifies a photo scammer should write to
>>his/her
>>Congressman. Government is ignoring something that government ought not
>>to
>>ignore. Crime is crime and fraud is fraud. A set of congressional
>>hearings
>>would be a good thing.
>>
> Wouldn't a District Attorney be a better target? Fraud laws already
> exist; a legislator will point that out. It's now up to the DA to
> apply those laws we already have.
> Or a civil court.

But we have national trend of tolerating and ignoring fraud, especially when
it is conducted through the Internet. That's why I suggested trying to get
the attention of Congress, not to make more laws against fraud, but to
allocate resources toward enforcing them and make it a priority.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Wow! I'm shocked to hear you say this If Popular Photography (or any
> of
> the other magazines that carry these thieves advertisements) enforced
> their policy then they would no longer receive the advertising income paid
> by Royal. That would be against Popular Photography's best interest and
> they could care less about their reader's interests.

If word got out that too many of their advertisers were charlatans, they'd
no longer have readers.

The Internet makes it much easier for word to get out.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael A. Covington" writes:
>>> Carol Ane A. Bloomquist wrote:

>>>> Royal Camera & Video of Brooklyn, NY, will not honor its WEB posted
>>>> prices. This company uses discounted prices advertised for the Canon
>>>> EOS 1D Mark II DSLR, $2999.00, to lure customers into ordering. When
>>>> the invoice arrives, they charge the full undiscounted US price,
>>>> $4199.99.

> Of course, the problem is that a web site is not permanent. You
> could save a copy of it, but you couldn't prove it wasn't altered by
> you.

Well, their current web page lists the Canon EOS 1D Mark II body for
even less: $ 2879.00 !
http/www.royalcamera.com/digitalcameras-canon.html

I guess you could get a lawyer to view the page with you, and then
get her to testify that the printout was authentic.

I just "bought" a Mark II from RoyalCamera for $2879.00, and noticed
that their checkout is run by Yahoo (https/order.store.yahoo.com).
I wonder how Yahoo would react if they were told what sort of scams
their client uses their service for?
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http/folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q5pt1p29cl.fsf@viisi.ifi.uio.no...

> I just "bought" a Mark II from RoyalCamera for $2879.00, and noticed
> that their checkout is run by Yahoo (https/order.store.yahoo.com).
> I wonder how Yahoo would react if they were told what sort of scams
> their client uses their service for?

Yahoo would be very concerned. They don't want it damaging their reputation
or trademark. Take it up with them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:abpsd.547$KS7.88@fe12.lga...
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:KK_rd.193249$hj.53400@fed1read07...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:IPSrd.112145$6w6.74445@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Carol Ane A. Bloomquist wrote:
>>>
>>>> Royal Camera & Video of Brooklyn, NY, will not honor its WEB posted
>>>> prices. This company uses discounted prices advertised for the Canon
>>>> EOS 1D Mark II DSLR, $2999.00, to lure customers into ordering. When
>>>> the invoice arrives, they charge the full undiscounted US price,
>>>> $4199.99.
>>>> I got stung by this racket, and am pursuing getting my credit card
>>>> company to fight for me, hopefully to force these crooks to honor
>>>> their advertised price to me. Beware!
>>>
>>> I would also contact Popular Photography and tell them exactly what
>>> happened. Ask them to find out why one of their advertisers is scamming
>>> you, and whether they will continue to be allowed to advertise.
>>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier
>>
>> PopPhoto couldn't care less. These guys, and others like them, have been
>> advertising for years under a variety of names, PopPhoto has never done
>> anything to enforce their supposed policy of ethics, despite numerous and
>> constant complaints.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
> Wow! I'm shocked to hear you say this If Popular Photography (or any
> of the other magazines that carry these thieves advertisements) enforced
> their policy then they would no longer receive the advertising income paid
> by Royal. That would be against Popular Photography's best interest and
> they could care less about their reader's interests.
>
>
(Shrug) No kidding, but I was just pointing out to the PP (PreviousPoster)
the futility of complaining, not the reason for the futility. But I'll
reiterate what I said in a subsequent post, if the legit vendors threatened
to pull their ads because the slimeballs make them look uncompetitive, maybe
PopPhoto would listen to them. They certainly have no incentive to listen
to their readers...

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:31:12 -0800, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:abpsd.547$KS7.88@fe12.lga...
>> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:KK_rd.193249$hj.53400@fed1read07...
>>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:IPSrd.112145$6w6.74445@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carol Ane A. Bloomquist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Royal Camera & Video of Brooklyn, NY, will not honor its WEB posted
>>>>> prices. This company uses discounted prices advertised for the Canon
>>>>> EOS 1D Mark II DSLR, $2999.00, to lure customers into ordering. When
>>>>> the invoice arrives, they charge the full undiscounted US price,
>>>>> $4199.99.
>>>>> I got stung by this racket, and am pursuing getting my credit card
>>>>> company to fight for me, hopefully to force these crooks to honor
>>>>> their advertised price to me. Beware!
>>>>
>>>> I would also contact Popular Photography and tell them exactly what
>>>> happened. Ask them to find out why one of their advertisers is scamming
>>>> you, and whether they will continue to be allowed to advertise.
>>>>
>>>> Gary Eickmeier
>>>
>>> PopPhoto couldn't care less. These guys, and others like them, have been
>>> advertising for years under a variety of names, PopPhoto has never done
>>> anything to enforce their supposed policy of ethics, despite numerous and
>>> constant complaints.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Skip Middleton
>>> http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>> Wow! I'm shocked to hear you say this If Popular Photography (or any
>> of the other magazines that carry these thieves advertisements) enforced
>> their policy then they would no longer receive the advertising income paid
>> by Royal. That would be against Popular Photography's best interest and
>> they could care less about their reader's interests.
>>
>>
>(Shrug) No kidding, but I was just pointing out to the PP (PreviousPoster)
>the futility of complaining, not the reason for the futility. But I'll
>reiterate what I said in a subsequent post, if the legit vendors threatened
>to pull their ads because the slimeballs make them look uncompetitive, maybe
>PopPhoto would listen to them. They certainly have no incentive to listen
>to their readers...

Well, they do. (Long message follows...)
Most commercial enterprises, the publishers of Pop Photo included,
exist to make money for their owners.
For magazines such as Pop Photo, who actually brings in the money? The
readers, or the advertisers?
At first glance, it would seem the answer is the advertisers, since
what the readers pay for the mag doesn't make much of a dent in the
costs of publication, much less add to the prifit.
Yet the real answer is both; with no readers, the adveritisers won't
pay. If readership goes down, so do the rates the advertisers pay.
Thus, there's a real incentive to listen to the readers; if they feel
they aren't getting value for what they pay for the mag, or worse,
that the mag is contributing to their being ripped off, they won't buy
the magazine, and ad revenue goes down.
Note, I'm saying there is the incentive, not that the incentive is
actually doing any good.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"