Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Royal Camera & Video doesn't honor posted prices

Thread Tools

Royal Camera & Video doesn't honor posted prices

Big Bill
Posts: n/a
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:31:12 -0800, "Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)>

>"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:abpsd.547$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:KK_rd.193249$hj.53400@fed1read07...
>>> "Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:IPSrd.112145$(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>>> 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

>> 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"
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
THANKS re Royal Camera JRYezierski Digital Photography 3 12-31-2005 01:01 PM
ROYAL CAMERA BROOKLYNE NY JRYezierski Digital Photography 13 12-27-2005 12:18 AM
Royal Camera experience John Digital Photography 3 07-24-2004 12:28 AM
Royal Camera?? schuetzen - RKBA! Digital Photography 2 05-16-2004 04:31 AM
Royal Camera? Digital Photography 8 01-07-2004 03:53 AM