re: FROGGY Photo charges & CHANGES

[absinthangel.livejournal.com]

.
Thougth this worth a post & wondering how others are feeling about it.    

..those of us that have already paid THE ADVERTISED $60 for a phot op with Mr Leonard Nimoy, have this last week, suffered the disclosure that  'oh that price was wrong/a mistake  - it is supposed to be $80 - oh but if you have already paid  $60 you must still pay the extra $20 now - oh and if you want a refund instead you have to wait until after D*C (practically a month) for it'.... if I hadnt already made a costume for the photo I would be wanting my money back .... and IMMEDIATELY.

How is it DragonCon can allow a precedence like this to be set?    If a vendor/dealer/photographer can do it once, they can do it again and to every price on their site! ... what guarantee do we all have that there will be no further increases to current advertised prices of other photo ops, excused as 'mistakes' but the customer has to cop the loss for the vendor's mistake?

Comments

[greycoupon.livejournal.com]

I don't care for Froggy's business practices at all and this is ridiculous.

They made the error, not the customer. I'll be continuing my boycott of paid photo ops again this year.

[dementia.livejournal.com]

I agree. I think they took all the personality out of meeting the celebs. Whatever happened to the days where you could walk up, get an autograph, and take a photo, all right there? Now you gotta pre-pay, get in another line, have this whole mass produced Olan Mills crap for twice the price? Pathetic. I also am continuing my boycott and will not ever participate.

[veracity]

Okay, I just love you for saying Olan Mills. Everyone else looks at me funny for saying that.

[http://users.livejournal.com/mad_brilliant_/]

IF YOU WOULD JUST LIKE A REFUND WE WILL BE DOING ANY AND ALL REFUNDS THE TUESDAY AFTER THE SHOW.

The above was copy/pasted from Froggy's site. If you don't want to pay the extra $20, then get a refund the Tuesday after DC. Sounds reasonable.

[dark-blade.livejournal.com]

Not so much. Now that $60 is tied up, and cannot be spent elsewhere at con. A lot of folks are running pretty tight for con this year.

[jarissa.livejournal.com]

This isn't DragonCon's bailiwick at all; D*C doesn't get a vote on how Froggy does business, they only get a vote on whether Froggy CAN do business at D*C at all next year. You folks remember the "vacation" people back in '07, with their little clipboards and their "win a cruise" scam: when D*C found out what those turkeys were up to, they got banned from ever coming back (and we got warnings posted here about their scamminess), but that was the limit of what the convention organizers could really do. The company had provided entirely reasonable (presumably faked) evidence of being a real company, before the convention.

No, it's not D*C you all should be asking questions of, it's the company that transferred your money to Froggy!
(And, maybe, your own lawyer, if you're REALLY mad and have a few hundred bucks to throw at it.)

I know so little about Froggy that I don't even know if they use PayPal. Paypal has a set of rules about transactions conducted through their service which might have an affect on this situation; each credit card company has its own set of rules, and none of them entirely agree, so this could easily range from "buyer beware" to "notify our fraud department" depending on the finance company involved, the size of the transaction, and the mindset of the department manager setting policy for the Resolutions Division involved.

Yanno, this might be a good topic for a panel at the EFF. The way that the law interacts with business conducted electronically is changing every month, sometimes every day.

What does federal law have to say about internet advertising and its relation to "deceptive business practices"?
Does it matter whether you have a dated record (such as a printout of an unaltered confirmation email) clearly stating a specific price for the service, that doesn't match what you're asked to pay subsequently?
Is there any sort of an allowance for an honest clerical error, or is the honest-but-fumblefingered website owner required to honor the lowest price he advertised ... or are they safe with a "reasonable advance warning to all customers of the error"? What constitutes "reasonable"?

What is the time period in which a business is required by law to refund a deposit on a pre-ordered Internet service?

What is the fine print on the agreement to use Froggy's photography service? Is there a clause that the price may change on a preorder?

Is there a clause that by purchasing/preordering, you commit yourself to arbitration in the event of a dispute ... and if so, will that hold up in Georgia? -- in your home state? -- in Froggy's official state of residence? -- for legal purposes, where DID that transaction take place?

How should a so-called "regular user" figure all of this out before doing business with an Internet-based company in the first place? Should electronic businesses be required to put their location of record someplace on their "about us" or "contact" pages?

Anybody want to spend some time cramming at their local Law Library in the next thirteen days?

[parisindy.livejournal.com]

could it be that Mr Nimoy changed his price? i don't know its just a question.

Froggy has always been very good to me in the past.

[neovenom.livejournal.com]

I can understand the frustration of having to pay more after you were already expecting a certain price for several weeks. Please keep in mind the staff at Froggy are human too; they're gonna make mistakes. Dealing with this kind of volume of con-goers, I think they do a good job of addressing people's concerns. The refund policy isn't anything new. Anyone who bought an advanced photo-op ticket should have seen that. That refund policy has been posted since the pre-sales went up.

And this is coming from someone who has had to pay that extra $20. Doesn't make me happy, but there's nothing unreasonable about it.

[thegraycat.livejournal.com]

Is this legal? If you advertise one price, and people pay that price up-front, I'm not sure you can legally 'change your mind' and require that they pay extra. You can change the price and charge future customers the new price, but I'm not sure you can go back and require additional payment from customers who have already paid.

If Nimoy signed a contract with the $60 price, he's stuck with it. If Froggy mistakenly advertised $60, when they agree to $80 (with Nimoy), they are stuck with it (at least for those people who have already paid). The customer may not always be right, but they shouldn't have to pay for a company's screw-up.

The refund policy is another matter - if that's what they advertise all the time, you can't complain about it.

[cuppaco.livejournal.com]

A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter contained in a contract. In contract law, one must first distinguish between mechanical calculations and business error when looking at unilateral mistake. For mechanical calculations, a party may be able to set aside the contract on these grounds provided that the other party does not try to take advantage of the mistake, or 'snatch up' the offer (involving a bargain that one did not intend to make, betrayed by an error in arithmetic, or something like that). This will be seen by an objective standard, or if a reasonable person would be able to know that the mistake would not make sense to one of the parties. Unless one of the parties 'snatched up' the one-sided offer, courts will otherwise uphold the contract. When a party is guilty of a error in business judgment, there is no relief.

Non-laywer explanation: When a customer sees a price that is obviously wrong, they can't scoop up the "scrivner's error" and force the other party to complete the deal. Example: those 40" flatscreen HDTVs that Best Buy accidently put up on their site for $9.99 when it was supposed to be $1999.99. However, here $60 was reasonable. It wasn't like $6.00 when it was supposed to be $60. I'd argue that here was a unilateral mistake on Froggy's part where the buyer wasn't trying to snatch up an obvious error to make a bargain. It was an error of business judgment, and for the people that prepaid Froggy should have to suck the $20.

*FWIW, this is not legal advice. I'm not licensed to practice law in Georgia (yet)*

[noelleleithe.livejournal.com]

I can understand someone making a mistake, but in that case, it's on Froggy's to absorb the cost, not the customer. They can certainly change the price to $80, but people who've already paid the advertised price cannot be required to pay the difference. I believe they're breaking state law by doing otherwise, and if I'd paid the price, I'd be looking into filing a complaint with the state about it.

[littledrow.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I agree with the Customer is Always Right people on this one. Granted, if the customer gets unruly and out of line, you dismiss them and refer to the We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service rule.

Having been a business owner myself, taken business/marketing/advertising courses, it is the general understanding that good business practices equates to if I made a mistake in my advertising, I am required by good business practices to honor that. If I overpriced in my marketing and decide to make a change, my customers who have paid are entitled to a refund of the difference. If I underpriced it is not a good idea to raise my prices and expect those who have already paid to cover the difference.

There is no "law" per se. It's just good customer service. I want my customers to come back. The best option is to keep the prices the way they are and learn my lesson about proofreading. If Mr. Nimoy has a contract that states $X, I am responsible for meeting that. I am bound by contractual law to meet that price. It is my mistake not my customers', therefore it is my responsibility to make up the difference.

This is just bad business practices and on the surface looks like this Froggy is taking advantage of his customers' inability to take their business elsewhere. There are no other photo ops with these stars available. Con goers have no choice but to pay up or lose out. That isn't right. That's called a Monopoly.

[nyreak.livejournal.com]

You explained this the way I was trying to when I replied last night. (I so shouldn't do things like that when I'm sleepy!) Well put. :)

[agirlcalledbob.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about doing a few Froggy photo ops (BSG cast, Buffy ladies, Felicia Day) but this news makes me change my mind. That may be an extreme decision on my part but its one that I'm very comfortable with, both in mind and pocket.

I will however be doing a Ben/Claudia photo through Craig Damon, because I would learn to punch myself in the neck if I missed that opportunity.

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

Chalk me up as another Dragon*Con regular who thinks this should be grounds for refusing Froggy access next year. This is truly shady.

[1ucifer.livejournal.com]

I've never been a fan of Froggy, but that is just bad business in general. They made the mistake, they should eat the costs. Demanding the customers chock up $20 more is ridiculous, and especially now? Why did they wait so long anyway?

[rosewalker.livejournal.com]

Was this paid through Paypal? If so, I would request an immediate refund, and if none is given, open a paypal dispute. You only have 45 days to open a paypal dispute. It may not get you a refund any faster (or even at all), but I've been screwed over waiting for a supposed refund from a seller that never came, and by the time I realized it was never coming, it was too late to open a dispute through paypal. Better cover yourself while you can if it will be over 45 days from the payment date by the time he is promising a refund.

For non-paypal credit card transactions, check your card agreement. Some are 30 days, some are much longer. Typically if I have used a credit card even through paypal, I will go directly through the credit card company rather than paypal as they are much easier to deal with.

Again - not saying you will get your money back faster or at all, but in my opinion it's better to have the dispute open while you can rather than risk not being able to open one if you don't get your promised refund.

[ubiquitous-a.livejournal.com]

That's kind of my thought as well.

[jane-says.livejournal.com]

Hm, I get that errors do happen and I've made money related errors in the past and I still occasionally do. Recently I even posted the wrong price on my last couple of Star Trek shirts as $15 instead of $25 ... and you know what? I ate the difference and left that batch of shirts at $15 with a notice that the price was an error and would be corrected to $25 on the next batch. I was out over $100 in the end and I ended up taking a loss on them. But guess what? It was my own fault. Good business practice dictates that the fault of errors falls on the side of the party that caused it.

I also get that this is on a much larger scale. Even from my limited experience with contacts I know issues can come up, however this appears to be more of a "we weren't paying attention to our own jobs" or a "we can play off a rate hike as a mistake now we have double the star power".

On a personal note regarding picture taking at conventions: I've always though that part of the charm of convention pictures were that they are semi-candid and unique to each situation. Simplicity breads joy and fond memories in such instances. I've given up autographs because of the lack of photo-opps since most major conventions have gone to the impersonal and fun-sucking way of things.

... but Argo doesn't want us any more. (Wonder why?)

[jarissa.livejournal.com]

I am now walking through my house, where all other mammmals are sleeping, trying to QUIETLY sing "Banned From Argo" which is habitually at the top of my lungs.

If I do it right, wookieegunner will have no idea why this song is stuck in his head when he wakes up!

[tracy-marie.livejournal.com]

Wow, I don't know a *whole* lot about this area of law but I'm fairly certain, at least for those who pre-paid, that's totally illegal. I'd do the paypal/CC dispute as suggested above if you want a refund but if you want your picture for the price that was advertised and the price you prepaid, I'd advise you give a call to the GA Attorney General's office or GA Department of Consumer Affairs and see what they think about this. And they can give you true legal advice whereas my thoughts on the legality of this are just that. I must say I also find it terribly convenient that the price for Mr. Nimoy was raised almost immediately after Mr. Shatner signed on.

[xenite99.livejournal.com]

"I must say I also find it terribly convenient that the price for Mr. Nimoy was raised almost immediately after Mr. Shatner signed on."

i so agree..i said this as soon as i saw it posted there...glad i never planned on getting pic with nimoy..and as i doubt i will be back to con next year i am ok with what i have for this year...they need a few more photogs then froggy..glad to see they have another one this year!!

[greycoupon.livejournal.com]

I just had thought to put it in perspective. Creation wouldn't even do this.

When you do business worse than they do you are doing it so wrong.

[pyanfar.livejournal.com]

LOL. oh dear. it's funny (and sad) cause it's true...

[reyesfanatic.livejournal.com]

Is it so wrong that I just want to use my camera and get a photo taken after getting their autograph, lol. And stuff like this is why (well stuff like that and what several went through last year on the last day).

Sad more and more are going this route. And I only see the option to get your photo taken at the table completely disappearing.

[ne.livejournal.com]

Some of them charge you a fee if you take their pic with your camera.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

I find it funny that people are up-in-arms about this, but at least one hotel cancelled the Con reservations made months earlier and then "offered" to let the same individuals re-book at a higher, regular, non-Con-related rate, and I've seen nothing about it on this community. We're not talking a difference of $20, either. It has caused people to cancel their reservations altogether, which hopefully will end up hurting the hotels and proving to them that you can't push people around--even desperate Con-goers!

I agree with you that this sort of practice is appallingly bad business, whether it's a photographer or a hotel. Welcome to a bad economy--people lose all ethical responsibility when times are tight, and can't see long-term benefits for short-term losses anymore. All they can see is how their overhead is increasing while their profits are decreasing, so screw the customer and the horse he came in on!

[dianne-the-geek.livejournal.com]

See, this is the kind of comment that really gets under my skin. I hadn't heard about either of these two things (the picture price debacle or the hotel crap) until now, being unaffected by both. If you want people to be up-in-arms about something, you have to tell us about it! As you said, there has been nothing posted to this community about the rooms being cancelled. How am I supposed to be angrier about it if I haven't heard of it?

[kira29.livejournal.com]

All I can say is that Nimoy charged $65 for photo ops. at TrekExpo a bit ago. I know its a different photo company, but hey it is what it is.

I'm not going this year :( but since '03 I've never paid Froggy to take a photo and this is why. I usually manage to catch people in the lobby, elevator, etc... and ask nicely if I can take a pic with them and most are ok with that.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

Your icon is yummy.

[macdude4.livejournal.com]

Sounds almost like a "bait and switch" scam to me.

I think they should Honor their mistake !!

But then again Honor is a word that a lot of people don't understand.

[tiaralynn.livejournal.com]

Amen. "Oh, sorry, these are in a lot more demand than we anticipated, therefore…"

Really shady. I haven't been impressed with Froggy's to begin with and wouldn't have a problem if they raised the price for late purchasers, but asking people who originally paid to now pay more is incredibly shady.

In contrast, I've heard nothing but good things about peoples' experiences with Craig Damon photography so far.

[meaninglesscog.livejournal.com]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8202842.stm

There is a company that owns up to their mistakes and eats them.

Wonder how much business Froggys has lost (due to people deciding to NOT get anything from them) in order to fix their "error" by upcharging their customers who have already in good faith paid for their photos? This is yet another reason why you should think long and hard before you ever pre-pay for anything.

[skittle61.livejournal.com]

Froggy is always unprofessional from what I've seen. I thought it was a scam until people were actually getting their pictures taken.

[everyinchofme.livejournal.com]

I never pay for photos or autographs, but that doesn't make this suck any less.

[nycorson.livejournal.com]

Has anyone actually been notified? I know because I happened to go to the website and see the message, but has anyone been notified that they will have to pay another $20 for the goods they already purchased?

[tiaralynn.livejournal.com]

A close friend who purchased a photo op at $60 was notified of this change. That's how I heard about it, before I saw the thread.

[abreeskye.livejournal.com]

I think that everyone who paid via Paypal should open up a dispute.

He should pay for his "mistake".

I think it's a bunch of bullshit, personally.

[rozhena-ashford.livejournal.com]

If we all boycott them, they'll either get their act together or go away.