Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Royal Camera & Video doesn't honor posted prices

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:47:37 PM

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

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!
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:47:38 PM

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

"Carol Ane A. Bloomquist" <carolbloomquist@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l10tq0t5mhsd64o9igkbvlg62bec5um2lm@4ax.com...
> 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!

Before you throw your money at another KNOWN scam shop, check here.
You'd have been steered clear of these scammers.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:08:50 AM

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

Chances are you'll get *some* of your money back, but it will take weeks (or
months) and you'll never get the camera from them at their advertised price.

Check out their customer reviews at http://www.resellerratings.com and
http://www.photo.net.

"Carol Ane A. Bloomquist" <carolbloomquist@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l10tq0t5mhsd64o9igkbvlg62bec5um2lm@4ax.com...

> 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!
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:21:04 AM

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

"Carol Ane A. Bloomquist" <carolbloomquist@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l10tq0t5mhsd64o9igkbvlg62bec5um2lm@4ax.com...
> 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!

Pursue it with the New York attorney general too.

And above all, preserve evidence. If the ad exists only as a web page, then
guess what? They can change it at a moment's notice, and you can't prove
that any copy you made of it is genuine.

You could however still convince a jury that you wouldn't have ordered from
them if the price had not been lower than other major retailers. So that's
a fact worth establishing.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:15:48 AM

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

"Carol Ane A. Bloomquist" <carolbloomquist@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l10tq0t5mhsd64o9igkbvlg62bec5um2lm@4ax.com...
> 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!

Adopt the philosophy, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably
isn't!!!!"

Don Dunlap
December 2, 2004 10:44:01 AM

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

Send the camera back. You will NEVER get them to honour the advertised price
and there are always fairly hidden gotchas to keep them from having to do
so. The credit card company will only refund your money to you and only then
if you return the item. There is usually a fairly short amount of time in
which you can do this so call them tomorrow (your credit card company) and
get the process started. You will have to return the item insured and
tracked or they will simply deny that it ever came back. You'll end up out
the shipping, but that is a pretty small loss considering what those sharks
might have done to you.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Carol Ane A. Bloomquist" <carolbloomquist@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l10tq0t5mhsd64o9igkbvlg62bec5um2lm@4ax.com...
> 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!
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:41:58 PM

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

> Adopt the philosophy, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably
> isn't!!!!"
>
> Don Dunlap
---------------------------------------------------------------

Another good philosophy for many here to consider adopting:

If I'm too stupid to realize that Don's suggested philosophy makes REAL
sense, I ought not be allowed to play with REAL money.

ds
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:41:59 PM

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

"DFS" <ok@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WlJrd.16780$%C6.14607@trnddc02...
>
>> Adopt the philosophy, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably
>> isn't!!!!"
>>
>> Don Dunlap

I think what's going on is that fraudsters are being assisted by Internet
search engines that find the lowest advertised price - regardless of who's
advertising it.

Expanding on what Don said, if it were possible to sell the product reliably
for a price 15% lower than B&H, Adorama, and Samy's, then how would B&H,
Adorama, and Samy's stay in business? The answer: The people with lower
prices aren't really selling the product.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:20:40 PM

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

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:44:01 GMT, Tony <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>Send the camera back.

> You'll end up out
>the shipping, but that is a pretty small loss considering what those sharks
>might have done to you.

On their web site I find: "All returns are subject to a 5% restocking
charge and shipping charges are not refundable." So if she sends it back
she will have to pay $210 and she will have no recourse for a refund of it.
Plus the shipping.

See: http://www.royalcamera.com/info.html

Don <donwiss at panix.com>.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:30:17 PM

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

Carol Ane A. Bloomquist <carolbloomquist@comcast.net> 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!

You are absolutely dreaming if you think you can get it for that price.
They aren't going to do it. The best you can do is to get them to match the
$3,855 price at buydig.com. Checking B&H I find $4,099.95. So probably the
best you can do is to get $100 off, or return it and take the 5% hit.

Don <donwiss at panix.com>.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:41:44 PM

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

"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:flfvq0p36ra8euhcu650gi8roigsbighor@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:44:01 GMT, Tony <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Send the camera back.
>
>> You'll end up out
>>the shipping, but that is a pretty small loss considering what those
>>sharks
>>might have done to you.
>
> On their web site I find: "All returns are subject to a 5% restocking
> charge and shipping charges are not refundable." So if she sends it back
> she will have to pay $210 and she will have no recourse for a refund of
> it.
> Plus the shipping.

That policy only applies to returns where the customer got the right goods
at the right price and then changed his mind. (That's what restocking fees
are for.) When they're at fault, they can't supersede the law of the land
and the regulations of the credit card issuer by just putting fine print on
a web page.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:03:35 AM

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

"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:11gvq0teh8nshrbk4krnii64m3g34rkh06@4ax.com...
> Carol Ane A. Bloomquist <carolbloomquist@comcast.net> 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!
>
> You are absolutely dreaming if you think you can get it for that price.
> They aren't going to do it. The best you can do is to get them to match
> the
> $3,855 price at buydig.com. Checking B&H I find $4,099.95. So probably the
> best you can do is to get $100 off, or return it and take the 5% hit.

No -- False advertising is a crime. He must return it, protest the ENTIRE
credit card charge (no nonsense about restocking fees), preserve evidence,
and turn them in to the authorities both state and federal. If he consents
to their high price, he's supporting a scam and making the world worse for
the rest of us.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 8:28:08 AM

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

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
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 8:28:09 AM

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

"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

Ah... If only Pop Photo really gave a rat's petudy...

They D-O-N-'T. -Which is just one more reason why I have ZERO respect for
that "catalogue-posing-as-a-magazine."
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 9:29:01 AM

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

"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
December 3, 2004 11:27:39 AM

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

They can't enforce the restocking charge. The credit card company will not
withhold it.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:flfvq0p36ra8euhcu650gi8roigsbighor@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:44:01 GMT, Tony <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Send the camera back.
>
> > You'll end up out
> >the shipping, but that is a pretty small loss considering what those
sharks
> >might have done to you.
>
> On their web site I find: "All returns are subject to a 5% restocking
> charge and shipping charges are not refundable." So if she sends it back
> she will have to pay $210 and she will have no recourse for a refund of
it.
> Plus the shipping.
>
> See: http://www.royalcamera.com/info.html
>
> Don <donwiss at panix.com>.
December 3, 2004 11:29:03 AM

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

And then listen to Keppler and the rest of those stinking slimeballs
laughing at you.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"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
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:15:49 PM

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

>> 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.

Back to Step 1 -- I presume you called Royal and told them you wanted the
web advertised price? It's possible they didn't know what was on their web
site.

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.

>>> 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.

Despite the cynicism others have expressed, I think that is a good idea.
Popular Photography *does* care -- but the sleazy vendors do a great deal to
keep Pop. Photo. staff from ever hearing about how bad they are.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 7:38:29 PM

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

Skip M wrote:
> "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.

So - make them show their attitude. Do it. Contact them. Then get back
to us. They also have a web site, and a discussion group associated with
it. I have not checked this out myself, but that may be interesting as
well - to press to test and see if you are censored by them.

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:28:08 AM

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9E0sd.58692$Oc.23801@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> "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.
>
> So - make them show their attitude. Do it. Contact them. Then get back to
> us. They also have a web site, and a discussion group associated with it.
> I have not checked this out myself, but that may be interesting as well -
> to press to test and see if you are censored by them.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

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.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:29:26 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 6:30:41 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:39:35 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:41:04 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:42:50 PM

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?
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:42:51 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 12:31:12 AM

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
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 12:20:11 PM

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"
!