Are WAL*MART "dumping"? --Family Portraits
Alan Browne
I'm not sure about the US, but here in Canada Wal*Mart are offering:
Portrait sitting, no "posing" fee
Prints
1 10x13
2 8x10
4 5x7
4 3½x5
32 Wallet size
The price.... CAD $5.95. (about US$4.35).
(I get a good discount where I get prints, and my cost for those prints
would run about CAD$35).
The ad says, clearly: "No posing fee or additional costs."
(Mounting, etc.) not included (ad says nothing)
Up to 6 additional poses with no obligation to buy.
I phoned and asked: what about costs for frames/mounts and so on. "No,
we just give you the prints, about 3 weeks later."
Giving the prints 3 weeks later suggests that the printing is done way
off site in some monster processing facility.
I see no way that they could possibly make a profit. This looks like
plain and simple dumping to me. Just the time you spend with the photog
has got to cost way beyond that, never mind capital, marketing,
material, processing, shipping...
This is disgusting.
Now, some will say, and rightly so, that anyone looking for fine
portraits will likely not go to WalMart, they'll go to a proper
professional. But assuming I'm right, if they are not making any money
on this, it is dumping plain and simple and a detriment to smaller
studios who can offer affordable portraits to famillies with perhaps a
modest budget and make a modest profit too.
Alan.
Railfan
and I go past it every time I go into the store. Never bothered looking
at anything there other than the "in your face" enlarged photo of a cute
little kid. Great place to be located!
Getting back to your comments - I imagine they are relying on customers
buying many more prints and enlargements in specially priced packages to
make money. I doubt if very many actually walk away with just the
basic package prints.
I could be wrong, but that's my guess!
Bob Boudreau
Also in Canada
Nick Zentena
>
> I'm not sure about the US, but here in Canada Wal*Mart are offering:
>
> Portrait sitting, no "posing" fee
>
> Prints
> 1 10x13
> 2 8x10
> 4 5x7
> 32 Wallet size
>
>
> The price.... CAD $5.95. (about US$4.35).
> (I get a good discount where I get prints, and my cost for those prints
> would run about CAD$35).
Well it may be a loss leader. How many photos do those prints represent?
Do they keep the negatives? Do they then sell reprints? How much do those
cost? Some how I bet they plan on selling frames to most of those people.
Wanna bet the margins on those frames pays for alot of this.
>
> Giving the prints 3 weeks later suggests that the printing is done way
> off site in some monster processing facility.
Maybe. All you really know is it won't be a rush job. The prints will get
fitted in when the machines might have been idle. In other words the cost of
getting those prints done will be very little. Won't surprise me if the film
isn't sent out until the roll is full-)
>
> I see no way that they could possibly make a profit. This looks like
> plain and simple dumping to me. Just the time you spend with the photog
> has got to cost way beyond that, never mind capital, marketing,
> material, processing, shipping...
>
How long do you honestly think they'll spend with the customer? How much
is the person running the camera going to get. Capital? How much are they
really investing? Marketing? Bet it's virtually nothing. They spend money on
those flyers no matter what.
> This is disgusting.
If this bothers you stay out of the local supermarket. They've been
known to sell milk and bread at a loss. Not to mention plenty of other
items that go on sale. They want you in the store. They're willing to pay
you to get you in the door.
> on this, it is dumping plain and simple and a detriment to smaller
> studios who can offer affordable portraits to famillies with perhaps a
> modest budget and make a modest profit too.
How about the families that think $6 is too much?
Nick
Martin Francis
at Jongleurs comedy club in my home city (a bartender who knows where the
shutter release on the Sony Mavica FD is).
Maybe you get to have your photograph taken in the frozen foods aisle?
--
Martin
"Will it ever stop?"
"Yo... I don't know."
- Vanilla Ice
Alan Browne
Nick Zentena wrote:
>
>
> Well it may be a loss leader. How many photos do those prints represent?
> Do they keep the negatives? Do they then sell reprints? How much do those
> cost? Some how I bet they plan on selling frames to most of those people.
> Wanna bet the margins on those frames pays for alot of this.
No. If you want them framed, you do it yourself (yes, you 'could' get
the materials at W-M too, but that is not part of the offer).
The loss-leader argument occured to me too. The "studio" is right by
their film processing 'portal' at the store. It could help generate
future portrait sales, the photog-salesman will talk you into other
portrait services, etc.
>
>>Giving the prints 3 weeks later suggests that the printing is done way
>>off site in some monster processing facility.
>
> Maybe. All you really know is it won't be a rush job. The prints will get
> fitted in when the machines might have been idle. In other words the cost of
> getting those prints done will be very little. Won't surprise me if the film
> isn't sent out until the roll is full-)
That's a good point (idle machines)... not sure how an auditor would
view that. For the session, they take up to 6 shots (could be digital,
I didn't ask), so they're bound to go through several rolls a week (if
not digi..)
>
>>I see no way that they could possibly make a profit. This looks like
>>plain and simple dumping to me. Just the time you spend with the photog
>>has got to cost way beyond that, never mind capital, marketing,
>>material, processing, shipping...
>>
> How long do you honestly think they'll spend with the customer? How much
> is the person running the camera going to get. Capital? How much are they
> really investing? Marketing? Bet it's virtually nothing. They spend money on
> those flyers no matter what.
>
They provide costumes and settings for kids. They have to do the
paperwork and pay the employee when there is nothing to do. I would
guess a minimum of 15 minutes per customer. In direct wages and
benefits, this alone is over $6.00. If they had people in the pipe one
after another, all day long, it still wouldn't pay the labour unless
they could turn each customer in 5 minutes or so.
>
> If this bothers you stay out of the local supermarket. They've been
> known to sell milk and bread at a loss. Not to mention plenty of other
> items that go on sale. They want you in the store. They're willing to pay
> you to get you in the door.
They are in the grocery business where inventory turns approach
100/year. When you fill your basket they are not losing money at all.
It bothers me to the point where I won't buy at WalMart anymore, and
damnit, I need golf balls! (They're about 10% cheaper at W-M, not 10x
cheaper than the lowliest of portrait photogs).
> How about the families that think $6 is too much?
If they're not in the market, it doesn't matter.
I apreciate your views Nick, but I still believe W-M are dumping. A
friend of mine said to me a few years ago when W-M made their grand
entrance into Canada, (replacing Woolco, daughter of Woolworths), that
stores like Wal-Mart were a threat to the merchant-middle-class.
Cheers,
Alan
StillMan
I believe the fine print reads that they get to pick the photo that can be
used for the package print. I'm sure the other poses are at regular prices.
I think it is a loss leader to get people in the store. There was a store I
used to service as a sales rep before I became a photographer that averaged
$20 in sales for every person who walked through the door. This was just a
regular size store, not a Supercenter, and it was several years ago. A
family makes a special trip to the store to get the pics made, and another
special trip to pick up the prints.
It's really not a bad thing for a good portrait studio. It takes away the
temptation to compete on price, and build a business on quality portraiture
and good customer service.
A related story:
I don't know what cameras they use now, but a Wal-Mart in a town near here
had a long roll 6x7. They closed the portrait studio and gave the camera,
long roll back, and studio camera stand to an employee. She took it home not
knowing anything about it. Her neighbor, who was a photographer, saw it in
her garage, and bought it for $75.
--
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3ED3D2FB...@videotron.ca...
I'm not sure about the US, but here in Canada Wal*Mart are offering:
Portrait sitting, no "posing" fee
Prints
1 10x13
2 8x10
4 5x7
4 3綞5
Nick Zentena
>
> That's a good point (idle machines)... not sure how an auditor would
> view that. For the session, they take up to 6 shots (could be digital,
> I didn't ask), so they're bound to go through several rolls a week (if
> not digi..)
Why would the auditor care? It's really no different then paying less if
you get your film processed in 48 hours instead of a quicker turn around.
I'm betting they send all thier stuff off to one place. Walmart gets a good
price. The lab gets work that other then material costs are likely pure
profit. The machines and staff are paid for you're better keeeping them busy.
>>
> They provide costumes and settings for kids. They have to do the
> paperwork and pay the employee when there is nothing to do. I would
> guess a minimum of 15 minutes per customer. In direct wages and
> benefits, this alone is over $6.00. If they had people in the pipe one
> after another, all day long, it still wouldn't pay the labour unless
> they could turn each customer in 5 minutes or so.
Are the people at Walmart actually making $24/hour? The other advantage
Walmart brings is the number of people walking in the door. They might just
keep somebody busy. For all I know they've got one staff member that travels
from store to store. When you book a time you do it on the day the person
with the camera is at your local store.
>
> They are in the grocery business where inventory turns approach
> 100/year. When you fill your basket they are not losing money at all.
And walmart is also going to get people filling carts. Think about the
other part of the three week turnaround. Now you've got the people in the
store twice. I just glanced at walmarts numbers. It looks like overall they
are turning inventory about 10x a year.
>
> If they're not in the market, it doesn't matter.
>
> I apreciate your views Nick, but I still believe W-M are dumping. A
> friend of mine said to me a few years ago when W-M made their grand
> entrance into Canada, (replacing Woolco, daughter of Woolworths), that
> stores like Wal-Mart were a threat to the merchant-middle-class.
It's not dumping. It might be predatory pricing but I seriously doubt the
competion is really the commerical protrait guy. It's more Sears and all the
other retailers that have been doing this for ever.
This is the target:
http://www.searsportrait.ca/Home/index.asp
Sears looks to be charging quite a bit more for less. Unless you join
Sears special plan then the price is about the same.
Walmart is a threat to the merchants that deserve to get kicked.
People who've gouged small towns for years because of the lack of competion.
Nick
David Ashton
You could rally up a class-action suit with all the small time
portrait studios in Canada and see if you get anywhere. 5 years could
do it, of course you will be counter-sued, defamed and...
I believe they would show that it is one segement of their overall
photography business which as a whole, of course, makes them plenty of
profit.
David.
Alan Browne
StillMan wrote:
> I saw the sign a few nights ago, I think that package is $4.88 here.
>
> I believe the fine print reads that they get to pick the photo that can be
> used for the package print. I'm sure the other poses are at regular prices.
Yes, that's the "up to 6 additional with no obligation to buy... In
which case it "qualifies" as a loss leader.
> It's really not a bad thing for a good portrait studio. It takes away the
> temptation to compete on price, and build a business on quality portraiture
> and good customer service.
Astute statement.
>
> A related story:
> I don't know what cameras they use now, but a Wal-Mart in a town near here
> had a long roll 6x7. They closed the portrait studio and gave the camera,
> long roll back, and studio camera stand to an employee. She took it home not
> knowing anything about it. Her neighbor, who was a photographer, saw it in
> her garage, and bought it for $75.
A member of my photo club picked up a TLR Mamiaflex recently for $1.00
at a garage sale. It works just fine!
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
Nick Zentena wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>That's a good point (idle machines)... not sure how an auditor would
>>view that. For the session, they take up to 6 shots (could be digital,
>>I didn't ask), so they're bound to go through several rolls a week (if
>>not digi..)
>
>
> Why would the auditor care? It's really no different then paying less if
> you get your film processed in 48 hours instead of a quicker turn around.
> I'm betting they send all thier stuff off to one place. Walmart gets a good
> price. The lab gets work that other then material costs are likely pure
> profit. The machines and staff are paid for you're better keeeping them busy.
When you drop off film for 1-hour, they make a profit., 24, 48 they make
a little less. This is a more valid means of balancing workload and
market forces, but there is always, always a profit.
>
>>They provide costumes and settings for kids. They have to do the
>>paperwork and pay the employee when there is nothing to do. I would
>>guess a minimum of 15 minutes per customer. In direct wages and
>>benefits, this alone is over $6.00. If they had people in the pipe one
>>after another, all day long, it still wouldn't pay the labour unless
>>they could turn each customer in 5 minutes or so.
>
>
> Are the people at Walmart actually making $24/hour? The other advantage
> Walmart brings is the number of people walking in the door. They might just
> keep somebody busy. For all I know they've got one staff member that travels
> from store to store. When you book a time you do it on the day the person
> with the camera is at your local store.
In Canada with benefits, I would guess at least 18 - 20/hr. Possibly
more. Even if it were half that, the price can't possibly cover the
total cost and labour.
The "sans-rendezvous" walkup availability is Mon-Fri 10am - 7pm (except
2pm-3pm); sat/sun 9am to 5 pm. (time bookings are also 'available').
There is always someone there to service this channel.
> And walmart is also going to get people filling carts. Think about the
> other part of the three week turnaround. Now you've got the people in the
> store twice. I just glanced at walmarts numbers. It looks like overall they
> are turning inventory about 10x a year.
This goes back to the loss-leader...
>
>
>
>>If they're not in the market, it doesn't matter.
>>
>>I apreciate your views Nick, but I still believe W-M are dumping. A
>>friend of mine said to me a few years ago when W-M made their grand
>>entrance into Canada, (replacing Woolco, daughter of Woolworths), that
>>stores like Wal-Mart were a threat to the merchant-middle-class.
>
>
>
> It's not dumping. It might be predatory pricing but I seriously doubt the
> competion is really the commerical protrait guy. It's more Sears and all the
> other retailers that have been doing this for ever.
I fail to see the difference between dumping and predatory pricing.
Either word suggests making it unbearable for the competitor to remain
in business if he has no other sales lines.
>
> This is the target:
>
> http://www.searsportrait.ca/Home/index.asp
>
> Sears looks to be charging quite a bit more for less. Unless you join
> Sears special plan then the price is about the same.
>
> Walmart is a threat to the merchants that deserve to get kicked.
> People who've gouged small towns for years because of the lack of competion.
There are two sides to this coin, and you know it... Wal*Mart are good
neighbors in many senses, bring competition, efficiency and buying
power. I'm all for it. But they have to make a profit doing so, and
there is no way in hell these promos make a profit. I don't buy into
the loss leader on this one.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
David Ashton wrote:
> Alan,
>
> You could rally up a class-action suit with all the small time
> portrait studios in Canada and see if you get anywhere. 5 years could
> do it, of course you will be counter-sued, defamed and...
>
I have no intention of launching a suit ...(if I were a studio operator
I might look into it... but my lawyer would probably tell me, "you nuts
or what?")
> I believe they would show that it is one segement of their overall
> photography business which as a whole, of course, makes them plenty of
> profit.
>
> David.
The "loss leader" argument is popular...
Cheers,
Alan
el sid
have an opportunity to sell extra prints, frames, maybe more portrait work
in the future, and all kinds of items in the store. stores of all kinds have
"loss leader" promotions that do not make money just to get bodies into
the store to shop for profitable items.
"Nick Zentena" <zen...@kriek.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:rs41bb.gbu.ln@barley...
Gary's Newsgroups
for cornering the market and using their size to reduce their prices below
what others can buy their merchandise at. I doubt you would get anywhere
with that suit.
I was in Nashville yesterday and noticed two photographer booths set up in
the middle of Opry Mills mall. One was using a sony Digital Camcorder to
take pictures and the other at least was using a quality digital camera by
Nikon but I don't know if it was a D100 or other. I do know that the girl
using the camera was not aquainted with the operation of it and was
constantly asking an assistant for help. Go figure they were both raking in
money and had waiting lines.
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3ED3D2FB...@videotron.ca...
I'm not sure about the US, but here in Canada Wal*Mart are offering:
Portrait sitting, no "posing" fee
Prints
1 10x13
2 8x10
4 5x7
4 3綞5
Jerry L.
What if Ford Motor Compay went to China and produced a $3,000
automobile for the U.S. and Canadian markets? General Motors and
Chrysler would be in court claiming such a product would kill their
respective golden-gooses!
Wal-mart has no problem beating the hell out of the competition until
htere is none: then the price is what the market will bear.
= = =
"Martin Francis" <Mcs...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bb0pbm$4u2$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
Ron Todd
Alan Browne wrote:
...
> I apreciate your views Nick, but I still believe W-M are dumping. A
> friend of mine said to me a few years ago when W-M made their grand
> entrance into Canada, (replacing Woolco, daughter of Woolworths), that
> stores like Wal-Mart were a threat to the merchant-middle-class.
FWIW, Wal Mart is an extremely competitive ( and by extremely
competitive, I mean extremely competitive by U.S.A. standards )
retailer. Down here they are famous for gutting the heart out of main
street business. Wal Mart comes in, downtown dies.
I would imagine they are shooting for a major share of the existing
studio portrait and frame business in your area.
Customers love them.
--
*****************************************
Boycott list:
Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, China, Iran,
Syria,
Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club,
ACLU,
Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks,
Cher, U2, rapp,
Trudeau, Wiley, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS,
Sometimes the only influence you have is to say, "No, I'm not buying."
Vince
<al...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>There have been many other people in many other fields try to sue walmart
>for cornering the market and using their size to reduce their prices below
>what others can buy their merchandise at. I doubt you would get anywhere
>with that suit.
Never mind WAL*MART what about SEARS they been doing the same thing longer than
WM.
As far as a suit goes just maybe if enough of us pros got together who knows.
Back in the 1980s here in NY State they wanted to pass a law where the
photographer would have to turnover the NEGS to the client. A bunch of us up
and down the state got a letter writing campaign together and we shut it down.
--------------------------------------------------------
Vince
-------------------------------------------------------
Sevenmw3
fine art photos annually of my kids, but having one a year of better quality
than I do at home is fine. Then next years photos goes right on top of this
years. For graduations and weddings, then it's time to go to the pros.
Even our local fire department sponsors an annual photo day with the local
pro. $25 packages and up and the sign up list is filled in a half hour, and
he shoots for 3 days, all digital.
Alan Browne
Ron Todd wrote:
> FWIW, Wal Mart is an extremely competitive ( and by extremely
> competitive, I mean extremely competitive by U.S.A. standards )
> retailer. Down here they are famous for gutting the heart out of main
> street business. Wal Mart comes in, downtown dies.
>
> I would imagine they are shooting for a major share of the existing
> studio portrait and frame business in your area.
Yeah, a little area called "all of Canada". Canadian businesses _are_
very competitive. (my Boston cousin, visiting Montreal, was shocked
when she walked away from a leather purse and the store owner asked,
"why not", she said "too much", he said, "how much you offering?", this
was a very nice store... she still didn't buy though, he wouldn't come
down enough.).
As others have stated, a smart small studio will focus on a higher
quality market and stay away from this. Regardless it still puts
pressure on the smaller guys. And yes, many people here shop WalMart in
spades...
Cheers,
Alan
Steven Scharf
<snip>
> The ad says, clearly: "No posing fee or additional costs."
> (Mounting, etc.) not included (ad says nothing)
> Up to 6 additional poses with no obligation to buy.
There is typically a lot of fine print in these deals.
You can be certain that those 6 other poses do NOT qualify
for the same price package, they are probably charging $7-10
per sheet for the othe poses. The special price may apply
only to a particularly bad pose and backround that the store
chooses; you probably can't choose which of the 7 poses
qualifies for the come-on price. It's only a loss leader
for the few people that don't buy any extra sheets. Even
at $7 per sheet, the margins are large. I'm sure that
Walmart is not paying more than $2 per sheet for printing.
Most of the department store studios are fully digital. You
choose the photos you want to buy at the time of the sitting
and there is pressure to buy more than just the promotion.
Most of the Walmart customers would not purchase higher end
studio portraits under any circumstances; you are not losing
business to them. I've never gone to Walmart for pictures,
but I have in the past used Sears, and I have used professional
studios. IMVAIO, I was not getting 15X the quality but I was
paying 15X the price. The professional was using a Foveon
set-up. I'd be happy to pay $100 for a sitting fee and $20
per sheet. Are there studios that are better than the department
stores but not as high priced as professional studios.
Mike W.
out with just the advertised package. Other times, not.
The basic deal you've outlined is correct, however there are a few
caveats. First, all of the photos listed in the basic deal come from
one pose. There is no mixing or matching to get the ones you want.
Second, usually, the pose for the "deal" is the first shot. It's a
simple monochromatic background without any other filler around (toys,
etc).
Third, the photographer then takes X number of additional shots (X
depends on booking, patience, etc). It's usually done digital, so you
can pick and choose what you want. However, if you want any pictures
from any of those shots, you have to pay full price for them, by the
sheet. The sheets are arranged in a manner to maximize the profits of
the store, not necessarily to be convenient for the consumer. Say,
for example, you want 2 5x7s of one of the poses. While they COULD,
in theory, fit those on one sheet, you actually end up paying for 2
sheets, as a sheet will consist of a 5x7 plus numerous filler prints
(2x3 or "keepsake"). This gets you to pay the store for 2 sheets,
plus increases perceived value to the consumer... You're not paying
$50 for TWO pictures, you're paying for 10! Wow, what a deal! It
doesn't really sink in until later, when you've got an envelope full
of useless keepsake prints, and really need another 5x7 for grandma.
The real kicker, though, is that you may not order at picture time,
but rather at pick up time. So, they'll print some of all of the
poses, and then try to play on your guilt/nostalgia factor: "Wow,
look how nice this pose turned out. If you don't buy it, these'll be
shredded. I'd hate to see a great shot like this go to waste".
Having said all that, it's not a BAD deal, per se, as long as you're
aware of what you're getting in to. The sales tactics are usually
medium strength (they usually recruit teenagers, etc), so while there
is a drive to push you to buy the other prints or add ons (portrait
club, frames, etc), it IS possible to walk away with just the
advertised special.
Fear not, though, Wally world is turning plenty of profit on these
packages to keep offering it regularly. The employees are usually
paid by the processing company on a comission basis, so there really
is very little up front risk for Wal Mart.
Just my 2 cents, though...
Mike
Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3ED3D2FB...@videotron.ca>...
Thomas Wicklund
> FWIW, Wal Mart is an extremely competitive ( and by extremely
> competitive, I mean extremely competitive by U.S.A. standards )
> retailer. Down here they are famous for gutting the heart out of main
> street business. Wal Mart comes in, downtown dies.
Of course, the fact that downtown is doesn't have parking, makes you
walk several blocks to a half dozen stores to find all you need, and
probably doesn't carry as wide a selection has nothing to do with Wal
Mart (or other discount retailer's) success.
Downtowns in both large and small towns have been dying. They are
designed for pre-automobile high density foot traffic. Like it or not,
with very few exceptions the automobile is the standard means of
transportation today and stores which cater to automobile traffic are
succeeding. So long as the automobile remains, and so long as people
want to live in detached houses with 1/3 to 1 acre of land (making foot
traffic impractical and too low density for mass transit to work well),
stores based on foot traffic are going to have problems.
Thomas Wicklund
> I fail to see the difference between dumping and predatory pricing.
> Either word suggests making it unbearable for the competitor to remain
> in business if he has no other sales lines.
A couple years ago my church did a photo directory. Olan Mills shot the
directory, so far as I know at no charge to the church.
Is this dumping?
Of course, they then offered to sell you extra prints at US$20-$30 per
sheet (I forget the exact price, only know my wife spent US$300 on prints).
Similarly, a photographer comes out and takes pictures at my kids school
twice a year, once for individual shots, once for the whole school
picture (where they also take individual shots). Guess what -- no
charge to the school but parents can buy pictures each time.
As pointed out elsewhere, WalMart makes money on extra prints, and I'd
guess you'll find very few people only buying the basic package. As
also pointed out, they get people who wouldn't go into a private studio.
The people I see in WalMart are also those who don't have the money to
afford an expensive portrait package, so the other side is that shutting
down the WalMart or Sears low cost package business means that you've
prevented low income people from having anything other than snapshots of
their kids.
Thomas Wicklund
Ron Todd
Thomas Wicklund wrote:
>
> Ron Todd wrote:
>
> > FWIW, Wal Mart is an extremely competitive ( and by extremely
> > competitive, I mean extremely competitive by U.S.A. standards )
> > retailer. Down here they are famous for gutting the heart out of main
> > street business. Wal Mart comes in, downtown dies.
>
> Of course, the fact that downtown is doesn't have parking, makes you
> walk several blocks to a half dozen stores to find all you need, and
> probably doesn't carry as wide a selection has nothing to do with Wal
> Mart (or other discount retailer's) success.
I find fault with your analysis and conclusion.
Downtown died because the merchants were not businessmen and the
politicians were hacks.
When consumers wanted all of those things you mentioned, the downtown
merchants went out of their way to refuse delivering them. For some
perverse reason, city politicians absolutely refuse to design downtown
redevelopment to cater to automotive traffic. I watched them kill
downtown in Fresno and I've been watching them kill downtown in
Sacramento. They never learn. BTW, they always kill the downtown
camera store in the early stage.
I guess that is why ten percent of the population supports the rest of
us.
Moe
here in Ontario are "not" owned or operated by Wal-Mart Canada, neither are
the Pharmacies.
Moe
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3ED3D2FB...@videotron.ca...
I'm not sure about the US, but here in Canada Wal*Mart are offering:
Portrait sitting, no "posing" fee
Prints
1 10x13
2 8x10
4 5x7
4 3綞5
32 Wallet size
The price.... CAD $5.95. (about US$4.35).
(I get a good discount where I get prints, and my cost for those prints
would run about CAD$35).
The ad says, clearly: "No posing fee or additional costs."
(Mounting, etc.) not included (ad says nothing)
Up to 6 additional poses with no obligation to buy.
I phoned and asked: what about costs for frames/mounts and so on. "No,
we just give you the prints, about 3 weeks later."
Giving the prints 3 weeks later suggests that the printing is done way
off site in some monster processing facility.
I see no way that they could possibly make a profit. This looks like
plain and simple dumping to me. Just the time you spend with the photog
has got to cost way beyond that, never mind capital, marketing,
material, processing, shipping...
This is disgusting.
Now, some will say, and rightly so, that anyone looking for fine
portraits will likely not go to WalMart, they'll go to a proper
professional. But assuming I'm right, if they are not making any money
on this, it is dumping plain and simple and a detriment to smaller
studios who can offer affordable portraits to families with perhaps a