Darkroom classes
On 7/7/2014 12:59 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:56:03 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: And makes my point completely, which is limit your liability. If that is not your idea of smart business, wallow in your ignorance. i never said anything to the contrary. you just want to argue. Sorry I thought it was you who was complaining about receiving a roll of film as compensation when a lab screws up. my mistake. /end sarcastic tag because it's insulting. they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.' if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be particularly careful about not screwing up. Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more than $3. He thinks most people ave the same work ethic as he does. -- PeterN |
Darkroom classes
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:35:59 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.' if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be particularly careful about not screwing up. Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more than $3. a pro lab might be concerned about reputation, but a drugstore won't, especially since they sell all sorts of other things than photo processing. I tend to avoid a store once it has given me a raw deal on any product. Even if it only hits their film processing machine, they didn't get that for nothing. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Darkroom classes
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.' if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be particularly careful about not screwing up. Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more than $3. a pro lab might be concerned about reputation, but a drugstore won't, especially since they sell all sorts of other things than photo processing. I tend to avoid a store once it has given me a raw deal on any product. many people do, but a drugstore has a wide variety of customers who *aren't* there for photos, so if they lose a few customers for ****ty processing, they'll still be in business. plus, the staff doesn't stay there very long anyway, so six months from now, someone entirely different might be running the machinery and it could be better, or it could be worse. that's nothing at all like a pro lab, where the employees are likely photographers themselves, where they want to retain customers because if they don't, they won't be in business for long. Even if it only hits their film processing machine, they didn't get that for nothing. doesn't matter. while you're there dropping off the film, you might buy shampoo, snack food, batteries, oxycodone and who knows what else. |
Darkroom classes
In article , PeterN
wrote: if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be particularly careful about not screwing up. Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more than $3. He thinks most people ave the same work ethic as he does. if only they did. i don't do **** work. unfortunately, that ethic is not shared by most companies. |
Darkroom classes
In article , PeterN
wrote: And makes my point completely, which is limit your liability. If that is not your idea of smart business, wallow in your ignorance. i never said anything to the contrary. you just want to argue. Sorry I thought it was you who was complaining about receiving a roll of film as compensation when a lab screws up. my mistake. /end sarcastic tag because it's insulting. they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.' if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be particularly careful about not screwing up. You said that. Repeating doesn't make you right. it was correct all along. |
Darkroom classes
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:58:43 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: they're basically saying 'sorry that we ****ed up your photos but here's $5 worth of film, which only cost us $3.' if their maximum liability is so little, then they aren't going to be particularly careful about not screwing up. Their maximum liability is their reputation. That cost them much more than $3. a pro lab might be concerned about reputation, but a drugstore won't, especially since they sell all sorts of other things than photo processing. I tend to avoid a store once it has given me a raw deal on any product. many people do, but a drugstore has a wide variety of customers who *aren't* there for photos, so if they lose a few customers for ****ty processing, they'll still be in business. plus, the staff doesn't stay there very long anyway, so six months from now, someone entirely different might be running the machinery and it could be better, or it could be worse. that's nothing at all like a pro lab, where the employees are likely photographers themselves, where they want to retain customers because if they don't, they won't be in business for long. Even if it only hits their film processing machine, they didn't get that for nothing. doesn't matter. while you're there dropping off the film, you might buy shampoo, snack food, batteries, oxycodone and who knows what else. If I feel I've had a bad deal from them, I won't be there to buy shampoo, snack food, batteries, oxycodone or anything else. I'll be somewhere else. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com