Royal Camera & Video doesn't honor posted prices

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Carol Ane A. Bloomquist, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. 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!
     
    Carol Ane A. Bloomquist, Dec 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Mark² Guest

    Before you throw your money at another KNOWN scam shop, check here.
    You'd have been steered clear of these scammers.
     
    Mark², Dec 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Tony Guest

    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.
     
    Tony, Dec 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Don Dunlap Guest

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

    Don Dunlap
     
    Don Dunlap, Dec 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    DFS Guest

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    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
     
    DFS, Dec 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Don Wiss Guest

    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>.
     
    Don Wiss, Dec 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Don Wiss Guest

    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>.
     
    Don Wiss, Dec 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Mark² Guest

    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."
     
    Mark², Dec 3, 2004
    #8
  9. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Tony Guest

    They can't enforce the restocking charge. The credit card company will not
    withhold it.
     
    Tony, Dec 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Tony Guest

    And then listen to Keppler and the rest of those stinking slimeballs
    laughing at you.
     
    Tony, Dec 3, 2004
    #10
  11. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Skip M Guest

    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 M, Dec 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Skip M Guest

    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 M, Dec 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Big Bill Guest

    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.
     
    Big Bill, Dec 4, 2004
    #13
  14. 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.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Dec 4, 2004
    #14
  15. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Skip M Guest

    (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 M, Dec 5, 2004
    #15
  16. Carol Ane A. Bloomquist

    Big Bill Guest

    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.
     
    Big Bill, Dec 5, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.