Compensation for undelivered images

<p>Hi all,<br>

Hoping you may be able to provide some advice on a current situation. Have been shooting wedding 5+ years, first trouble and I'm unsure how to proceed.<br>

Photographed wedding, all went beautifully, everyone happy. Backed up photos onto two devices, commenced editing in the weeks following. External HD failed, not great, go to the back up. All images are there except for about 50, not sure what happened as I've never had this happen before. Sent HD off to special techs (costing thousands), backed up images again to another device and started re-editing.<br>

Long story short, I delivered over 200 edited High & low res images to the couple (contract min is 200) and I have kept them updated re the damaged drive as there are 3 family images that were in the missing 50 that they would want. So they have 200+ images along with their photobook and I have not had any negative feedback on them, they were happy and the parents loved their parent albums.<br>

Heard back last friday that specific folder on the HD basically cannot be recovered, so there are 3 images which are the issue. Updated the couple, apologised and offered a family photo session to bring the necessary people together to get these missing photo combinations. <br>

The above offer has been refused, and they are requesting a partial refund of their fee 'as fair compensation'. The signed contract states that in the instance of only a partial delivery of images it in on a undelivered basis. In this instance it amounts to $18 for the 3 images. I know that this will not be well received.<br>

Any suggestions on how to proceed from here would be greatly appreciated!</p>

<p>Your reputation and happy customers is more important than making a target margin on this project. I'd suggest something like, if you charged $3,000, then give them $500 back. You cannot calculate the value, just make it a significant sacrifice to you. $18 is an insult.</p>

<p>Forget the contract and make it "feel right." Make an offer first. Also, if you say it artfully, you can remind that, under the contract, you only "owed" $18, but you wanted a gesture that was significant for them. Make the offer and don't negotiate.</p>

<p>While only $18 doesn't sound adequate, it seems to me that $500 is way off the scale at the other end, especially considering that you've already spent "thousands" trying to recover the lost images. It sounds as though the family is reasonable and that you've so far dealt with them openly and with transparency. I would continue in that vein. Make it clear how much you've already spent trying to make things right for them. Show them receipts if necessary. Remind them of your offer to re-shoot the family photographs. Then ask them how much compensation they feel would be adequate. You might be surprised (in a pleasant way). Fair compensation to many people doesn't necessarily mean a ton of money. They know they did receive 99 percent of what they paid for. They might only seek $100 or $200 as a token amount. </p>

<p>Your system failure and the cost to recover is NOT your client's problem, except that it kept them from getting everything that they paid for.</p>

<p>We don't know your total charge, so we can't really suggest a definite amount. Still, I think it's at least $100. You can let them know that it's been costly to you, but don't let that keep you from paying something showing that you are truly sorry that it had to happen to them.</p>

Do you know about PPA's indemnification insurance for wituations like this? A little late now but it might be worth investing

in for the future.

<p>As a non-pro, I think you should offer them 25% back. That would be the right thing to do and a great PR move. You could mention that legally and contractually, you only owe them $18 but you are doing it out of empathy for them. </p>

<p>I doubt that refunding 25% would be a great Public Relations move; in fact I doubt that refunding any money will be much of a Public Relations move at all.</p>

<p>Based on what has been stated, the Clients initiated the ground rules of this current negotiation and have set the ruling that <em>'a partial refund of the fee'</em> is to be <em>'fair compensation'</em> but, importantly, they did not specify a number for that compensation. </p>

<p>From a business transaction and negotiation perspective, such an opening gambit potentially has great leverage and if the Clients are versed/experienced in negotiation skills, which, prima facie, they appear to be, they can make an huge impact if this particular type of negotiation is engaged. </p>

<p>The (apparent) onus being now on the Photographer to reply, specifying the proportion of fee to be the refund, will allow the Client a range of optional replies from acceptance to total dismay and appall at such an insignificant amount being offered. If they are good at business negotiation, then their response will be toward the latter.</p>

<p>The only way to avoid playing the to and fro game of '<em>how much is enough'</em> is to not get on that roller-coaster in the first instance.<br>

<br>

The Photographer has already made an offer which is well above and beyond what was agreed to in the contract in what appears to be a sincere effort to make good the loss of three images. Importantly it was the images which initially seemed to be the important factor for the Clients, i.e. the Clients wanted these three family group shots.</p>

<p>However the focus has now changed when the offer to remake the shots as best as possible was refused: and that rules a line under that conversation and frankly to a certain extent that closes the initial contract. Now the Clients have opened a new negotiation which is outside the original contract to which they agreed.</p>

<p>Whilst providing excellent customer service is important, it is more important that the Proprietor of any Business understands that their FIRST responsibility is to protect that business from attack and damage. Certainly it is not the Client's fault that the HD crashed and as a result the three (3) images are irretrievable, but equally it seems to me that excellent customer service has already been provided and that is evidenced by the time, effort and money spent in the attempts to retrieve those three (3) images which initially were the important issue.</p>

<p>Subsequently when that attempted retrieval exercise proved fruitless, the Photographer offered to re-shoot those three groups was comparatively a very generous offer – and if you will, were also excellent customer service and a good Public Relations exercise. (The comparison is based upon the contractual requirement of $18.00 compensation – to which both parties agreed).</p>

<p>My advice is to tread very carefully in all upcoming negotiations: in fact I would act swiftly to close down the present line of negotiation which was initiated by the Clients. </p>

<p>Based on what has been presented, I would:<br>

> acknowledge to the Clients that your offer to re-shoot has been refused by them<br>

> I would also remind the Clients that:<br>

> the offer to re-shoot was in good faith to secure as best as possible the images that they wanted<br>

> the re-shoot offer was well above and beyond the contractual compensation to which they agreed<br>

> their request for a financial compensation settlement has been received<br>

> indicate that having received that request for monetary compensation refer them to the pertinent clauses in the contract<br>

> indicate that according to the contract you will draw a cheque in the amount of $18.00 and will be forwarding to them within 14 days.</p>

<p>I concur that having the business insured for such losses is prudent: in fact my opinion is that a <strong>comprehensive</strong> business liability policy is mandatory, but I note so many W&P Photographers just do not have one.</p>

<p>WW</p>

It's too late now, but backing up to DVD's as well as HD's is a better move. Some DVD's have a lifetime warranty with

them and we all know that DVD's will be replaced probably within the next 5 to 10 years or so. But it's a great backup

system. HD's really don't last very long. They of course can die anytime and if you store them in a dark room, such as an

external drive often after just a few years some of the images will go bad.

 

I think it's really nuts that spinning hard drives are still around. Companies should be pushing solid state HD's, these drives

are out already, but the cost is still a bit too high.

<p>William W. said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt that refunding 25% would be a great Public Relations move; in fact I doubt that refunding any money will be much of a Public Relations move at all. <em>(Many words follow).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I don't agree. You may be right, but I think that the right thing to do is to offer a significant token refund, remind them of the contract terms calling for $18. If they don't accept the offer, then say bye-bye, after documenting your offer(s). I think more people than not will accept such an offer.<br>

<br>

If they take you to small claims, you can hang your hat on the contract. Say, that you made the offers to try to keep good customer relations, but you're sticking to the contract, since they didn't accept your offer. BTW, if they refuse your generous offer, send them the $18 and reference the contract.</p>

<p>I think that the opening post, whilst having more content than many we read here, is still scant in detail such that any more than general opinions can be offered: as one example, (I assume that) David's reference to <em>"If they take you to small claims . . ."</em> would be more applicable if the OP worked in the USA, but maybe not applicable if the OP worked in another country where a claim in a court was not, or was less of a possibility. Another example is the reference to a specific Insurance provider - obviously the OP must consider (or research) if these specifics will be applicable - but it would obviously assist if the OP detailed where in this world s/he actually works. Also, it would help the cause if the OP responded to implied questions, for example, we still do not know the price paid for the supply of 200 images minimum: it might be $400 or $4000 . . .</p>

<p>In regard to offering compensation - note that there already has been an (arguably) significant offer of compensation by the OP - and that offer is here: <em>"offered a family photo session to bring the necessary people together to get these missing photo combinations"</em> and that offer has been refused by the clients: there might be good reason to refuse that offer, for example those family members might have flown in from overseas; on the other hand they might all live nearby and attending a re-shoot in the same clothes and at the same venue might be very easily achieved - the point is we just don't know these details.</p>

<p>I do understand David's point, and I do see a possible value in making (one) offer of token monetary compensation - but on the other hand, <strong>from what has been thus far disclosed</strong>, I see an initial red flag when the Clients moved to requesting monetary compensation instead of accepting the offer to make good the three images that are 'missing' - and (importantly) on the third hand - the offer of 'compensation' was already 'offered and accepted' as per the contract signed by the Client - and that was $18 for the three 'missing' images. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I think we're agreed William. I would suggest only one additional good monetary offer and don't get into negotiations. If that's not accepted, send a check for $18, in accordance with the contract and fix the back-up solution.</p>

<p>Since they paid $1200 (200 images x $6), I think the $18 is going to be taken as an insult. Keep it simple, send them $250, put it down to experience and move on. I don't know how you get clients but if it is anything to do with referrals from other happy customers, your business will suffer if you don't manage to keep this bride happy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the offer to reshoot is both generous and most likely to provide the bargained for result in the contract. What you are offering is to perform the contract by delivering the images bargained for. Money damages are only appropriate as a substitute for actual performance. In this case you can offer performance and I would be as gracious about it as you possibly can -- bring a bottle of champaign to the shoot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I think we're agreed William"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We seem certainly on the same wavelength, yes.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<strong>Since they paid $1200</strong> (200 images x $6)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not a fact, that's an extrapolation: the OP might please clarify?</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"bring a bottle of champaign to the shoot"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's an example of Public Relations</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I have a relative who is extremely successful in business. He told me that he doesn't judge companies by their successes, but how they dealt with their mistakes. <br>

If you were a big company, yeah, 18 bucks is all they would get. But for you that's career suicide IMO.</p>

<p>Whenever I am in a situation where I have screwed up, I always ask WWWD? (What Would Walt Do?) Disney is a great benchmark for customer service, and their approach works. So, what would you do if you were providing Disney-level customer service? That does not necessarily have to mean a financial output. You offered a portrait session and they refused. And like William so wisely stated, they did not give you an amount to define "fair compensation". They are waiting for you to do that.</p>

<p>Finding something in that small crack in between covering yourself financially, and trying to make the client happy, is a tough call that only you can make based on what feels right to you. You have a solid contract (which I am assuming an attorney has reviewed, yes?) and that contract states the specific amount for any lost images. They could only legally hold you liable for $18, essentially. </p>

<p>So, your real issue here is not financial, it's one of customer service. They have refused your offer of a free portrait session. Perhaps there is something else you can do for them that shows you want to go above and beyond for them, but not put yourself out of business doing so.</p>

<p>Thank you all so much for your time taken to respond - I have been out photographing this weekend so have only just had a chance to log back in.<br /> Being that I live in a rural area where many towns are linked and 'everybody knows everybody', I was keen to 'make it right' so that my reputation was not further damaged. However, i do know for a fact that the family members are all local so travel etc would not have been a big issue, it seems there is something more here that I'm not aware of.<br /> In the end I wrote back and outlined the limit of liability as per the contract (providing workings supporting the $18), and then as a measure of good faith offered the monetary value of the photoshoot offered, which has been accepted and subsequently paid.<br /> For reference the amount paid was $1395 (my minimum package) and I am outside the US. I have reviewed my contract may times since first starting out and it is now pretty comprehensive re: limits of liability, which I hold $20m Public Liability Insurance (would NOT be without it, I worked in Insurance for 10+yrs and have seen too many cases which could have easily been avoided)<br /> So now to work on a new back up strategy and keep putting my best foot forward :)</p>

<p>Thank you for providing those additional facts which are useful for archival reference: especially thank you for so doing, after your issue had been resolved. </p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Since 50 out of 250 weren't available, it would seem fair to refund 20%. </p>

<p>I suspect that is closer to what you actually paid them than $18.<br>

(and not counting disk recovery costs).</p>

<p>I never understand the pricing of photo shoot sessions. Seems to me that most price the sessions low, and prints high. But now, most will sell the JPG files, so we can print as many as we want.</p>

<p>Since there are many things that could go wrong, for the group photos that clients especially want, it might be good to shoot with more than one camera, with separate back-up system for the cards from each. That is, no single point of failure. </p>

<p>For general shoots, it seems that you just need to be sure to make the contract amount.</p>