There is nothing wrong with price shopping. There is nothing wrong with buying from a different showroom than the one you originally visited to look at the gear, though I do believe you owe it to the original showroom to give them the opportunity to compete on price, if price is the issue.
But camera dealers with showrooms are there to sell product, not to provide a library of gear for you to handle so that you'll know what to buy from the online dealers who cannot demonstrate the product to you. If you derive benefit from seeing the product in person, and if seeing it in person has helped you to make the buying decision, you need to be giving the "see it in person" places your business. Many of them will even try to match on-line pricing if you ask, or at least will try to get closer to it. Remember, when you walk into a dealer with a showroom, and a salesperson demonstrates (or at least lets you hold and touch) some equipment, you are being serviced. You may not think that service is worth $200, or whatever. If it isn't, don't utilize the service.
Tom C wrote:
I have to disagree totally with this. There is inothing in the least unethical about going into a retail store to look at an item, even handle it, and then not purchase it from them because it's too high priced. Just as it's not unethical to go to a car dealer close to home, test drive a vehicle, and then purchase it from a more distant dealer because the price is better.
The only 'service' I used was being able to see the item first hand. It also does not mean that I did not/do not purchase other items at the store regularly.
Tom C.
From: David Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Film is dead... Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:48:29 -0700
Tom C wrote:
Sure, but why do you care about the employment situation in NYC? Worry about the employment situation closer to home, and where you live will be a nicer place.
William Robb
I don't really. But I also don't think I'm personally responsible for keeping someone else gainfully employed while incurring a detriment to myself. If I thought that way, I'd donate to every charity asking for meny and I'd and give a buck to every homeless person on the street. And then *I'd* be broke.
You are not responsible to keep someone gainfully employed selling cameras the old way. However, if you make the choice to not pay the price for his services, stay out of his shop altogether. If a portion of your buying decision on a piece of equipment is influenced based on how the thing looks, performs, and feels in your hand, buy it from the place where you felt it in your hand. It is unethical to handle the goods at a place where you have no intention of buying them, and then buy the goods from a place where you are unable to handle them first, just because they beat the showroom place on price. They beat the showroom on price for all the reasons you went into the showroom to look and see.
