Discontinued.

[Pamela Galli]

---

iCade wrote:

Please realise that the outfit we've discussed is a mere example of the hundreds of items out there that are not as advertised. I brought it up to give an example, I should of known everyone would loose the point of this thread.

Point is, bait and switch is a very real thing in the catalog, and while I have been proven wrong, that there was no bait and switch, I still got not what I paid for and have to jump through hoops to have it look pretty while others will not see the prettieness due to using the default windlight.

Now that the example has been picked apart, please return to the topic at hand

---

If you left a bad review, you need to change or delete  it.

 

[iCade]

I do, however I asked other people for their experience with this subject and gave my own, this is supposed to be a discussion, if only I were to give examples it would be quite one sided, no?

 

Edit: I will not change my review. The product only looks nice in a certain windlight. Not what I paid for. All my other 5000 something clothing items look just fine in default light safe for this one.

If I had know I would need to jump through hoops to replicate a look then quite frankly I would have not purchased it.

I wasn't aware one couldn't post negative and opinionated reviews? It's a review, not a request for constructive cristism?

Either way, if no one is posting more examples, then the thread shall die it's natural death. I did, opinions apparently differ, I should have never brought up the example, simply because the discussion was going as intended, but as soon as I posted the example people got caught up in it and lost sight of the main subject - safe for one or two-. Learned that one, next discussion without samples

[Ariel Vuissent]

Okay. I shared my own personal experience. I'll mention it again, since we did get side-tracked by the faulty example. My own is with a shoe designer who takes images in third-party software and photoshops her shoes/feet onto the default SL avatar legs. Naturally the feet/shoes look much better in the third party software, so it was kind of a bummer for me to see the shoes inworld, versus how they looked in the advertisement.

I would love to see a marketplace guideline or ToS adjustment that says marketplace images for physical objects (buildings, clothing, skins, shoes, shapes, etc. - things like HUD's need not be included) must be taken inworld, NOT using third-party software. That way, users get a realistic view of what they should be getting. I can't think of anything that cannot be photographed inworld, either by snapshot or screen capture. It would also be nice to see more merchants include a notecard with the windlight settings they used to capture the image, so that users know how to achieve that look in cases where the item is NOT photographed under default lighting.

I wish that creators would stop photoshopping away seams, as well. I accept that there will be seams where clothing layers meet, or where sculpties or flexies meet with clothing layers or each other. I don't like when creators blend that seam away, because it makes it look as though they minimized the seam far more than they did. Then I get the item, and rather than a minute seam, I find an obvious, poorly blended blob attached to my avatar. Instead, I wish creators would try to blend the items so they looked right inworld, rather than getting rid of the lines in photoshop. I'm not wearing the item in photoshop; I'm wearing it inworld!

ETA: There's nothing wrong with examples, but do your research on them first to make sure they actually support your argument. :smileywink:

[Pamela Galli]

---

iCade wrote:

I do, however I asked other people for their experience with this subject and gave my own, this is supposed to be a discussion, if only I were to give examples it would be quite one sided, no?

 

Edit: I will not change my review. The product only looks nice in a certain windlight. Not what I paid for. All my other 5000 something clothing items look just fine in default light safe for this one.

If I had know I would need to jump through hoops to replicate a look then quite frankly I would have not purchased it.

I wasn't aware one couldn't post negative and opinionated reviews? It's a review, not a request for constructive cristism?

Either way, if no one is posting more examples, then the thread shall die it's natural death. I did, opinions apparently differ, I should have never brought up the example, simply because the discussion was going as intended, but as soon as I posted the example people got caught up in it and lost sight of the main subject - safe for one or two-. Learned that one, next discussion without samples

---

It's like people who buy a house and discover the alpha bug when they look at trees through a window. That's not what they paid for!  No one mentioned the alpha bug!

 

I have had ppl contact me because some piece of white furniture looked purplish at midnight!  They didn't pay for that! No one told them white looks purple at midnight!

 

Oh no! My skin has these awful things around the nose and mouth on default settings!  That's not what I paid for!

 

And the list goes on.

[Charlotte Bartlett]

You first state in your title a question - Bait and Switch getting out of hand? So you are leading us to believe the thread is about this practice.

You then link the bate and switch issue to a specific problem - "shameless photoshopping". So you give us a perceived root cause for the Bait and Switch in your example.

You then follow up saying you have read a lot of reviews stating a preview picture was photoshopped. So now linking the issue to specific practices on Marketplaces that merchants are photoshopping their images to bait and switch.

You then provide a real example to back up the case from another merchant's work. You are now linking that merchant with (a) the photoshoppping issue (b) linking the thought they are baiting and switching their customers and justifying it by © stating many reviews etc cover this topic on other merchants.

You confirm it isn't a viewer issue (but fail to mention your own quality of skin, shape etc on your avatar). You also underpin the point by stating how shocked 3 friends were also but didn't mention if you asked them to use a default setting, and again for all we know they are using commodore 64s to look at SL..

So after this setting of the scene you ask us

Where is the line drawn was your next question. Well reading the above I think it should be drawn at making assumptions and using another merchant's work to promote a general issue. Or at least post this link to the merchant so they can respond to your criticism and implied allegations.

You have, to my opinion, undermined the original issue which I am guessing is the photoshopping aspect by making it so specific and targeted at somebody not here to defend themselves. The original issue is actually pretty valid as it does create less credibility for merchants so affects us all. However I strongly disagree that because somebody has pretty standard windlight setting used they are baiting and switching people.

The point on demos is also a good one. It would be nice to be able to demo clothes like we do skins. But again the creator is NOT at fault if you have a shape or skin that doesn't work with said outfit and that's the cause versus their own work.

To answer your final questions - have you ever fallen for it - yes. And I then avoid the merchant but it's rare because I use many merchants who have good reputations and I repeat buy from their new collections.

How do I feel about it - well your detracting post aside - I feel it is wrong and it would be good to educate merchants to improve and use better practices. Bear in mind SL creating is a long learning process. What seems like a good idea when you are new or inexperienced, later you realise is not and you change your process. Some merchants are plain shady and will always be unfortunately.

What actions should you take as a deceived customer? Well I don't think you have been deceived and your post hasn't helped the wider cause. Plus negative reviews had you given the merchant an opportunity to respond before writing up on their product, if not that should have been your first action to discuss your concerns. If you had and got a negative response then you are quite within your right to make your concern public.

As a quite angry merchant per your final question? You get a lot more results with honey versus vinegar. I would put your emotions aside and perhaps think about blogging positive ways for merchants to take great pictures of products without need to photoshop as a resource. You mention you have 10 years experience in using Paint Pro, so how about using that to educate how to take good snapshots without need to photoshop.

Just my thoughts.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Charlotte Bartlett wrote:

 

You also underpin the point by stating how shocked 3 friends were also but didn't mention if you asked them to use a default setting, and again for all we know they are using

commodore 64s

to look at SL..

---

And I thought I had an old PC!

[Charlotte Bartlett]

lol.   Ok ok, a BBC Acorn!

[Tiffy Vella]

---

Czari Zenovka wrote:

 

Once Windlight came out, the whole ballgame with everyone having a "shared experience" re: textures on anything changed.  I recall a merchant from years ago providing instructions in her store on how to make what *you* see on your viewer the same thing *everyone* sees re: particularly skins.  (This merchant did not create skins, she created clothes but had a good eye for images.)

Now with the gazillion sun/sky settings, not to mention the plethora of viewers, I'm wondering if anyone can truly see what another is seeing without using the exact same setting and even then different graphic settings for PCs come into play.  For example, the skin I wear came with a notecard that gave precise settings for it to look its best.  I made that an option in the sky settings. I use it 99% of the time because it shows my avatar skin at its best.  But how are other people viewing me?

Then we get into, let's say, two people are in a scenic setting.  One may have midnight turned on, the other sundown.  That again is going to have each person viewing the identical scene differently, not to mention, in my case with the draw distance typically set at 64m, I never see much past my nose....lol...while the other person could be seeing an entire panorama.

On the subject of white that I see has been raised:  I took a 10-week class in SL on Gimp. (I actually took it 3 times..lol.)  The final assignment was to create a white tailored shirt complete with collar, pocket, placket, buttons, cuffs with buttons, each on a different layer.  This after just one week on creating clothing in Gimp.  Trust me, the instructor and I have had *many* discussions on the complexity of this project as an "Introduction to using Gimp to make clothing."

Anyway...the instructor told us not to use regular white for the shirt but to slide the color over enough for it to be perhaps a light beige, eggshell, etc.  Anything than flat white.  I didn't fully understand at the time (and still haven't completed the shirt...lol) but from reading this thread I'm understanding why flat white isn't a good choice.

 

---

I think this is a central point to this discussion, and how we are getting a variety of responses. Whose duty is it to ensure we all see a standardised view, when we can no longer claim to see the same things? I no longer can assume what anyone is seeing, whether it's lighting effects or UI controls. My customers may be using a LoD setting of 1.25, and have all settings at their basicest levels and have harsh yellow light filtering over everything, but I can't control that or predict it. I can't guarantee that everything I make will look fabulous under those conditions, nor should any merchant. That's why I use default noon as a yardstick.

When windlight was released, I sent out a notecard to friends, jokingly and arrogantly stating what settings I wanted them to use when looking at me, so that I would appear at my most attractive. That was a joke, but it's hitting a truth, that we don't automatically share the same sets of eyes anymore.

 

Oh yes, white is a **bleep** to work with, isn't it! In nature, it rarely appears as a pure unsaturated hue. So if you try to add shading of pure grey, it looks flat and unnatural. So you must add either cool or warm tones, and try to avoid muddy. Matching two 'white' items from two different creators can be surprisingly tricky, same as 'black' items.

[Marcus Hancroft]

When I read this thread's title, my ears perked up because, having worked in retail for over 15 years, that accusation is a dangerous one!

"Bait and Switch" is defined as:  "Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud, most commonly used in retail sales but also applicable to other contexts. First, customers are "baited" by advertising for a product or service at a low price; second, the customers discover that the advertised good is not available and are "switched" to a costlier product."  This from wikipedia found HERE.

Also:

"In the United States, courts have held that the purveyor using a bait-and-switch operation may be subject to a lawsuit by customers for false advertising, and can be sued for trademark infringement by competing manufacturers, retailers, and others who profit from the sale of the product used as bait. However, no cause of action will exist if the purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised, but aggressively pushes a competing product.

Likewise, advertising a sale while intending to stock a limited amount of, and thereby sell out, a loss-leading item advertised is legal in the United States. The purveyor can escape liability if they make clear in their advertisements that quantities of items for which a sale is offered are limited, or by offering a rain check on sold-out items.

In England and Wales it is banned under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Breaking this law can result in a criminal prosecution, an unlimited fine and two years in jail."

As such, what you've experienced is NOT bait and switch.  Accusing a retailer or marketplace merchant of bait and switch is serious business and just throwing that accusation around can constitute slander (or libel).  I suggest you change the name of this thread and remove any references to bait and switch you've made in your comments about this merchants products.

[Tiffy Vella]

Agree, Marcus, that 'bait and switch' is a very serious accusation. With respect to iCade, I think most people who have posted do not believe that the merchant is guilty of anything like that.

[Charlotte Bartlett]

Agree, and to link it to a specific merchant is the same as accusing that merchant.  Totally inapproriate actions.  

[iCade]

I did not link it to a specific merchant. I never named names nor gave any implications of who it could be.

Changed the thread title however. Funny how I am painted the bad guy when shady merchants are a dime a dozen and not even getting a slap on the wrist. Fabulous.

[Pamela Galli]

---

iCade wrote:

I did not link it to a specific merchant. I never named names nor gave any implications of who it could be.

Changed the thread title however. Funny how I am painted the bad guy when shady merchants are a dime a dozen and not even getting a slap on the wrist. Fabulous.

---

I don't think "shady merchants" are a dime a dozen, if you mean most merchants are dishonest in some way.  There are "shady" customers out there, too, but as with merchants, they are a small minority.

I do run into

plenty

of people like you, who will try to destroy the sales of something a merchant spent a lot of time on, because of factors beyond his control, like what your Windlight settings are, or what graphics card you have, or marketplace deliveries, or any of a hundred other things.

 

[Charlotte Bartlett]

Amazing.  You posted their work - not hard to find the merchant.

 

[Athena Mornington]

so true, Charlotte. I am a shopper not a merchant. I read these forums but rarely comment. but I have to comment on this one. I have that outfit. the person who created it is an old and respected creator in SL. in fact, the vast majority of the ratings on the items in the store are 4 star or better (by a longshot and a lot of them). this particular outfit is gorgeous and I wouldn't hestitate to buy it again (I got it in game).

to leave a 1 star review on this is a crime. even if you didn't like the way the colors look on your monitor (and I get that), iCade, you got all the pieces, all the seams line up, the textures are lovely, (can't help that your feet aren't size 0) - that's no less than 3 stars and a comment about color on "your" screen. you really should change your review (although I can't imagine anyone paying attention to it since it's kind of overboard).

[Pamela Galli]

iCade said: "Whatever you say to make this merchant be in the right, that merchant is maliciously deceiving customers to get L for a bad product."

 

That is wrong, that is dishonest.

I am going to buy the outfit and and leave a review :-)

[Polenth Yue]

On the other side, when I didn't have much stock, I went looking for garden affiliates. One place had nice products, so I got their affiliates....

The product pictures were dark, dreary and made the products look awful. They were taken at midday with no additional lighting. They were taken as a distance so the whole product showed in one shot. They were technically honest pictures, but they didn't look like the final products. That's because in SL, you walk around a product. You can zoom in and out to see the detail. You mentally compensate for things like colour balance based on the ambient lighting. You don't just see a static shot of it.

Product pictures are an attempt to turn a 3D experience into a 2D one, and that means they'll never be completely accurate. Merchants will often have to do things to the picture to create that illusion of accuracy. Obviously, if someone takes that too far and paints out the flaws, that's a bad thing. But most merchants aren't doing that.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Polenth Yue wrote:

On the other side, when I didn't have much stock, I went looking for garden affiliates. One place had nice products, so I got their affiliates....

 

The product pictures were dark, dreary and made the products look awful. They were taken at midday with no additional lighting. They were taken as a distance so the whole product showed in one shot. They were technically honest pictures, but they didn't look like the final products. That's because in SL, you walk around a product. You can zoom in and out to see the detail. You mentally compensate for things like colour balance based on the ambient lighting. You don't just see a static shot of it.

 

 

---

So true.  I sell mainly home accessories and when I first began knew absolutely zip about graphics programs so I used a very simple one that came with my printer.  I could basically crop the photo and that was about it, which is why I began learning how to use Gimp.  Now my ads are soooooo much more professional and show the product off in a MUCH better light, no pun intended.

(Which reminds me - I need to work on the old photos that I never updated...ACK!!!)

[Camron Solo]

I think the missed point that iCade was wanting to make is open a platform for everyone to share experiences and talk about the issue of fasle advertising by over editing pictures in SL. I believe to make her point she showed just one example of this to get the idea going of what she was talking about. That was taken out of context and blown out of porportion to where she started to be attacked.

I don't think it would matter if we all would go and buy the outfit or it could of been another completely different outfit, a fact is that we would all see it differently. The point is not the outfit that was posted or for that particular outfit to be picked apart. If one can not speak freely (without the OP post being turned around on them) and post examples of what they are trying to get across then there is no where to voice an opinion or ask a question for discussion. 

 

[Pamela Galli]

The only person who got attacked was the merchant iCade gave a one star review to.

It was explained to iCade that things such as Windlight settings cannot be controlled by a creator - and also it is common knowledge that shoes are made to fit size zero feet.  No matter, she is sticking her to her one star review because she claims the merchant maliciously and intentionally ripped her off.

Plus she went on to insult the whole merchant community: she claims the number of merchants out there trying to rip people off is huge -- they are "a dime a dozen".

 

Don't come here with a claim that iCade is the victim here; she is not.

[Ariel Vuissent]

The point, as I understood it initially, is that the oufit was not as advertised because it was heavily photoshopped. The point had nothing to do with how it was seen on different screens; the idea was that NO ONE would get the outfit as it was seen on the advertisement because the advertisement had been retouched so much. The example was faulty, and as such did NOT get across the point. The discussion then turned more towards windlight settings (which is an interesting topic in and of itself, although not the one iCade intended to introduce).

At this point, I don't know if the discussion can "get back on track" to the intended discussion topic, but this one's also pretty interesting. I enjoy watching discussions evolve.

Edited for spelling.

ETA: I don't think, with perhaps one or two exceptions, that iCade was "attacked." We have explored the example, proven it faulty, discussed why it is faulty, and expressed our concern and, in some cases, disapproval over what some feel is an unfair review. We have given opinions, as iCade gave her opinions. In fact in some posts I feel that iCade has attacked and insulted (both passive-aggresively and more openly) those who have offered opinions.

[Camron Solo]

Please point me to where I claim she is the victim. You forget that she mentioned that she is a merchant herself. As many responses and views that others have already gave their input everyone took the thread differently. No matter what was the example of the purchased item here if you buy one thing and the next person buys the same thing, you may be tickled with it, while the other person is not so pleased with it. Its called an opinion. We all have one. Until someone makes you forum police, don't tell others what to or not to come here with.

Maybe you never have expierienced what the topic orignally was, buying something and getting home to realize it is not really how it seemed in the picture. That's all that seem to of happened here, she bought something, she brought the topic to attention to see what others have experienced. Before she deleted the original post she mentioned that it was a topic she had thought about bringing up for a while, iirc. If you ever buy something and this is the case by all means come here and post about it and show your example and you'll see how it feels to have your own post turned around on you.

[Czari Zenovka]

---

Ariel Vuissent wrote:

 

ETA: I don't think, with perhaps one or two exceptions, that iCade was "attacked." We have explored the example, proven it faulty, discussed why it is faulty, and expressed our concern and, in some cases, disapproval over what some feel is an unfair review. We have given opinions, as iCade gave her opinions. In fact in some posts I feel that iCade has attacked and insulted (both passive-aggresively and more openly) those who have offered opinions.

---

I would agree.  I never attacked iCade; in fact, when she indicated she had been added to this merchant's group without opting in I provided a way to opt back out if the group was run by Hippo.  I never saw any more commentary on that topic.  I thought Toy presented a very clear and excellent post on why a TOS on excessive photoshopping was not necessary and, imo, he was "attacked" for that post by iCade.  Pamela also makes an excellent point that if one begins insulting "all" merchants, it is human nature for said merchants to become a bit defensive in turn.

I am totally for posting opinions (within TOS guidelines of course) on forums.  I've been flamed more than once for an unpopular opinion so I do know the "attacked" feeling, but when I took a deep breath, stepped away for a day or so, then re-read my posts, I realized that others were exercising their freedom of expression in a post to disagree with me. 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Camron Solo wrote:

I think the missed point that iCade was wanting to make is open a platform for everyone to share experiences and talk about the issue of fasle advertising by over editing pictures in SL. I believe to make her point she showed just one example of this to get the idea going of what she was talking about. That was taken out of context and blown out of porportion to where she started to be attacked.

I don't think it would matter if we all would go and buy the outfit or it could of been another completely different outfit, a fact is that we would all see it differently. The point is

not

the outfit that was posted or for that particular outfit to be picked apart. If one can not speak freely (without the OP post being turned around on them) and post examples of what they are trying to get across then there is no where to voice an opinion or ask a question for discussion. 

 

---

Camron,

No one is missing the point and no one wants to stifle open healthy conversations. 

BUT...

iCade's approach on wanting to talk about this topic that was serious to her used a very poor approach.  She first of all called it an unethical and in some cases illegal "BAIT & SWITCH" term ... which is OK as a topic but she then proceeded to openly accuse a specific SL merchant and her product as an example of this bad practice.

She still would have been on the GOOD side of handling the thread topic while she kept the target of her frustration anonymous... but then she exposed the Merchant by putting her actual product on display which it doesnt take rocket science to discover the merchant she basically was accusing of Baiting and Switching.

This is where she and the OP topic went off the rails.

She was was both accuser and judge and jury on a Merchant's business practice that the Merchant may to this day still not be aware that her MP business and product line was slandered.

So... in conclusion, how iCade should have handled this was to bring up the topic as a general frustration and concern and then provided an example by creating her own FAKE examples to prove her point.

This is the point that myself and several other merchants took offence and voice concern on.

[mtwtfss71]

Thank you Czari! These are great tips as to how I can also offer demos of my outfits. Now I know what my weekend will entail... make that the next 4 weekends.

On topic, tho, I feel strongly about making sure my customers are satisfied with their purchases so any way that I can make them feel secure in buying from me, I'm willing to make the effort. I think that's true of most merchants.