My mistake on the terminology, but as I clearly stated in my last message, $959 is the brand new selling price, here is the lens, not able to post links so take out the extra spaces before the .com
adorama .com/NK10528AFVRU.html
and right there is a link to the used lenses, 4 of them at $849 in the USED price, again $849 is the USED price. 70% of that is $595, I have a screen cap of when the resale price was $859 which I'm sure is the resale value Charles was looking at because he said I'd get $600 if its in excellent condition and $600 is exactly 70% of $859, and my lens was definitely in E+ condition. It makes no sense the lens would be sold at $600 thats severely underpriced. I understand prices fluctuate some, but not hundreds of dollars. And again the prices are right there in that link, I absolutely am not confusing the brand new retail price for the resale price.
I don't understand how adorama can say 70% of the resale price goes to me, then use completely different prices after the lens arrives. One of the agencies I sell photos through, ImageBrief, they give 70% of the selling price to the photographer when an image sells, its not 'this image sold for $1000, but actually we're going to give you $500 instead of $700 even tho we advertise paying out 70%, thats just a marketing ploy". I have a charity portion of my business where 70% of profits sold from prints goes to the charity that the photo is associated with so the buyer knows where there money is going and is clearly laid out, these are the production costs, these are the profits, this much always goes to the charity, this much I keep for myself, I don't take the money then make up numbers completely different from whats on the site or change the percentages afterwards saying its actually just maybe 55-65% or less. But adorama clearly does.
Jack called again today while I was in a dead zone, I didn't want to speak with him again but I'll call in tomorrow because this has just become pathetic.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
