5. Show me where we are expressly forbidden from removing the SM footer in the CURRENT SM legal documentation.
This would make me happy. It may not work for everyone.
As a secondary question, I wonder how you see these two things in particular:
1. What do you think of all the people saying the attitude at SM has fundamentally changed? Because it has. Does that concern you at all?
2. Do you see, from the copy and paste in my post further up, that the CSS that was added to force the footer was a deliberate attempt? It was in no way a fix that happened to break hiding the footer. It was the sole purpose of the "fix". Honesty goes a LONG way in people's respect for a company. Own mistakes and move on.
Wordpress.org .... My mistake, I should've clarified that we are speaking of 2 different Wordpress sites and rules. Wordpress also has loads of plugins that you can use to change just about everything you can think of. Which by the way you can get for free on the Wordpress.org web site. Though I prefer to use as few of plugins as possible and change the code instead myself.
.... So maybe the best thing is to focus on what it is you need that isn't done right now with regard to our footer.
1) Given the fact that "no spam, no ads", "Completely personal homepage", "Make it Personal... you can be you" are clearly and prominently advertised as integral features of the service you sell (and sold me) - I am respectfully asking to get your company's branding off of customers pages.
If you refuse to do so - you are placing your company in a vulnerable position due to the false advertisement case... unless your attorneys can proof, beyond the reasonable doubt, that I expressly agreed to display your branding despite the service was advertised to me (and still is) as "no ads no spam".
2) If the direction your company takes is to display your brand on customers pages then:
a) branding-free service can be offered for higher priced level of service (like Zenfoolio and other companies)
b) remove the following advertisement for future customers:
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
Self-hosted WordPress (.org. not .com) - no branding, no ads, no compulsory footer. Where's the confusion?
We don't self host. Hosted Wordpress requires a footer. We could keep going like this forever and it just doesn't seem possible for me to understand, I'm sorry.
1) Given the fact that "no spam, no ads", "Completely personal homepage", "Make it Personal... you can be you" are clearly and prominently advertised as integral features of the service you sell (and sold me) - I am respectfully asking to get your company's branding off of customers pages.
I'm sorry, Meshenka, I've tried to understand, but I just can't internalize equating attribution--a footer--with ads or spam. If I tried to sell a footer like that as an ad, I don't think I'd have buyers. We buy lots of ads, but that's not one we would ever consider.
But what I'm missing is that if you do, and it's not our terms or customization capabilities that are stopping you from removing it... I really am sorry for not being able to understand.
I'm sorry, Meshenka, I've tried to understand, but I just can't internalize equating attribution--a footer--with ads or spam.
Simple.
Your "attribution" is a LINK (not simple text) AWAY from ou" site to yours. No new window or tab, just POOF! and one of our potential customers is now on your home page.
Never mind the SEO implications already mentioned...
I don't personally care, I don't need SkyNet indexing all my photos, but I understand the implications for those who care about being found via Google (or the weak M$ wanna-be).
The question is, do you?
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
Fair enough.4. Please, please give the Portfolio and Business levels footer removal. Zenfolio does this, at the exact same pricing levels as SM.
I know I'll sound very dumb, but if it's not in our terms and you know how to do it, what am I missing?
But I think it's only fair to point out what I believe you're missing. Zenfolio couldn't get funding and had to sell to Art.com. When that happened, a flood of their most high profile customers came to SmugMug, and none that I know of removed the footer. I pinged a few of them as I was trying to understand this issue to see if we're annoying or spamming them, because many of the high profile guys use a SmugMug URL and leave our logo in their headers.
And their response was they're proud of their SmugMug sites and associating with us, and that's why they also requested SmugMug hoodies and hats. If I wanted to commit business suicide, I could remove the SmugMug footer for the vast majority who leave it there and love it, but that would hurt Meshenka, AdamNP, Charly and every other one of our customers by buzz killing, so that we'd have reduced resources to hire engineers or be sold off like Zenfolio.
As a secondary question, I wonder how you see these two things in particular:
1. What do you think of all the people saying the attitude at SM has fundamentally changed? Because it has. Does that concern you at all?
It has changed in very big ways, and I have led the change, and it has angered some long-term customers who loved the way it was before, and who I love even though they're furious at me.
One example is I had to face the reality that we could choose security or JavaScript. Whichever we chose, there would be fury. And there was, complete with posting pics of our license plates and aerial photos of our homes and addresses online.
And we discovered the hard way that we couldn't do as Andy and I had done for many years, which was to take the suggestions we read online in forums like this and get excited about being responsive and listening to customers, and implementing features quickly. Sometimes we still do, like last week when the password guessing game was topical and we turned ourselves inside out to get the failed password attempt emails to our customers.
But more often than not the silent majority took us to task when we did that for trying to please everyone, or spending our resources on a vocal minority and complicating our site with little used options. So we had to get more sophisticated with data mining and querying our customers, to fully understand the silent majority. And it has meant saying no to some very passionate, long-term customers who we hate disappointing.
Which brings me back to the footer. After recently finishing an enormous and sophisticated (expensive) study of our customers I can share with you that the firm who helped us with the survey has never seen the level of engagement and response they saw with our survey. They care, they're engaged, they're passionate, their sites matter. They want better commerce, they want better terms for privacy (no one gets 'unlisted' or 'private'), security, commenting, favoriting, etc.
And most of all, they want everyday happy customers voices to be heard even if they don't have the personality to brave forums like this (the overwhelming majority don't).
We have to draw them out, fully listen and understand them, and say no to spending time on things the majority don't care about. And doing that is proving to be huge in driving a renaissance for us while infuriating some long-term customers.
I wish I could please everyone, but I have to choose.
I know I'll sound very dumb, but if it's not in our terms and you know how to do it, what am I missing?
I was just about to go to bed, so just want to answer this simple first thing. What are you missing? You are missing all of the SM employees, mbonocore included, who *routinely* post that not only are we NOT allowed to remove the footer, but that we NEVER have been, in the company's history.
I'm way too tired to go searching for posts, but basically anyone who's read this forum at all can confirm that. We are told, ALL the time (including I believe in this very thread) that footer removal is absolutely NOT allowed. Is that wrong? If so, you need to speak to your employees and get your rules straight.
Oh, and also, then how do you explain the obvious attempt by SM to force the footer to show. You neglected to answer that question.
I understand your position Ferguson and Tomo....I really do. But again, we do not allow you to hide the "Powered By SmugMug" text on the footer. I will gladly listen to your arguments, but I can tell you this will not be changing anytime soon.
I'm sorry, Meshenka, I've tried to understand, but I just can't internalize equating attribution--a footer--with ads or spam. If I tried to sell a footer like that as an ad, I don't think I'd have buyers. We buy lots of ads, but that's not one we would ever consider.
But what I'm missing is that if you do, and it's not our terms or customization capabilities that are stopping you from removing it... I really am sorry for not being able to understand.
I am sorry for you not being able to internalize equating attribution -- YOUR BRANDING: "SmugMug", regardless where it is : footer, header, etc. -- with ads. Let me try my best to help you and, please, bear with me, English is my second language. I will try really, really hard: Ad, Advertisement is a display of OTHER business name/logo on MY photo gallery site. Please, bear with me one more minute, let me try to internalize for you definition of "MY photo gallery site": it is the service that I paid you money for. Please, LOOK at what you advertise, do you see NO ADS??????:
...a flood of their most high profile customers came to SmugMug, and none that I know of removed the footer. I pinged a few of them as I was trying to understand this issue to see if we're annoying or spamming them, because many of the high profile guys use a SmugMug URL and leave our logo in their headers.
And their response was they're proud of their SmugMug sites and associating with us, and that's why they also requested SmugMug hoodies and hats.
If someone wants to display your branding on their site -good for them, they have full right to do so. Why should I care about it? I think I pay as much as they do, $300 for a year, correct? Or they pay more? Well.. I have two accounts. Seriously, someone pays more than $300 per year per account?
... If I wanted to commit business suicide, I could remove the SmugMug footer for the vast majority who leave it there and love it, but that would hurt Meshenka, AdamNP, Charly and every other one of our customers by buzz killing, so that we'd have reduced resources to hire engineers or be sold off like Zenfolio.
Oh, no, please, do NOT remove SmugMug branding from people sites who want it to be displayed! Why would you even contemplate it? How about the simplest solution: you allow anyone to prominently display SmugMug branding for customers who wish to do so. As you mentioned, there are some and they are proud of it. And I am proud of them. As you are saying 99% of your customers do not even think about it, correct? Perfect! Leave attribution ON by default, provide an OFF switch via the interface for 0.1% (that would be Adam, and I, maybe a few more people:) ) to turn it off if we want to. Well, at least for those who pay your highest priced subscription levels. All should be set and fair then, right?
... I wish I could please everyone, but I have to choose.
I honestly do not want you to please me. I want you to stop telling me (see posts above) that I am NOT allowed to remove footer with SmugMug advertisement. In addition I want you to stop deliberately placing code that prevents me from removing your branding from my page. It is my as long as I am your customer. "My" in term of usage, not in terms of ownership. And "usage" is defined in your TOS and advertisement of services on your company's website.
Mr. MacAskill,
Regardless of the above post - I wanted to say thank you for acknowledging my post and my concern and replying to it. By the way, I seriously cannot comprehend why you are equating removal of the SmugMug footer with commit business suicide??? Does the presence of SMugMug footer on each of your customers pages bring you more revenue? I am just trying to understand, please. Oh I wish I am one of your high profile customers so you can ping, perhaps call me directly, to explain this. But well, I am not, so I will hope to read your answer here.
So maybe the best thing is to focus on what it is you need that isn't done right now with regard to our footer.
I've stayed out of this discussion since, having a personal site (power level), I don't have the branding issues that have been a focus. I do have some design issues/requests, though.
1. Make it possible to omit the footer on the home page, even it must be enabled elsewhere. Designs like Sierra, Arrow, or Spartan show a full-screen image along with links to site content. "Powered by Smugmug" floating in the image just seems awkward. It's especially noticeable on Spartan (which I use) since it can appear half-way up rather than at the bottom. Fixes to move the text down can introduce a scroll bar at some screen sizes. That too is undesirable. SmugMug can obviously live without the footer on every page. There's no footer in the Lightbox or on full-screen slideshows. A "splash" home page strikes me as analogous. (My memory is that others have raised similar issues although I don't have links handy.)
2. Don't require the footer when the header is enabled. With the header in place, the footer is redundant and essentially becomes visual clutter.
Right now I'm dealing with these by enabling the header and more-or-less hiding the footer, but I'd like to have a long-term solution that I know is stable.
I know I'll sound very dumb, but if it's not in our terms and you know how to do it, what am I missing?
But I think it's only fair to point out what I believe you're missing. Zenfolio couldn't get funding and had to sell to Art.com. When that happened, a flood of their most high profile customers came to SmugMug, and none that I know of removed the footer. I pinged a few of them as I was trying to understand this issue to see if we're annoying or spamming them, because many of the high profile guys use a SmugMug URL and leave our logo in their headers.
And their response was they're proud of their SmugMug sites and associating with us, and that's why they also requested SmugMug hoodies and hats. If I wanted to commit business suicide, I could remove the SmugMug footer for the vast majority who leave it there and love it, but that would hurt Meshenka, AdamNP, Charly and every other one of our customers by buzz killing, so that we'd have reduced resources to hire engineers or be sold off like Zenfolio.
Perhaps again we are speaking to 2 different things. You about all levels of photogs found on SM (from those who just share with family/friends to those who try to sell some images but have another job, etc.) and me about photogs who wish to be seen as professional as possible as this is our career. And that is why I paid for a business account to have no sm branding anywhere. Not in the footer, header, search, not in the URL, etc.
Personally I don't know of 1 well known photographer that has any branding on their site: William Egglestn, John Sexton, Bryan Peterson (his blog doesn't have branding either), David LaChapelle, Henri-Carter Bresson, just to name a few and there are countless others. If they were so proud of who they have their site with why isn't it all over their pages?
So I guess in all fairness, this isn't the place for me as it is for others, because I'm not about anyone's branding but my own. Which is my prerogative given I put in all the time and money making a professional name for myself, not sm. Many who don't plan on making this their career wouldn't care about sm branding....
I came to sm very green about many things, but one thing I thought I had found was a place where I could develop my business. I was wrong due to your advertisements. And wound up spending countless hours on Legacy/New sites, only having to build yet another web site away from sm. Weeks and weeks, hours and countless hours for naught that I can never get back. Time when I should've been out shooting and making business contacts, I spent in front of a damn computer....Perhaps not advertising that one can have their own personal site, the way they want it would be the best plan of action for sm at this juncture.
Mr Baldy has managed to divert this thread into a discussion of only the SM footer, and to ignore the issues of blindsiding customers with no notification and otherwise failing to act as partners. Pity, this place seemed so promising.
I've been reading along, very sad that there are unhappy customers.
I don't have a strong opinion about whether there should be a footer or not, for myself. Although, given a choice, I would add the code to remove the footer. And I do understand the significance of the issue for those who are serious professionals and need the footer gone.
Just 2 cents on the tone in this thread: (1) Mr. MacAskill's reinstating the possibility of the blocking the footer, is very generous. He's reinstating "the way things were". This is huge. It implies a recognition that removing that option was wrong. It's a statement that he will help the (apparently small) minority of unhappy customers, be happy again. This is huge. (2) His declining to speak to the other issues, such as why did the programmer block the blocking code in the first place, and the incongruity between SM's publicizing "you can be you" and yet requiring a footer - these are all litigious issues. My hunch is, he's following legal advice about how to speak to, and not speak to, those aspects that might open a foul can of worms. After all more than poster in this thread spelled out lawsuit elements. He must consider these in that light.
So I read between the lines about why he doesn't talk about some of the points made.
Mainly what I wanted to offer to facilitate discussion, is a couple of links to issues related to apologies and lawsuits. Stopping short of embracing this alternative legal approach, Mr. MacAskill's reinstating the possibility of the blocking the footer, is very generous.
There's an entire 'field' of law that embraces the concept of apologizing in a deep way.
The legal culture in the United States as a whole is not there yet.
Obviously this thread has evolved from voicing opinions fairly neutrally to one of reoccurring disapproval and dissidence. It seems that despite SmugMug listening and updating the text and even putting the change on hold still isn't enough for some. I get that. I was one of the ones who greatly opposed the sudden forced violation. However, Baldy did represent his company well by doing his best to comment and explain. Despite this, so many of Smuggers replied by pulling apart his replies mostly with negatives or repetitive complaints. Neither Baldy or Bonocore should've had to apologize or take blame and it saddens me that we have pushed them to feel badly or have to spend valuable time explaining their actions. We are a community of photographers. Repetition of dissatisfaction will not result in a faster response. Instead, time focusing on the issue will be overshadowed by pointless responses. We all know that although these are OUR sites, we would not have them without SmugMug. Most of us are proud Smuggers. There are a few that aren't who wouldn't be pleased with or without the branding issue in existence. The focus should be on what we'd like to see not what has changed and who's to blame. Despite agreeing that there were WAY bigger issues than suddenly changing the Smugmark in the footer. Sadly, there's little that can be done to perfect this situation for everyone. Why? Because we are ALL different. That's also the beauty of our sites with SmugMug. Thankfully, someone did listen and the wording was changed. Later even the ability to remove the footer was reinitialized even if temporarily. Yet still, so many complaints. Very few appreciative of basically winning this round. Should we not have noticed that someone DID listen? True the sudden change felt violating. True the terms don't specify and SmugMug advertises custom websites without such forced branding. However, all this needs to be dropped from the conversation. NOW. No matter how unhappy we are/were/will be etc - we need to focus on a mutually beneficial solution that has the ability to be fair for everyone. Most of all, we need to be thankful that SmugMug offers a service that includes unlimited photo hosting. Very few companies do and most of us would be lost without that. IF displaying branding helps ensure the longevity of SmugMug and their ability to provide this service, than we must be more flexible to compromise and adaptation which is why I've evolved my opinion from the prior one.
1. SmugMug has the right to change their terms or way of doing business. However, it would be wise to update these terms and the sign up graphics and chart to include where their branding is and isn't going to be displayed to prevent confusion and issues with transparency or betrayal.
2. Obviously, the higher paying professional tiers should have the option of removal. However, it is understandable that SmugMug would prefer credit for their hard work too. There's obviously going to be little chance of pleasing everyone. The could make it an opt-in or opt-out, yet there would still be complaints over various wording. So - what about a discount for those Smuggers proud enough to display the SmugMug branding? This is a win-win for both sides. SmugMug makes money from clicks and we save money by visually supporting. Hard for anyone to complain then.
3. Regardless of requirement or wording, definitely make the link to SmugMug open in a new window. This issue is a true and understandable complaint. It would be even better for the code to include our refferal link even if we must manually enter it via the content blocks etc. Providing the refferal link rather than a direct link to SmugMug would certainly be the better solution. As for wording, there are a zillion options so it would be hard to please everyone. Hosted (or powered) by SmugMug to me is the best wording to cover every complaint. Or even just use the transparent SmugMug logo ---> with the option to adjust the size, transparency and location.
So to summarize, SmugMug prefers the footer link to increase revenue and be credited for their product. Smuggers prefer to not be forced to display it. The only solution where everyone is happy is to provide a discount to those who willingly display it or if SmugMug prefers to require it, to ensure the link opens in a new window and bonus points if it includes our referral code.
Photographic Artist Amber Flowers of Soul Gaze Photography, LLC.
SmugMug setup & customization services. Contact me! Proud & helpful Smugger since 2009. Please hire me for Support Hero!!
I first contacted Jill V. in April 2011 & I even wrote a poem.
It may sound like pointless complaining and negativity, but I think it is anything BUT that. First of all... it worked, hehe. Sort of. Let's be honest. Without the length and tone of this thread, "Photo Sharing By Smugmug" would still be at the bottom of every site.
When Baldy asked what could be done with the footer, I laid out a very clear set of criteria that would work for me. I don't consider that complaining either.
There is, however, one thing that I *do* think still needs an apology and/or explanation. Baldy stated that an engineer made some fix that accidentally broke the footer removal CSS. That is blatantly untrue, it was an obviously targeted piece of code. He said it was explained to him that way, so I believe he was lied to, not that he himself is lying. However, I have a severe problem with lying, I always have. I want to see them own their mistake and move on.
Obviously this thread has evolved from voicing opinions fairly neutrally to one of reoccurring disapproval and dissidence. It seems that despite SmugMug listening and updating the text and even putting the change on hold still isn't enough for some. I get that. I was one of the ones who greatly opposed the sudden forced violation. However, Baldy did represent his company well by doing his best to comment and explain. Despite this, so many of Smuggers replied by pulling apart his replies mostly with negatives or repetitive complaints. Neither Baldy or Bonocore should've had to apologize or take blame and it saddens me that we have pushed them to feel badly or have to spend valuable time explaining their actions. We are a community of photographers. Repetition of dissatisfaction will not result in a faster response. Instead, time focusing on the issue will be overshadowed by pointless responses. We all know that although these are OUR sites, we would not have them without SmugMug. Most of us are proud Smuggers. There are a few that aren't who wouldn't be pleased with or without the branding issue in existence. The focus should be on what we'd like to see not what has changed and who's to blame. Despite agreeing that there were WAY bigger issues than suddenly changing the Smugmark in the footer. Sadly, there's little that can be done to perfect this situation for everyone. Why? Because we are ALL different. That's also the beauty of our sites with SmugMug. Thankfully, someone did listen and the wording was changed. Later even the ability to remove the footer was reinitialized even if temporarily. Yet still, so many complaints. Very few appreciative of basically winning this round. Should we not have noticed that someone DID listen? True the sudden change felt violating. True the terms don't specify and SmugMug advertises custom websites without such forced branding. However, all this needs to be dropped from the conversation. NOW. No matter how unhappy we are/were/will be etc - we need to focus on a mutually beneficial solution that has the ability to be fair for everyone. Most of all, we need to be thankful that SmugMug offers a service that includes unlimited photo hosting. Very few companies do and most of us would be lost without that. IF displaying branding helps ensure the longevity of SmugMug and their ability to provide this service, than we must be more flexible to compromise and adaptation which is why I've evolved my opinion from the prior one.
1. SmugMug has the right to change their terms or way of doing business. However, it would be wise to update these terms and the sign up graphics and chart to include where their branding is and isn't going to be displayed to prevent confusion and issues with transparency or betrayal.
2. Obviously, the higher paying professional tiers should have the option of removal. However, it is understandable that SmugMug would prefer credit for their hard work too. There's obviously going to be little chance of pleasing everyone. The could make it an opt-in or opt-out, yet there would still be complaints over various wording. So - what about a discount for those Smuggers proud enough to display the SmugMug branding? This is a win-win for both sides. SmugMug makes money from clicks and we save money by visually supporting. Hard for anyone to complain then.
3. Regardless of requirement or wording, definitely make the link to SmugMug open in a new window. This issue is a true and understandable complaint. It would be even better for the code to include our refferal link even if we must manually enter it via the content blocks etc. Providing the refferal link rather than a direct link to SmugMug would certainly be the better solution. As for wording, there are a zillion options so it would be hard to please everyone. Hosted (or powered) by SmugMug to me is the best wording to cover every complaint. Or even just use the transparent SmugMug logo ---> with the option to adjust the size, transparency and location.
So to summarize, SmugMug prefers the footer link to increase revenue and be credited for their product. Smuggers prefer to not be forced to display it. The only solution where everyone is happy is to provide a discount to those who willingly display it or if SmugMug prefers to require it, to ensure the link opens in a new window and bonus points if it includes our referral code.
Mr. McAskill's replies fully deserved our replies. This is what happens when you try to engage in unlawful business practices. Mr. McAskill is a GREAT entrepreneur. He MADE this company. I wish him and his corporation to be 100 time more prosperous! However this was (and still is) a wrong business decision. Soul - please understand, this is business, Mr. McAskill does not care about your fillings. He cares about the bottom line for his corporation and this is how it should be. If Mr. McAskill knew that he is doing the right thing - the branding would be prominently and clearly displayed on YOUR pages in bright bold red with no way to remove it with no option to even discuss it:)
It surprises me you are thanking SmugMug for, basically, giving you, TEMPORALLY, what is rightfully yours. You are Paying for it!!! Do you understand it??? You are correct, we are all different. I, for one, will not bend over and thank anyone for not stealing from me.
The change did not just feel violating - it is in violation of the law and opens this company for litigation actions. If you really so much in love with this company and you still want to enjoy services they provide - then I suggest you put more pressure on them here rather than someone will put another form of pressure via legal channels.
At the end I agree with your constructive suggestions- after all this is what I have been saying to begin with (and this is my second round on this issue):
Option 1- Abide and honor your advertised services:
Provide ability to remove branding from ALL customers pages via the existing interface. Let's say in the Settings area where there is currently a switch for the SmugMug Footer. Since there are a few very important customers who adore SM branding and we, under no circumstances, want to piss them off - let the SM Branding be ON by default and be OFF with a simple switch of the slider.
Option 2 - Change the website by removing ALL graphics and verbiage that advertise "no ads" features and "personal... you can be you" lies. Yes, these are lies.
It may sound like pointless complaining and negativity, but I think it is anything BUT that. First of all... it worked, hehe. Sort of. Let's be honest. Without the length and tone of this thread, "Photo Sharing By Smugmug" would still be at the bottom of every site.
I don't see any validity in that argument, and a lot to disagree with.
I did NOT go back and see what your tone was, but I think there were many people in this thread who were over the top, would would not accept anything but unconditional surrender and preferably ritual suicide of the SM folks.
I too think this was a bad step (and said so clearly), but there's always an opportunity to decide between action as professionals, respecting the different business viewpoint of others, without dropping to the lowest common denominator of internet mis-behavior.
That this worked could easily be attributed simply to the number of responses, to those reasoned and more polite comments, as attributing it to the venom of others.
Absolutely I do not mean this to imply we should not have taken them to task over this issue, but please, let's not assume we "won" because we were the nastier of the two sides. Otherwise this will start to sound like the US Congress.
I'm with you, Ferguson. There are plenty of companies that wouldn't have given us the time of day, let alone write a bunch of replies. As for "breaking the law", I suppose mishenka means truth in advertising laws. In fact, very little you can do, short of having Congress pass a law exempting you, protects you from litigation, whether justified or not. But take a look at the types of claims the FTC is working on (http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising/protecting-consumers), and try to place this one in the middle of all those. How much time do you think the FTC would spend on something like this? About 5 seconds in my generous guess.
I'm with you, Ferguson. There are plenty of companies that wouldn't have given us the time of day, let alone write a bunch of replies. As for "breaking the law", I suppose mishenka means truth in advertising laws. In fact, very little you can do, short of having Congress pass a law exempting you, protects you from litigation, whether justified or not. But take a look at the types of claims the FTC is working on (http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising/protecting-consumers), and try to place this one in the middle of all those. How much time do you think the FTC would spend on something like this? About 5 seconds in my generous guess.
I think I will start crying soon:) It's like pulling teeth:) Look Tomoscott, Ferguson, Soul... I am not trying to make you take my side, to make you think like me, or to make you like things I like! I respect and welcome opinion of others. I like to discuss others point of view. But what makes me cry is when I see someone refusing to accept that 2+2=4. Tomoscott, I am not saying that it is super easy to win this litigation process. However it's a pity that you do not see it as a big problem. Please, please, just imagine you signed a deal to buy a new vehicle and the contract spells out that 5 oil changes are included in the total price. half a year later you come back for the oil change and the dealership tells you that you have to actually pay for it- they give free oil changes only for red colored vehicles.. and yours is silver... sorry. I want to see you being so "understanding" and "accepting" of that hypothetical situation.
By the way - there are much than just "truth in advertising laws" that you are referring to. Look, it is simple- when someone slaps me on one cheek, I, personally, do not turn to them the other cheek.
Mishenka, I've been in business since 1980, and I'm still helping my kids out with their fashion business (accounting and IT only). We recently dealt with one of those merchant services companies that promise to bring you lower fees and make your life easier for all credit card transactions. After 3 months, I discovered that they not only couldn't provide me with a statement, but not a single one of their charges could be tied to a specific sale. In the long run, we lost over $1,000 dealing with these hucksters.
Now that is what I consider a big business problem.
We dealt with another customer who couldn't account for over $7,000 of clothing they took on consignment. Their philosophy was that they would pay for what actually sold, and we would have to pick up the cost for "shrinkage" even though the goods were in their stores and under their care. Yes, we could have spent $10,000 suing them, and they were a national department store chain. But in the end, it was more economical to write the whole thing off.
That is what I consider a big business problem.
To use your analogy of oil changes for your new car -- yes I would be aggravated. But the cost of an oil change is negligible compared to what I've dealt with in the business world over the past 35 years.
The key to keeping sane, at least in my experience, is knowing which battles to go all out on, and which ones to let go of, especially when there is some attempt at concession from the other side.
Well, I've said my piece, and I'll say goodbye to this thread as well.
I think I will start crying soon:) It's like pulling teeth:) Look Tomoscott, Ferguson, Soul... I am not trying to make you take my side, to make you think like me, or to make you like things I like! I respect and welcome opinion of others. I like to discuss others point of view. But what makes me cry is when I see someone refusing to accept that 2+2=4. Tomoscott, I am not saying that it is super easy to win this litigation process. However it's a pity that you do not see it as a big problem. Please, please, just imagine you signed a deal to buy a new vehicle and the contract spells out that 5 oil changes are included in the total price. half a year later you come back for the oil change and the dealership tells you that you have to actually pay for it- they give free oil changes only for red colored vehicles.. and yours is silver... sorry. I want to see you being so "understanding" and "accepting" of that hypothetical situation.
By the way - there are much than just "truth in advertising laws" that you are referring to. Look, it is simple- when someone slaps me on one cheek, I, personally, do not turn to them the other cheek.
First, I take no issue with pointing out the facts, or stating opinions. I do suggest that the usual internet hyperbole is not particularly helpful. And I took pains to say I did not research what each individual said, but rather the tone of some.
But to take your specific examples, tying to law, I suggest the following:
You seem to suggest both violation of law, and breach of contract. Either is possible of course, but in the former you need to interest someone like the FTC (you can't, not in this), or for the latter you need to sue. You can, absolutely, but for substantive result you must prove damages. Think about that and a court for a moment - can you?
You CAN'T compel any real action, legally. Even if you could get injunctive relief in the short term (I am not a lawyer but been around long enough to say pretty firmly you can't), all SM has to do is change their terms and/or their advertising slightly and your cause of action evaporates.
This is all about a business taking action that its customers do not like. In my opinion, it all starts with two courses of action you desire -- to leave, or to stay. If you want to leave, sure - the internet is a great place to try to damage a business' reputation, shout from the rooftops, and claim all sorts of exaggerated statements. And it CAN damage a business.
But if you are planning to stay, the business needs to remain your partner. Being emotional and pointed is one thing, but I think some cross a line that will make it difficult for that partnership and business relationship to remain, later. I'm a hothead myself (ask those who know me), but I try to still stay professional and recognize that a year from now, I may be looking for something in the other direction. Burning bridges is not required to win an argument. For that matter, winning the argument is often not necessary to getting what you want.
Tomoscott, I respect your opinion and your point of view. I really do.
Mr. McAskill, I meant every single word I said above. I respectfully am asking for resolution of this issue. I really would like to get what I paid for.
First, I take no issue with pointing out the facts, or stating opinions. I do suggest that the usual internet hyperbole is not particularly helpful. And I took pains to say I did not research what each individual said, but rather the tone of some.
But to take your specific examples, tying to law, I suggest the following:
You seem to suggest both violation of law, and breach of contract. Either is possible of course, but in the former you need to interest someone like the FTC (you can't, not in this), or for the latter you need to sue. You can, absolutely, but for substantive result you must prove damages. Think about that and a court for a moment - can you?
You CAN'T compel any real action, legally. Even if you could get injunctive relief in the short term (I am not a lawyer but been around long enough to say pretty firmly you can't), all SM has to do is change their terms and/or their advertising slightly and your cause of action evaporates.
This is all about a business taking action that its customers do not like. In my opinion, it all starts with two courses of action you desire -- to leave, or to stay. If you want to leave, sure - the internet is a great place to try to damage a business' reputation, shout from the rooftops, and claim all sorts of exaggerated statements. And it CAN damage a business.
But if you are planning to stay, the business needs to remain your partner. Being emotional and pointed is one thing, but I think some cross a line that will make it difficult for that partnership and business relationship to remain, later. I'm a hothead myself (ask those who know me), but I try to still stay professional and recognize that a year from now, I may be looking for something in the other direction. Burning bridges is not required to win an argument. For that matter, winning the argument is often not necessary to getting what you want.
Ferguson - I really respect your point of view and appreciate your expression of such. I do think that burning bridges and retaining good partnership are totally irrelevant here. If SM was my employer that I had a disagreement with... well... in this case I would not be burning bridges or be vocal about the issue until I had found another job, for instance. But SM is not my partner and I am not theirs. SM is a service provider. I can burn all the bridges I want and still subscribe to their service for many years. But what I will not do is sit here silently and watch as I am being lied by the business. I believe, at this point, we are not arguing about this fact:)
Whether or not I can compel any real action - you do not know me, and, it is not really a point or discussion here what I can and cannot do. This is not about me, this is about SmugMug blatantly taking advantage and lying to customers (one says you can remove footer, another says you cannot, etc.) As I said above - I honestly respect your opinion and understand what you are saying. I agree with your "This is all about a business taking action that its customers do not like." statement: I really, really do not like when a business taking actions to deliberately strip me off the services or goods that the business agreed to provide in exchange for my prompt payment.
Mr. McAskill, I respectfully am asking for resolution of this issue. I really would like to get what I paid for.
Comments
And did all those posts from folk who are more pissed about SM's attitude than about SM's footer just not register with you at all?
Fair enough.
1. Delink the text, and make it text-only, like the VB footer.
2. Make the wording "Portions ©Smugmug" That was good enough for the last many years.
3. Remove the "No ads, no spam" feature in the package listings.
4. Please, please give the Portfolio and Business levels footer removal. Zenfolio does this, at the exact same pricing levels as SM. They also include a ton of Business-only (at SM) features in their Portfolio-like account, but that's another discussion.
5. Show me where we are expressly forbidden from removing the SM footer in the CURRENT SM legal documentation.
This would make me happy. It may not work for everyone.
As a secondary question, I wonder how you see these two things in particular:
1. What do you think of all the people saying the attitude at SM has fundamentally changed? Because it has. Does that concern you at all?
2. Do you see, from the copy and paste in my post further up, that the CSS that was added to force the footer was a deliberate attempt? It was in no way a fix that happened to break hiding the footer. It was the sole purpose of the "fix". Honesty goes a LONG way in people's respect for a company. Own mistakes and move on.
Example: I took THIS and custom coded it to THIS
1) Given the fact that "no spam, no ads", "Completely personal homepage", "Make it Personal... you can be you" are clearly and prominently advertised as integral features of the service you sell (and sold me) - I am respectfully asking to get your company's branding off of customers pages.
If you refuse to do so - you are placing your company in a vulnerable position due to the false advertisement case... unless your attorneys can proof, beyond the reasonable doubt, that I expressly agreed to display your branding despite the service was advertised to me (and still is) as "no ads no spam".
2) If the direction your company takes is to display your brand on customers pages then:
But what I'm missing is that if you do, and it's not our terms or customization capabilities that are stopping you from removing it... I really am sorry for not being able to understand.
Simple.
Your "attribution" is a LINK (not simple text) AWAY from ou" site to yours. No new window or tab, just POOF! and one of our potential customers is now on your home page.
Never mind the SEO implications already mentioned...
I don't personally care, I don't need SkyNet indexing all my photos, but I understand the implications for those who care about being found via Google (or the weak M$ wanna-be).
The question is, do you?
But I think it's only fair to point out what I believe you're missing. Zenfolio couldn't get funding and had to sell to Art.com. When that happened, a flood of their most high profile customers came to SmugMug, and none that I know of removed the footer. I pinged a few of them as I was trying to understand this issue to see if we're annoying or spamming them, because many of the high profile guys use a SmugMug URL and leave our logo in their headers.
And their response was they're proud of their SmugMug sites and associating with us, and that's why they also requested SmugMug hoodies and hats. If I wanted to commit business suicide, I could remove the SmugMug footer for the vast majority who leave it there and love it, but that would hurt Meshenka, AdamNP, Charly and every other one of our customers by buzz killing, so that we'd have reduced resources to hire engineers or be sold off like Zenfolio.
It has changed in very big ways, and I have led the change, and it has angered some long-term customers who loved the way it was before, and who I love even though they're furious at me.
One example is I had to face the reality that we could choose security or JavaScript. Whichever we chose, there would be fury. And there was, complete with posting pics of our license plates and aerial photos of our homes and addresses online.
And we discovered the hard way that we couldn't do as Andy and I had done for many years, which was to take the suggestions we read online in forums like this and get excited about being responsive and listening to customers, and implementing features quickly. Sometimes we still do, like last week when the password guessing game was topical and we turned ourselves inside out to get the failed password attempt emails to our customers.
But more often than not the silent majority took us to task when we did that for trying to please everyone, or spending our resources on a vocal minority and complicating our site with little used options. So we had to get more sophisticated with data mining and querying our customers, to fully understand the silent majority. And it has meant saying no to some very passionate, long-term customers who we hate disappointing.
Which brings me back to the footer. After recently finishing an enormous and sophisticated (expensive) study of our customers I can share with you that the firm who helped us with the survey has never seen the level of engagement and response they saw with our survey. They care, they're engaged, they're passionate, their sites matter. They want better commerce, they want better terms for privacy (no one gets 'unlisted' or 'private'), security, commenting, favoriting, etc.
And most of all, they want everyday happy customers voices to be heard even if they don't have the personality to brave forums like this (the overwhelming majority don't).
We have to draw them out, fully listen and understand them, and say no to spending time on things the majority don't care about. And doing that is proving to be huge in driving a renaissance for us while infuriating some long-term customers.
I wish I could please everyone, but I have to choose.
I was just about to go to bed, so just want to answer this simple first thing. What are you missing? You are missing all of the SM employees, mbonocore included, who *routinely* post that not only are we NOT allowed to remove the footer, but that we NEVER have been, in the company's history.
I'm way too tired to go searching for posts, but basically anyone who's read this forum at all can confirm that. We are told, ALL the time (including I believe in this very thread) that footer removal is absolutely NOT allowed. Is that wrong? If so, you need to speak to your employees and get your rules straight.
Oh, and also, then how do you explain the obvious attempt by SM to force the footer to show. You neglected to answer that question.
Here's a quick example, first reply on this very thread.
And on and on it goes...
I am sorry for you not being able to internalize equating attribution -- YOUR BRANDING: "SmugMug", regardless where it is : footer, header, etc. -- with ads. Let me try my best to help you and, please, bear with me, English is my second language. I will try really, really hard: Ad, Advertisement is a display of OTHER business name/logo on MY photo gallery site. Please, bear with me one more minute, let me try to internalize for you definition of "MY photo gallery site": it is the service that I paid you money for. Please, LOOK at what you advertise, do you see NO ADS??????:
If someone wants to display your branding on their site -good for them, they have full right to do so. Why should I care about it? I think I pay as much as they do, $300 for a year, correct? Or they pay more? Well.. I have two accounts. Seriously, someone pays more than $300 per year per account?
Oh, no, please, do NOT remove SmugMug branding from people sites who want it to be displayed! Why would you even contemplate it? How about the simplest solution: you allow anyone to prominently display SmugMug branding for customers who wish to do so. As you mentioned, there are some and they are proud of it. And I am proud of them. As you are saying 99% of your customers do not even think about it, correct? Perfect! Leave attribution ON by default, provide an OFF switch via the interface for 0.1% (that would be Adam, and I, maybe a few more people:) ) to turn it off if we want to. Well, at least for those who pay your highest priced subscription levels. All should be set and fair then, right?
I honestly do not want you to please me. I want you to stop telling me (see posts above) that I am NOT allowed to remove footer with SmugMug advertisement. In addition I want you to stop deliberately placing code that prevents me from removing your branding from my page. It is my as long as I am your customer. "My" in term of usage, not in terms of ownership. And "usage" is defined in your TOS and advertisement of services on your company's website.
Regardless of the above post - I wanted to say thank you for acknowledging my post and my concern and replying to it. By the way, I seriously cannot comprehend why you are equating removal of the SmugMug footer with commit business suicide??? Does the presence of SMugMug footer on each of your customers pages bring you more revenue? I am just trying to understand, please. Oh I wish I am one of your high profile customers so you can ping, perhaps call me directly, to explain this. But well, I am not, so I will hope to read your answer here.
Thank you very much,
mike
It's official then -
end of discusion, thanks very much, unsubscribe
I've stayed out of this discussion since, having a personal site (power level), I don't have the branding issues that have been a focus. I do have some design issues/requests, though.
1. Make it possible to omit the footer on the home page, even it must be enabled elsewhere. Designs like Sierra, Arrow, or Spartan show a full-screen image along with links to site content. "Powered by Smugmug" floating in the image just seems awkward. It's especially noticeable on Spartan (which I use) since it can appear half-way up rather than at the bottom. Fixes to move the text down can introduce a scroll bar at some screen sizes. That too is undesirable. SmugMug can obviously live without the footer on every page. There's no footer in the Lightbox or on full-screen slideshows. A "splash" home page strikes me as analogous. (My memory is that others have raised similar issues although I don't have links handy.)
2. Don't require the footer when the header is enabled. With the header in place, the footer is redundant and essentially becomes visual clutter.
Right now I'm dealing with these by enabling the header and more-or-less hiding the footer, but I'd like to have a long-term solution that I know is stable.
Jim Ringland
jtringl.smugmug.com
You can't remove the link in the Shopping Cart.
Cheers,
Perhaps again we are speaking to 2 different things. You about all levels of photogs found on SM (from those who just share with family/friends to those who try to sell some images but have another job, etc.) and me about photogs who wish to be seen as professional as possible as this is our career. And that is why I paid for a business account to have no sm branding anywhere. Not in the footer, header, search, not in the URL, etc.
Personally I don't know of 1 well known photographer that has any branding on their site: William Egglestn, John Sexton, Bryan Peterson (his blog doesn't have branding either), David LaChapelle, Henri-Carter Bresson, just to name a few and there are countless others. If they were so proud of who they have their site with why isn't it all over their pages?
So I guess in all fairness, this isn't the place for me as it is for others, because I'm not about anyone's branding but my own. Which is my prerogative given I put in all the time and money making a professional name for myself, not sm. Many who don't plan on making this their career wouldn't care about sm branding....
I came to sm very green about many things, but one thing I thought I had found was a place where I could develop my business. I was wrong due to your advertisements. And wound up spending countless hours on Legacy/New sites, only having to build yet another web site away from sm. Weeks and weeks, hours and countless hours for naught that I can never get back. Time when I should've been out shooting and making business contacts, I spent in front of a damn computer....Perhaps not advertising that one can have their own personal site, the way they want it would be the best plan of action for sm at this juncture.
http://www.pillarpointposter.com
And mine still has the word "Smugmug" in it, I don't mind the branding, I just like picking my words (in this case a smugmug login prompt).
Thank you.
I don't have a strong opinion about whether there should be a footer or not, for myself. Although, given a choice, I would add the code to remove the footer. And I do understand the significance of the issue for those who are serious professionals and need the footer gone.
Just 2 cents on the tone in this thread: (1) Mr. MacAskill's reinstating the possibility of the blocking the footer, is very generous. He's reinstating "the way things were". This is huge. It implies a recognition that removing that option was wrong. It's a statement that he will help the (apparently small) minority of unhappy customers, be happy again. This is huge. (2) His declining to speak to the other issues, such as why did the programmer block the blocking code in the first place, and the incongruity between SM's publicizing "you can be you" and yet requiring a footer - these are all litigious issues. My hunch is, he's following legal advice about how to speak to, and not speak to, those aspects that might open a foul can of worms. After all more than poster in this thread spelled out lawsuit elements. He must consider these in that light.
So I read between the lines about why he doesn't talk about some of the points made.
Mainly what I wanted to offer to facilitate discussion, is a couple of links to issues related to apologies and lawsuits. Stopping short of embracing this alternative legal approach, Mr. MacAskill's reinstating the possibility of the blocking the footer, is very generous.
http://www.uofmhealth.org/michigan-model-medical-malpractice-and-patient-safety-umhs#summary
http://www.calbarjournal.com/July2010/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx
There's an entire 'field' of law that embraces the concept of apologizing in a deep way.
The legal culture in the United States as a whole is not there yet.
1. SmugMug has the right to change their terms or way of doing business. However, it would be wise to update these terms and the sign up graphics and chart to include where their branding is and isn't going to be displayed to prevent confusion and issues with transparency or betrayal.
2. Obviously, the higher paying professional tiers should have the option of removal. However, it is understandable that SmugMug would prefer credit for their hard work too. There's obviously going to be little chance of pleasing everyone. The could make it an opt-in or opt-out, yet there would still be complaints over various wording. So - what about a discount for those Smuggers proud enough to display the SmugMug branding? This is a win-win for both sides. SmugMug makes money from clicks and we save money by visually supporting. Hard for anyone to complain then.
3. Regardless of requirement or wording, definitely make the link to SmugMug open in a new window. This issue is a true and understandable complaint. It would be even better for the code to include our refferal link even if we must manually enter it via the content blocks etc. Providing the refferal link rather than a direct link to SmugMug would certainly be the better solution. As for wording, there are a zillion options so it would be hard to please everyone. Hosted (or powered) by SmugMug to me is the best wording to cover every complaint. Or even just use the transparent SmugMug logo --->
So to summarize, SmugMug prefers the footer link to increase revenue and be credited for their product. Smuggers prefer to not be forced to display it. The only solution where everyone is happy is to provide a discount to those who willingly display it or if SmugMug prefers to require it, to ensure the link opens in a new window and bonus points if it includes our referral code.
SmugMug setup & customization services. Contact me!
Proud & helpful Smugger since 2009. Please hire me for Support Hero!!
I first contacted Jill V. in April 2011 & I even wrote a poem.
When Baldy asked what could be done with the footer, I laid out a very clear set of criteria that would work for me. I don't consider that complaining either.
There is, however, one thing that I *do* think still needs an apology and/or explanation. Baldy stated that an engineer made some fix that accidentally broke the footer removal CSS. That is blatantly untrue, it was an obviously targeted piece of code. He said it was explained to him that way, so I believe he was lied to, not that he himself is lying. However, I have a severe problem with lying, I always have. I want to see them own their mistake and move on.
Mr. McAskill's replies fully deserved our replies. This is what happens when you try to engage in unlawful business practices. Mr. McAskill is a GREAT entrepreneur. He MADE this company. I wish him and his corporation to be 100 time more prosperous! However this was (and still is) a wrong business decision. Soul - please understand, this is business, Mr. McAskill does not care about your fillings. He cares about the bottom line for his corporation and this is how it should be. If Mr. McAskill knew that he is doing the right thing - the branding would be prominently and clearly displayed on YOUR pages in bright bold red with no way to remove it with no option to even discuss it:)
It surprises me you are thanking SmugMug for, basically, giving you, TEMPORALLY, what is rightfully yours. You are Paying for it!!! Do you understand it??? You are correct, we are all different. I, for one, will not bend over and thank anyone for not stealing from me.
The change did not just feel violating - it is in violation of the law and opens this company for litigation actions. If you really so much in love with this company and you still want to enjoy services they provide - then I suggest you put more pressure on them here rather than someone will put another form of pressure via legal channels.
At the end I agree with your constructive suggestions- after all this is what I have been saying to begin with (and this is my second round on this issue):
Option 1- Abide and honor your advertised services:
Provide ability to remove branding from ALL customers pages via the existing interface. Let's say in the Settings area where there is currently a switch for the SmugMug Footer. Since there are a few very important customers who adore SM branding and we, under no circumstances, want to piss them off - let the SM Branding be ON by default and be OFF with a simple switch of the slider.
Option 2 - Change the website by removing ALL graphics and verbiage that advertise "no ads" features and "personal... you can be you" lies. Yes, these are lies.
I don't see any validity in that argument, and a lot to disagree with.
I did NOT go back and see what your tone was, but I think there were many people in this thread who were over the top, would would not accept anything but unconditional surrender and preferably ritual suicide of the SM folks.
I too think this was a bad step (and said so clearly), but there's always an opportunity to decide between action as professionals, respecting the different business viewpoint of others, without dropping to the lowest common denominator of internet mis-behavior.
That this worked could easily be attributed simply to the number of responses, to those reasoned and more polite comments, as attributing it to the venom of others.
Absolutely I do not mean this to imply we should not have taken them to task over this issue, but please, let's not assume we "won" because we were the nastier of the two sides. Otherwise this will start to sound like the US Congress.
Instagram Twitter Facebook
I think I will start crying soon:) It's like pulling teeth:) Look Tomoscott, Ferguson, Soul... I am not trying to make you take my side, to make you think like me, or to make you like things I like! I respect and welcome opinion of others. I like to discuss others point of view. But what makes me cry is when I see someone refusing to accept that 2+2=4. Tomoscott, I am not saying that it is super easy to win this litigation process. However it's a pity that you do not see it as a big problem. Please, please, just imagine you signed a deal to buy a new vehicle and the contract spells out that 5 oil changes are included in the total price. half a year later you come back for the oil change and the dealership tells you that you have to actually pay for it- they give free oil changes only for red colored vehicles.. and yours is silver... sorry. I want to see you being so "understanding" and "accepting" of that hypothetical situation.
By the way - there are much than just "truth in advertising laws" that you are referring to. Look, it is simple- when someone slaps me on one cheek, I, personally, do not turn to them the other cheek.
Now that is what I consider a big business problem.
We dealt with another customer who couldn't account for over $7,000 of clothing they took on consignment. Their philosophy was that they would pay for what actually sold, and we would have to pick up the cost for "shrinkage" even though the goods were in their stores and under their care. Yes, we could have spent $10,000 suing them, and they were a national department store chain. But in the end, it was more economical to write the whole thing off.
That is what I consider a big business problem.
To use your analogy of oil changes for your new car -- yes I would be aggravated. But the cost of an oil change is negligible compared to what I've dealt with in the business world over the past 35 years.
The key to keeping sane, at least in my experience, is knowing which battles to go all out on, and which ones to let go of, especially when there is some attempt at concession from the other side.
Well, I've said my piece, and I'll say goodbye to this thread as well.
Instagram Twitter Facebook
First, I take no issue with pointing out the facts, or stating opinions. I do suggest that the usual internet hyperbole is not particularly helpful. And I took pains to say I did not research what each individual said, but rather the tone of some.
But to take your specific examples, tying to law, I suggest the following:
You seem to suggest both violation of law, and breach of contract. Either is possible of course, but in the former you need to interest someone like the FTC (you can't, not in this), or for the latter you need to sue. You can, absolutely, but for substantive result you must prove damages. Think about that and a court for a moment - can you?
You CAN'T compel any real action, legally. Even if you could get injunctive relief in the short term (I am not a lawyer but been around long enough to say pretty firmly you can't), all SM has to do is change their terms and/or their advertising slightly and your cause of action evaporates.
This is all about a business taking action that its customers do not like. In my opinion, it all starts with two courses of action you desire -- to leave, or to stay. If you want to leave, sure - the internet is a great place to try to damage a business' reputation, shout from the rooftops, and claim all sorts of exaggerated statements. And it CAN damage a business.
But if you are planning to stay, the business needs to remain your partner. Being emotional and pointed is one thing, but I think some cross a line that will make it difficult for that partnership and business relationship to remain, later. I'm a hothead myself (ask those who know me), but I try to still stay professional and recognize that a year from now, I may be looking for something in the other direction. Burning bridges is not required to win an argument. For that matter, winning the argument is often not necessary to getting what you want.
Mr. McAskill, I meant every single word I said above. I respectfully am asking for resolution of this issue. I really would like to get what I paid for.
Ferguson - I really respect your point of view and appreciate your expression of such. I do think that burning bridges and retaining good partnership are totally irrelevant here. If SM was my employer that I had a disagreement with... well... in this case I would not be burning bridges or be vocal about the issue until I had found another job, for instance. But SM is not my partner and I am not theirs. SM is a service provider. I can burn all the bridges I want and still subscribe to their service for many years. But what I will not do is sit here silently and watch as I am being lied by the business. I believe, at this point, we are not arguing about this fact:)
Whether or not I can compel any real action - you do not know me, and, it is not really a point or discussion here what I can and cannot do. This is not about me, this is about SmugMug blatantly taking advantage and lying to customers (one says you can remove footer, another says you cannot, etc.) As I said above - I honestly respect your opinion and understand what you are saying. I agree with your "This is all about a business taking action that its customers do not like." statement: I really, really do not like when a business taking actions to deliberately strip me off the services or goods that the business agreed to provide in exchange for my prompt payment.
Mr. McAskill, I respectfully am asking for resolution of this issue. I really would like to get what I paid for.