School District says ENTIRE district is Lifetouch Contract Only!

IPictureU · Jan 22, 2007

Well I got the hammer dropped on me today.

It seems that the waisted months and energy that I have expelled over the last year have some to this.....

"The district is exclusively using Lifetouch photography for all it's school photo needs and cannot venture outside of it's contract."

Is this legal?????

Is this happening to anyone else?

Frustrated in California....

Jeff

dipics · Jan 22, 2007

It is entirely legal and happens all the time. Better luck next year (or whenever the contract runs out.)

DIPics

IPictureU said:
Well I got the hammer dropped on me today.

It seems that the waisted months and energy that I have expelled
over the last year have some to this.....

"The district is exclusively using Lifetouch photography for all
it's school photo needs and cannot venture outside of it's
contract."

Is this legal?????

Is this happening to anyone else?

Frustrated in California....

Jeff

k_strecker · Jan 22, 2007

You know, (from personal experience) they pay their school shooters $8.50 an hour. Minimal benefits (if any at all, which would be rare). They're pretty Effing disgusting if you ask me. A few individuals at the top must be raking in the cash while they let the underlings squalor in underpaid positions turning out garbage for photos. . .
--
daily blog - http://www.digital-chemist.com/journal/

Craig Gillette · Jan 22, 2007

The thing you could do, not suggesting you'll have any luck, is try to determine if all of the legal niceties were followed in determining the contract award. It may also be problematic for sports teams and the like - what works for elementary school clas pictures may not be suitable for the high school requirments - and that may provide a crack. The support you may or may not have could depend on the level of satisfaction staff, booster clubs, etc., with prior "exclusive" contracts. And it might be you would need to work with booster clubs, etc., for athletic photo, the clubs not being the district. How you work that without frying Lifetouch's toes may be something for the (boosters) to work out.

There's also "politics" involved - does the contract depend on unpaid staff or volunteer participation to meet it's price points. If so, that may prove to have been unfair, etc.

It remains true that you may be stuck trying to beat a monolithic but cheap low performer and cost is the object.

MarkLe · Jan 22, 2007

should make the contract available, and public. It's impossible to say anything without reading it. I'd do whatever I can to be in the bid list, looking for any possible unfair procedure.

Big contracts on public "affairs" are becoming risky (for obvious reasons) and the school representatives sure don't want any publicity coming out so expect some resistance.

If you are a local photographer you have the right to investigate, at least investigate on the reason why you were excluded from the start so next year you can move better. Just pay attention to the dates the contract was discussed and then approved and ask what and when you need to submit to be considered next year.

good luck

--
fun while shooting, always
the new & improved shy & adorable MarkLe

Tom Batinich · Jan 23, 2007

What part of CA are you from ? I do school photography but it is with the booster clubs.

I am just waiting for some jerk to tell you that you have to adapt and compete with the Mc' photography company. Like one poster said the pay their school shooter $8.50 and hour.

One thing about them that is kind of good is that they charge such high prices for Senior photos that I get a lot of business from disgrunteld parents.

riddell · Jan 23, 2007

Of course its legal.

Its business - thats all.

Stop whinging.
Look elsewhere for work.

shooter2 · Jan 23, 2007

I have been doing vintage stuff in day cares here in Texas. I run across this all the time. Just yesterday I was talking with a director. She hates Lifetouch and loves my stuff, but the owner has a signed contract with LT. It seems SOME have exclusive contract that disallows any other photographers on the premises. I have not been able to gleen many details as the directors don't seem to know and the owners that signed them almost seem embarrased that they signed it. Some use Lifetouch and have no such exclusive contract. I have shot one the day that some LT packages came back and all I can say is OUCH!! They were way underexposed and brought up in post. Vey nosiy/muddy. She used a Canon 20D as the director was a photo buff, so they should have been noise free. VERY soft lens used (most looked almost OOF) and the background was a cheesy x-mas type thing. Director said this was a new girl from last year. No doubt. And they pay them the $8.50. Teddy Bear gives away the farm to the owners. Each kid gets a gift with the day cares name on it. Go to their site and you can see the options. I have seen the pack packs and they are OK.

You would think a smart owner would include a satisfaction clause or a scapegoat of some kind if they are not happy. Many seem pretty unhappy.

Now, if whoever broke into my pick-up last week and stole $2000.00 worth of vintage clothng would give it back. Another gripe about a certain outlet not knowing what they have in stock, not shipping what they have when they say and then wanting extra $$$ for overnight because you have a shoot today. They promised to ship last Wed at latest. I called Fri because I had no tracking #. It still had not shipped!!! I have a shoot Tues. Oh, no problem. You will get it Tues. Not before 6:00 am when I have to leave the house. And, of course it was short some items I was specifically told were in stock. Many calls to cutomer service supervisors that were all busy and woold call right back. Never heard a word and I am short outfits that were promised. Last time it took about 4 months to get the entire order.
Shooter2

edleg · Jan 23, 2007

Actually it is called a monopoly....

If I remember my college level business classes, any company with over 35% of the national business in any particular area can be charged with federal crimes of monopolizing a business segment. LT actually brags about having 85% of the USA school photography business, and that was before they sucked up the Josten's school photo business last year.

I have been waiting for someone or some group to take on LT in the courts over this. Especially since most of their "contracts" with schools and districts are not let out to bid to the public.

ralu · Jan 23, 2007

Lifetouch has our school district as well but I will still get a call from a few coaches to do a team or two. I do not know if the coaches are breaking any contracts or not. I am not going to ask.

dipics · Jan 23, 2007

edleg said:
Actually it is called a monopoly....

If I remember my college level business classes, any company with
over 35% of the national business in any particular area can be
charged with federal crimes of monopolizing a business segment. LT
actually brags about having 85% of the USA school photography
business, and that was before they sucked up the Josten's school
photo business last year.

I have been waiting for someone or some group to take on LT in the
courts over this. Especially since most of their "contracts" with
schools and districts are not let out to bid to the public.

I suspect that they would have a hard time proving monopoly. There are many sellers (even if most are very small in comparison) and acceptable substitutes are very easily found.

And, at least in Texas, their contracts are generally up for bid. The trick as always is finding when.

DIPics

Jeff Behm · Jan 23, 2007

I spent some time studying portraiture with Marty Rickard quite a few years ago, and while I didn't pursue school portraits to any depth, he had some interesting thoughts along these lines. I do believe this applies to HS seniors more than undergrads, so take that into account.

For those who don't know who Marty Rickard is, in addition to being a heck of a photographer and teacher, before he retired, he was a regular monthly columnist in Professional Photography Magazine (PPA). I'll try to be as accurate as I can in recalling his stance, because he busted the contracts in his region of central Iowa, with an approach which eventually spread throughout the profession.

First, his position was that the school is a de facto public entity, deriving most or all of it's income from the families of the students. Because the school district is a public entity, as well as having a monopolistic standing in education, it cannot then proscribe those very individuals who subsidize it from seeking satisfaction at vendors other than those selected by the school. As long as there are other vendors capable of meeting the industry standards of, in this case, photography, this carries the reach of the contract to unfair extremes.

If the photography service was uniformly provided to each student in the same style or fashion for a preset and prepaid fee and on school time and property, this would be enforceable. But because the students are paying for it themselves, the school district has effectively stepped into dictating how the families may spend discretionary income at locations other than school property.

So you can see how, if your issue is undergrads taken at school, this argument may not carry the weight, but it might add food for thought.

As someone else mentioned, most states have a legal procedure for letting public contracts for schools, be it for bus service, food service or photographers. Be sure this was handled appropriately. It's amazing how many "friends of the school board" get lucrative contracts through special consideration that includes less than complete posting of pending contracts.
--
jrbehm
http://homepage.mac.com/jrbehm/Scenic/

dipics · Jan 23, 2007

For years, to get your photo into the yearbook, you had to go through Lifetouch, Varden or whomever else held your school's contract. This isn't true in many areas anymore because of efforts like Marty's. But, to compete in actual school photography AT the school? Damn, not sure I would want to, with the cut that the school expects but, well, if someone does want to compete, I recommend a formal letter to the school board asking when bidding will reopen.

DIPics

Jeff Behm said:
I spent some time studying portraiture with Marty Rickard quite a
few years ago, and while I didn't pursue school portraits to any
depth, he had some interesting thoughts along these lines. I do
believe this applies to HS seniors more than undergrads, so take
that into account.

For those who don't know who Marty Rickard is, in addition to being
a heck of a photographer and teacher, before he retired, he was a
regular monthly columnist in Professional Photography Magazine
(PPA). I'll try to be as accurate as I can in recalling his
stance, because he busted the contracts in his region of central
Iowa, with an approach which eventually spread throughout the
profession.

First, his position was that the school is a de facto public
entity, deriving most or all of it's income from the families of
the students. Because the school district is a public entity, as
well as having a monopolistic standing in education, it cannot then
proscribe those very individuals who subsidize it from seeking
satisfaction at vendors other than those selected by the school.
As long as there are other vendors capable of meeting the industry
standards of, in this case, photography, this carries the reach of
the contract to unfair extremes.

If the photography service was uniformly provided to each student
in the same style or fashion for a preset and prepaid fee and on
school time and property, this would be enforceable. But because
the students are paying for it themselves, the school district has
effectively stepped into dictating how the families may spend
discretionary income at locations other than school property.

So you can see how, if your issue is undergrads taken at school,
this argument may not carry the weight, but it might add food for
thought.

As someone else mentioned, most states have a legal procedure for
letting public contracts for schools, be it for bus service, food
service or photographers. Be sure this was handled appropriately.
It's amazing how many "friends of the school board" get lucrative
contracts through special consideration that includes less than
complete posting of pending contracts.
--
jrbehm
http://homepage.mac.com/jrbehm/Scenic/

joanns · Jan 23, 2007

In my area, if the student has to pay for his/her own photo, especially seniors, they have the choice to use LT or find another photographer. I have done them and the school sends out an information sheet that lists the size requirements for the yearbook.

dipics · Jan 23, 2007

It's the same in my area now. I do a couple hundred seniors every year. I send the schools (two big public schools here and several small private ones) the size photo that they want with the name of the senior and everyone is happy.

DIPics

joanns said:
In my area, if the student has to pay for his/her own photo,
especially seniors, they have the choice to use LT or find another
photographer. I have done them and the school sends out an
information sheet that lists the size requirements for the yearbook.

edleg · Jan 23, 2007

I hate to admit it, but I worked for a big school photography company for a couple years. I never saw a contract BID. At least in the part of the country I worked in. What usually swung the principal or district superintendant to the big companies was all of the "off the books" incentives like free desk and pocket calendars, student journals, award certificates, pens, pencils, notepads, even ipods and handheld computers, etc that went to the schools, on top of the $1 or $2 per kid or 15% sales commission. Plus the golf games and lunches, dinners, etc to the decision makers.

dad_of_four · Jan 23, 2007

edleg said:
What usually swung the
principal or district superintendant to the big companies was all
of the "off the books" incentives like free desk and pocket
calendars, student journals, award certificates, pens, pencils,
notepads, even ipods and handheld computers, etc that went to the
schools, on top of the $1 or $2 per kid or 15% sales commission.
Plus the golf games and lunches, dinners, etc to the decision
makers.

Does this mean when I pay for my child's photos at school, I can claim a 15% tax deduction for the photo's I purchase? (Or at least used to purchase; this year I did my own)
--
Warm regards,
Dad-of-four

CharlieDIY · Jan 23, 2007

dipics said:
DIPics

IPictureU said:

Well I got the hammer dropped on me today.

It seems that the waisted months and energy that I have expelled
over the last year have some to this.....

"The district is exclusively using Lifetouch photography for all
it's school photo needs and cannot venture outside of it's
contract."

Is this legal?????

Is this happening to anyone else?

Click to expand...

But I would definitely have a word with the English teachers in that school district when their announcements go out with "it's" as the possessive.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

edleg · Jan 23, 2007

I don't know.... maybe refuse to pay for the commission and goodies? Just kidding.

My point was that no matter even if a school or district went out to bid, there was stuff other than direct $$ commission given to the schools. In the case of the office I worked out of for one of the "big guys" there was a staff person whose main job was to visit every school every couple of weeks giving and taking orders for freebie desk calendars and other freebie office supplies. I know they gave principals ipods and handheld pc stuff "so the principal could check a student's pic against a name on the campus." Yeah, right.

Now do they do that for every school and every school district? ... I don't know. I do know what that stuff costs at wholesale and they give away probably at least an equal or more value in stuff as the commission they pay. Sure, they make it up on volume (that is why they want every piece of the pie from yearbooks to sports to fall pics to proms and graduation.)

I can see why the schools put up with the shoddy service and the poor quality photos when the schools get all of this extra stuff for free.

Again, I don't mind competing when all of the school-required commissions, requirements, and photo needs are on the table and there is a public bidding process... but I don't believe it happens much in a lot (or most) of the country.

If you have kids in school and you ever visit their classroom and have to check into the office first and wear one of those visitor tags... look whose name is advertised on those red/white apple visitor name tags! They have free stuff everywhere in the schools! Tough to compete on that level.

Vegasluv · Jan 23, 2007

Sadly, yes. Getty Images stole the rug right out from us freelancers.

I have several dozen high schools I work with (football, basketball and baseball - both boys and girls). Now I only reply on word of mouth advertising for schools. That area of my business has been shrinking BUT my Little League and AYSO leagues have picked up. I signed on 5 new leagues this year.

School District says ENTIRE district is Lifetouch Contract Only!

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts