Portofino- FYI new fee

[Simply K]

I just did a photo shoot at Portofino, Shenandoah, Texas today and was approached by a security guard who informed me that if I didn't pay $25, I would need to leave the premises and was not allowed to take pictures there unless I had an appointment. After informing him I was not aware of any fees associated with photography at Portofino, I had to pay up and sign a contract with them. The contract states that it will be $25 per session I do there and that the money is required at least 24 hours prior to our arrival and we need to have an appointment with the Property Manager. Just wanted everyone to be aware of this... kind of a bummer.

[richardsfault]

Vote with your pocketbook and don't patronize their merchants. Let them know why.

Tell other photographers and artists to do the same.

Rules like this are especially unfair to us TFCD/hobbyist shooters who make no money and risk losing anything that must be pre-paid to weather or "flake" models.

I've put this advice on both my Model Mayhem profile and Facebook fan page, and will do the same whenever I see news like this.

[robert t]

What restrictions do they have on use of the photos?

[richardsfault]

I was just thinking to myself that if a place that doesn't allow shooting such as Ikea started charging $25 per session, everyone would be praising them.

Perceived loss is harder to accept than perceived gain.

[XtremePhoto]

Originally Posted by richardsfault

Vote with your pocketbook and don't patronize their merchants. Let them know why.

Tell other photographers and artists to do the same.

Rules like this are especially unfair to us TFCD/hobbyist shooters who make no money and risk losing anything that must be pre-paid to weather or "flake" models.

I've put this advice on both my Model Mayhem profile and Facebook fan page, and will do the same whenever I see news like this.

I really find it amusing that you feel it is “unfair” that a private property owner decides how and what that private property is used for. Being that I manage several “private properties” that would serve well as photographic backdrop/areas, I look at your complaint as completely baseless. (We chase off as many as 2-3 a day and turn down many others that inquire.) The companies/individuals (owners) that spent the money to build, landscape and maintain these venues did not do so for your use; unless of course you are utilizing it for the intended purpose and photography is NOT one of those purposes.

There are many reasons why we restrict activities other than the intended purpose. (And your hobby/TFCD isn’t a concern in making those decisions.) Those decisions are made based on the issues, liabilities and may other needs of the property, its occupants and clients. Just a small example of why we don’t allow it: it costs us money. We would have to have someone track permits, deal with issuing them, deal with problems due to these permits and it would cause our security extra problems and issues. As it is, we just ask you to leave and we are done. No problem.

Why should the owner incur extra expense, liability, HASSEL for your hobby/habit? You act like property mangers are singling you out and doing this for no reason, when the fact of the matter is we make these decisions based on the bottom line and many other reasons you have no idea even exist.

So you don’t get to take a picture somewhere, are you gonna die next week? There are plenty of other public parks, areas that aren’t private and restricted that you can practice your hobby/habit and not interfere with a private property.

Just another perspective.
-G-

(And yes, I know the rules are almost never enforced uniformly, but that is a part of life and being human. I rarely speak out on the many issues I read about in here, but this one seems pretty clear. If it is private property, the OWNER (or their designee) is the only one that has the right to determine how it is used or not.)

[richardsfault]

Originally Posted by XtremePhoto

Being that I manage several “private properties” that would serve well as photographic backdrop/areas, I look at your complaint as completely baseless. (We chase off as many as 2-3 a day and turn down many others that inquire.)

It's totally reasonable to not want to give your business to a place that doesn't want "your kind" and to let your peers know.

Originally Posted by XtremePhoto

I really find it amusing that you feel it There are plenty of other public parks, areas that aren’t private and restricted that you can practice your hobby/habit and not interfere with a private property.

I've never shot at Portofino and didn't have shoots scheduled there. My main concern is that their policy change will inspire others and spread.

I'm also curious as to how often you get to shoot at those properties you're quick to chase others from. It's interesting to note that two of the photographers on Model Mayhem who are the quickest to dismiss similar concerns are both park rangers who have mentioned running off fellow photographers for lack of permits. The advantages and conflict of interest potential can't be denied.

[Angelo]

Originally Posted by XtremePhoto

...

There are many reasons why we restrict activities other than the intended purpose. (And your hobby/TFCD isn’t a concern in making those decisions.) Those decisions are made based on the issues, liabilities and ma[n]y other needs of the property, its occupants and clients. Just a small example of why we don’t allow it: it costs us money. We would have to have someone track permits, deal with issuing them, deal with problems due to these permits and it would cause our security extra problems and issues. As it is, we just ask you to leave and we are done. No problem.

Why should the owner incur extra expense, liability, HASSEL for your hobby/habit?...

Glenn, The photographers and their families, and friends are also customers of these establishments. As a business owner I'd hate for one of these professional or hobbyist to bad-mouth my store or establishment. But management must make these decisions, and that is why I'm even responding to your comment.

Other than liability, what are these so called reasons for restrictions? Honestly - if we knew the reasons maybe you could convince us and the pros and hobbyists would feel better about following the rules.

My question is an honest and sincere one and not intended to promote contention.
Thanks,
Angelo

[richardsfault]

Originally Posted by Angelo

Glenn, The photographers and their families, and friends are also customers of these establishments. As a business owner I'd hate for one of these professional or hobbyist to bad-mouth my store or establishment. But management must make these decisions, and that is why I'm even responding to your comment.

Other than liability, what are these so called reasons for restrictions? Honestly - if we knew the reasons maybe you could convince us and the pros and hobbyists would feel better about following the rules.

My question is an honest and sincere one and not intended to promote contention.
Thanks,
Angelo

This thread wouldn't exist if Portfino never allowed photography or had always charged the fee.

It's the abrupt change in policy that's disconcerting, because that's usually the manner in which our options are continually reduced.

[XtremePhoto]

Originally Posted by richardsfault

It's totally reasonable to not want to give your business to a place that doesn't want "your kind" and to let your peers know.

I've never shot at Portofino and didn't have shoots scheduled there. My main concern is that their policy change will inspire others and spread.

What you say is very true, you don't have to give your business to any of these venues and I am not disputing that. But I do know that you are in the minority and to take Portofino as an example, most consumers will shop, eat and frequent a venue because of convienence and could care less about the "photography policy."

Originally Posted by richardsfault

I'm also curious as to how often you get to shoot at those properties you're quick to chase others from. It's interesting to note that two of the photographers on Model Mayhem who are the quickest to dismiss similar concerns are both park rangers who have mentioned running off fellow photographers for lack of permits. The advantages and conflict of interest potential can't be denied.

Simply put…never.


And to Angelo it is pretty simple. People never follow rules, regulations and restrictions. Have you ever been to a public venue and watched the destruction of landscaping and property at an event? People DO NOT respect other’s property and they are always pushing the limits and restrictions. (Not going to get into a discussion of how you treat it, this is a general statement.) Why should a property spend thousands of dollars to maintain landscaping, security and privacy when allowing the general public to utilize the venue would simple destroy it? Quite simply put, it is too costly to allow general public to utilize the venues (other than for the intended purpose) and to date there is not a single tenant that is in disagreement with this rule on our properties.

To be sure, there are those that would not add to this problem, but most do unfortunately and the path of least resistance and most economical is to just restrict the use and ask people to leave. No fuss no muss.

I have a question for you, WHY should a property owner allow you to use something they built and paid for, for a purpose other than what it is intended for?

I know it probably isn’t the stance that you want to hear and you and Richard may not be part of the problem. Unfortunately, you are both in the LARGEST minority out there.

-G-

[Angelo]

Glenn, thanks for your reply.
I can very well understand the cost involved to maintain a property, especially when all tenants must pay for the upkeep. My philosophy has always been to leave a place in better condition than how I found it. But I must confess, I may be in the minority.

My feelings on the matter is that exposure to a property is very important to the vendors that lease space. promoting the area is key to the vendors and my answer to your question is that bringing in possible customers to the property and making my business more visible is extremely important. Prospective clients are just as important as clients because they are the clients of tomorrow.

As a vendor I take many things into consideration when leasing. Exposure is very important to 90% of businesses that derive their sales from the general public.

I would imagine more damage is made to properties from vandalism and small children being unleashed by their parents than photographers who may possibly bring in those prospective clients. I would even venture to say that those school seniors who come to Portofino shopping strip to take their graduation photos, 50% of them have purchased the clothing they are wearing.

We are always trying to lower our costs any way we can, but we must also understand that Portofino is a shopping center and drawing in customers is vital to the vendors. I'd more consider photo takers as a way to promote the center and not as a hindrance to the property.

Shoo away those children that are there to skateboard or just hang around. They are the ones that do 99% of the damage.

By the way, during graduations and other school events I see tons of youth taking pictures at the beautiful fountain in Portofino Shopping Center. I've even spent time there watching them do their thing while I wait out in the car for my wife who is shopping there, and I've yet to see a guard come over and ask them to leave.

I truly understand your frustrations as you manage property, but don't take it out on the small percentage that could very well bring exposure to the vendors that lease from you.

Agains, thanks for your reply.
Angelo

[zebulus]

I believe it as simple as these companies look at photographers as conducting business in their place of business.

And they want a slice of the pie.

Thats why they run off anyone with anything bigger than a cell phone camera or p&s, or make you pay them.

If your making money, on their property, they have a problem with that.

[richardsfault]

Originally Posted by Angelo

Glenn, thanks for your reply.
I can very well understand the cost involved to maintain a property, especially when all tenants must pay for the upkeep. My philosophy has always been to leave a place in better condition than how I found it. But I must confess, I may be in the minority.

My feelings on the matter is that exposure to a property is very important to the vendors that lease space. promoting the area is key to the vendors and my answer to your question is that bringing in possible customers to the property and making my business more visible is extremely important. Prospective clients are just as important as clients because they are the clients of tomorrow.

As a vendor I take many things into consideration when leasing. Exposure is very important to 90% of businesses that derive their sales from the general public.

I would imagine more damage is made to properties from vandalism and small children being unleashed by their parents than photographers who may possibly bring in those prospective clients. I would even venture to say that those school seniors who come to Portofino shopping strip to take their graduation photos, 50% of them have purchased the clothing they are wearing.

We are always trying to lower our costs any way we can, but we must also understand that Portofino is a shopping center and drawing in customers is vital to the vendors. I'd more consider photo takers as a way to promote the center and not as a hindrance to the property.

Shoo away those children that are there to skateboard or just hang around. They are the ones that do 99% of the damage.

By the way, during graduations and other school events I see tons of youth taking pictures at the beautiful fountain in Portofino Shopping Center. I've even spent time there watching them do their thing while I wait out in the car for my wife who is shopping there, and I've yet to see a guard come over and ask them to leave.

I truly understand your frustrations as you manage property, but don't take it out on the small percentage that could very well bring exposure to the vendors that lease from you.

Agains, thanks for your reply.
Angelo

I could not have said it better. You pretty much nailed it!

[XtremePhoto]

Angelo,

Trust me, we do run off the skateboarders, bmx'er and others just loitering on the properties. Occasionally there will be an individual walk in and grab a quick snap shot with a phone, P & S and then leave. Like I said, we try and enforce our policy as uniformly as we can but it just can't be done always.

I would have to argue (being in this business as long as I have & we manage 695 properties in Houston area, all commercial) that the minimal exposure that you get from allowing these types of activities is far outweighed by the cost of allowing them. I definitely know it has not hurt our exposure and we haven't lost clients because of it.

One of the other major concerns is once you do allow this type of activity, the people you allow push the limits and think they have carte blanche to do what they please. (After all they paid their $25.00 so now they own that property...It is a slippery slope and one that has no good outcome for the property.) And that is JUST the attitude the majority of them give you.

To relate just one such incident, a group of kids (17-19 year old) crawled to the top of the water feature in one location and was jumping in the pool below. That is until one cracked their head open...the Mom and Dad wanted to sue. Why? Because we didn't have signs up, and guard rails preventing their precious child from being stupid. Therefore, we ended up having to install railings and signs (completely destroying the look of the water feature and landscaping in the process) to make the courts happy.

So it isn't the property owners/managers that you have an issue with. It is the idiots (and there are far more than you would ever realize) that ruin it for the most part.

Of course, our policy works for the majority of our properties. It may not be something that a center like Portofino would need, but I am betting that it is and there is some story behind that $25.00 fee.

And as to the comment: "If your making money, on their property, they have a problem with that."

Just why do you expect someone to maintain a property for you or anyone else (that costs plenty of money) to allow you to utilize it for free and profit off of it? That is just insane to expect a property owner to do that.

-G-

[zebulus]

Originally Posted by XtremePhoto

Just why do you expect someone to maintain a property for you or anyone else (that costs plenty of money) to allow you to utilize it for free and profit off of it?

Thats funny, I dont recall saying that.

I dont expect that. Never have, was just stating a fact. You just confirmed it.

[Angelo]

Glenn, you make an excellent point.
There was a time when a child that did something stupid like that, the parents would give them a spanking on top of their cracked head.

I can also envision a group of HS seniors wanting to perform a prank like putting soap in the fountain. That could damage the operation of the fountain or create an expense to clean it. Graffiti is also another expensive problem.

I can ALMOST swear that all pros using those types of facilities are not opposed to paying a fee. They are professional enough to respect the rules in the contract they sign. Most of us know that if we screw up we make it difficult for the next guy and THAT we don't want to do, really!!

Angelo