On 8 Jun 1998 18:10:28 GMT, study743@u.washington.edu () wrote:

[much deleted for space reasons...]
>I then went on to say that people on this newsgroup complain about the
>bait & switch techniques of many mailorder houses but see no problem with
>the issue fo quoting a payment and reneging on it.

I thank you for your rather sensible comments here and in
the past regarding "L'affair Shutterbug" (my apologies to the French!;-)....

>The common bait & switch technique usually employed never sates that the
>price is changed, just that the item is unavailable and another similar
>product is available at a higher price. If you opt tofind for the item
>originally offered, you will be waiting a long time.
>
>I was never implying that Shutterbug has any control or responsibility of
>the prices that mailorder houses advertise. I do believe they should
>exercise some restraint when they take money and post ads from companies
>with tons of complaints. They have the right to refuse. Yes, I know it's a
>lot of lost money, but could you imagine what would happen if only a few
>stores were allowed to advertise one month? The other stores would be
>forced behave if they wanted to advertise, And they certainly don't want
>to be locked out of their best markets. The mailorder houses need those
>magazines just as much as the magazines need them, perhaps more.
>
>Meghan

BTW, I seem to remember that one major photo magazine (Modern Photography, as I recall - since absorbed by Popular Photography)
did just that. It put out one VERY thin issue one month in which
it stated that advertisers must henceforth agree to comply with
its code of advertising ethics in order to appear in the magazine.
This straightened up a lot of unethical dealers, and most soon
improved their practices and returned to advertising in the
magazine.