Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Page 1
    • Pound
    • By Pound 6th Feb 07, 3:57 PM
    • 2,677 Posts
    • 1,338 Thanks
    • #2
    • 6th Feb 07, 3:57 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Feb 07, 3:57 PM
    If Scott is Charlene's friend she'll respect his opinion and won't mind him not putting an advert up otherwise what kind of friend is she?
    • Lady E
    • By Lady E 6th Feb 07, 4:18 PM
    • 1,025 Posts
    • 479 Thanks
    Lady E
    • #3
    • 6th Feb 07, 4:18 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Feb 07, 4:18 PM
    I think Scott should think of this as a business transaction and whilst privately having some doubts about it , he should be happy that Charlene now has some employment . I guess Scott is not an owner of a successful newsagent , by being judgemental on the type of adverts he posts in his shop.
    • MSE Martin
    • By MSE Martin 6th Feb 07, 4:24 PM
    • 8,115 Posts
    • 42,285 Thanks
    MSE Martin
    • #4
    • 6th Feb 07, 4:24 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Feb 07, 4:24 PM
    Lady E - I had meant the poster was free - so i've added that to the original post
    Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
    Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.

    Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at

    Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
    • russimp
    • By russimp 6th Feb 07, 9:55 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    • #5
    • 6th Feb 07, 9:55 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Feb 07, 9:55 PM
    If Scott and Charlene are good enough friends, they should be able to talk to eachother about this. S can discuss his reservations with C, not put the ad in his window but still support C in her efforts to make a living.

    And they can have a bit of a laugh about it!

    If I've made a grammatical error and you're pointing it out, I'd just like to say "Thanks" in advance. You big person, you
    • Mics_chick
    • By Mics_chick 6th Feb 07, 10:09 PM
    • 11,689 Posts
    • 11,566 Thanks
    • #6
    • 6th Feb 07, 10:09 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Feb 07, 10:09 PM
    If his windows are full of similar sorts of ads then I don't think he can refuse his friend without upsetting her... but if he doesn't normally display this kind of thing then he can tactfully turn her down and suggest trying another newsagent with a more prominent position?

    Also I think he could accept it on either of 2 conditions - as it's free he can say that he will display it for her for 1 month only and/or if there are any complaints by his customers then he will remove it because he's willing to do her a favour in her current circumstances but not if/when it affects his business - he can say that this is a condition of anything that he displays...
    You should never call somebody else a nerd or geek because everybody (even YOU !!!) is an
    "anorak" about something whether it's trains, computers, football, shoes or celebs
  • ajaxgeezer
    • #7
    • 7th Feb 07, 8:50 AM
    • #7
    • 7th Feb 07, 8:50 AM
    Sure Scott should take the ad, but if he really doesn't like it then add a disclaimer above his notice board that not all ads are necessarily endorsed by the management. He's then done his moral bit. LOL @ Scott and Charlene btw.... back when Neighbours was good
  • macwise
    • #8
    • 7th Feb 07, 9:19 AM
    • #8
    • 7th Feb 07, 9:19 AM
    If a friend of mine had been unemployed for a while and needed my help getting on in their new job, I would have to do it. Its only a poster in his window, how much harm can that possibly do to his business?:confused:

    It just wouldn't be fair to turn her down when she clearly needs his help but there's no harm in putting a disclaimer notice in the window too. And if he had complaints from his customers, Charlene would have to understand why he must remove it from his window. The important point is that she's trying to make it work and he needs to help her out.
  • topgranny
    • #9
    • 7th Feb 07, 10:24 AM
    I "Laughed out Loud"
    • #9
    • 7th Feb 07, 10:24 AM
    LOL @ Scott and Charlene btw.... back when Neighbours was good
    by ajaxgeezer
    Thanks so much ajaxgeezer - I've been racking my brains trying to think what "LOL" means ever since I started reading the chat forums. (Doh!)

    Always skip and eat your peas
  • SunnyBrighton
    Absolutely not! Charlene probably knows these kind of misrepresentation scams are unethical too, but has decided to go for the money this time - Scott could have a chat with her, and suggest somewhere else for her ad. She'll have ditched the 'job' very soon, but Scott's reputation will stay around for a long time. If she's his best friend, she'll want the best for him too.
    • Shiggaddi
    • By Shiggaddi 7th Feb 07, 12:13 PM
    • 898 Posts
    • 308 Thanks
    There's adverts on newsagents noticeboards all the time from scam companies offering to stuff envelopes etc.

    Amongst those adverts will be second hand TVs and cookers etc, business cards of the local plumber, and an advert for the local pantomime all with contact details, so you can contact the advertiser yourself.

    Very few people look at a newsagent noticeboard and assume that all adverts are in any way connected to the newsagent management.

    If he was really having a moral dilemma, he might start to think that selling cigarettes damages your health, and by making his sales he is helping someone to an early grave. If he has a liquor licence, do the local yobs buy from his store, then cause a nuisance in the street?

    What about the unethical ways of journalism, and invasions of privacy that help sell his tabloid newspapers?

    And if he has a lottery terminal and scratchcards, then he is now encouraging gambling.

    Then there's the magazines of skinny models that encourage young girls to become annorexic, not to mention the top shelf adult magazines he might order for customers.
    • jammyjam
    • By jammyjam 7th Feb 07, 12:26 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Scott should decline to advertise the service. My friend won a "competition" for a "free" makeover and photoshoot. He did not really know what he was getting into and the company applied pressure sales to get him to part with over 500 for the photographs. Of course they had a payment plan and it took him 18 months to pay off the debt with interest. Unfortunately, he was ashamed of what he had agreed to and his gullibility and failed to tell anyone until after the cooling-off period had elapsed.

    This sort of business is just dishonest and makes money out of people who can ill-afford it, but who don't have enough nouse to walk away.
  • Mr Messy
    Couldn't Scott just ask that the poster makes it clear there would be a charge for the photographs, even if the amount is not shown?

    His conscience is clear and he's helped his friend.
    • irishwench69
    • By irishwench69 7th Feb 07, 12:42 PM
    • 794 Posts
    • 5,634 Thanks
    Agree with the others - Scott can help Charlene out by putting a poster / card up, as long as she understands that it has to detail the additional charges for the prints, and it will be taken down if there are any customer complaints about them / her.

    I don't think a newsagents can be *that* fussy - the friend thing is almost not relevant - it's about a newsagent putting an ad up. I bet the supermarkets don't vet the ads for those noticeboards instore that much!

    IW x
    Official DFW Nerd Club - Member no. 222
    Debt free wannabe - Proud to be dealing with my debts!

    Remember the MoneySaving mantras!

    IF YOU'RE SKINT......
    Do I need it? Can I afford it? Can I find it cheaper anywhere else?

    Will I use it? Is it worth it? Can I find it cheaper anywhere else?
    • Spectralis
    • By Spectralis 7th Feb 07, 2:12 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    I think if you know it's a scam then it's unethical to promote it. As others have said in favour of promoting this ad - friendship has nothing to do with it - judge the issue on ethical grounds.

    Hopefully Charlene who has the dilema of promoting this scam will find other work in the future. We've all got to pay the bills and lot's of high street big name companies advertise scams with hidden clauses that are dressed up as good deals but that doesn't mean others should feel pressurised to join in with promoting false advertising.

    Good luck to all involved.
    • madkingsoup
    • By madkingsoup 7th Feb 07, 4:00 PM
    • 65 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    If Charlene gets funny about Scott's refusal then she isn't a real friend and he's better off without her.

    It sounds like that company ("The Studio"?) that puts cards into magazines offering the chance to win a photoshoot. I've won 2nd prize three times on this and it turns out that you get one picture for free and have to pay through the nose for the rest. When I tried to get out of it they kept calling me, and even started texting me despite the fact that they did not have my permission. A quick threat of being reported to the ICO and I never heard from them again.
    • JayD
    • By JayD 7th Feb 07, 4:43 PM
    • 529 Posts
    • 332 Thanks
    Maybe a compromise is called for?
    Perhaps an additional comment written on the poster advising that photographs would be charged for and prices are available on request.
    I can't see that upsetting either of them.
    • Brockyman
    • By Brockyman 7th Feb 07, 5:59 PM
    • 381 Posts
    • 378 Thanks
    I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this as long as the poster clearly stated that a charge would be made for additional photographs, and even if it didn't you'd have to be pretty naive not to realise it. The photo session will take an hour or more and probably uses a Photographer and a make up artist so it doesn't take a lot to work out that unless the studio sell something from the session they are going to lose money. Photographers and make up artists are skilled people and deserve to make a living. The "FREE" sitting and makeover is a loss leader, a bit like supermarkets selling bread at a loss to make you go in for it and then you buying something else. The studio are taking a risk, they invest time in taking your photo and they use their skills to create the photo's. Hopefully you will like them enough to want to buy them or they lose money. If you do not like them there is no obligation to buy them and it has cost you nothing. If you do like them you can buy copies and you will have them forever. Is 300 a lot for the photo's? That's hard to judge without seeing them but it is not possible to compare it to the cost of doing it yourself. It is a bit like getting in an electrician to replace a plug socket. The socket might only cost 3.00 say, but with his time and tools and skill his bill could maybe come to 100. Would that be unreasonable too?
    One of the big problems with the world today is that people want things for nothing. To a certain extent this forum encourages that and I'm not sure it is always a good thing. A good job is worth rewarding. If it is a bad job, at least in this instance it has cost the customer nothing.
    • 4$&*($&*(!
    • By 4$&*($&*(! 7th Feb 07, 6:37 PM
    • 988 Posts
    • 981 Thanks
    Having known two friends who were told they'd 'won' such a prize for a free make-over and photoshoot, I can relate to this.

    The studio was on Great Portland Street, and I dropped them off around 2pm. At around 5pm I went back to pick them up, and heard an incredible story about how they had a make-up artist work their wonders, they were given champagne and were told they would get two prints free into the deal. At the end of it they were pressure-sold £300 worth of photos and told they could not leave without buying them. They weren't even allowed to phone me to call into the studio. They ended up in tears as I picked them up from the shoot at the end of the day.

    Eventually we found a get-out clause - they purchased the photos on a credit card, and were given a contract that told them to expect their photos within 28 days. After three weeks a CD turned up with the photos on and were told to wait a further two weeks. Once 28 days had elapsed they called their credit card company to report a breach of contract.

    Scott should be made aware of what it's like to console two upset women, pressure sold and so upset they spoke about it for weeks afterwards (and it came as little shock to see the manager of the studio on Watchdog defending the company a few months later). He may put a friendship on the line, but he would still have to sleep at night.
    • cefynbach
    • By cefynbach 7th Feb 07, 6:52 PM
    • 52 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Hi got to agree with those who say no to poster as this is obviuosly a scam. As for the person who made a comment about him selling cigerettes, anyone buying them knows the risks and there isn't a hidden agenda.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

53Posts Today

2,039Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next?

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin