CPS is aimed for Professionals, and i'm sure if they were to find out that you were not a professional, you could lose your status. Being both a professional and a CPS member, i find threads like these kind of sad, but, for those who take advantage and bend the rules for your own gain, karma always comes back around... CPS is a service to those who spend enough money on Canon´s pro gear. Wether you´re a pro, an enthusiast or a wealthy gadget collector does not matter. To exclude non-pros would be very poor judgement.
Wrong. according to Canon CPS, Membership is available only to those individuals (self-employed or employed by a professional imaging business), who plays a direct role in the creation of moving or still images for third parties on a full-time basis and are legal residents of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia (and Puerto Rico as of January 31, 2014).
That is directly from their own FAQ. You are correct, i've gone to many events, Weddings, Parties, etc where guests, like neuro, has better gear than myself... The difference is i'm getting paid and entrusted by the hosts of the event to provide the images for the event, wedding, whatever the case may be. My gear is critical to my families income so I cannot have them go down or i'm out of business. CPS is aimed to help us working professionals so we can experiment with new gear, buy new gear, and help us if our gear goes down to get it back up and running the best way possible.
Again, let us all be reminded that Canon is a business. One with a lot of people that have monetary interest in. The goal of any business is to make money. If you don't like the way the program is being run, I would think the correct direction to aim your frustration would be the company themselves for setting it up this way.
You defining or saying that CPS is for.... is mere conjecture on your part as you have no idea what their business model is or what their true intentions for CPS are. You appear to simply be upset at the fact that they are not running it the way YOU see fit and have somehow decided that it is the amateur consumer's fault.
I keep hearing the mention of how if photography is someone's main source of income and their livelihood depends on it, their needs are inherently more important. Well hell, I once had the dream of being a photographer for a living as well. Instead, I sucked it up and took on a career doing something I could care less about so that I could fund what I loved to do instead. And now, I have the money for the gear and a membership only to have people like you try to tell me that I'm somehow bending the rules or taking advantage for my own selfish gain at your expense.
I'll tell you what. If photography were my chosen profession and things were the way they are, I wouldn't so much cry about it as I would be working to find a way to make more money so that I wouldn't have to worry so much when my gear does go out. But that's just me.
Yes John, Seriously... They need to know what their general customer base thinks of their products and services... They replied saying they have forwarded it to the management... so, if they agree with your motto, they will leave it be, if they dont, then they will wake up and make some changes to their policies. It's not whether or not they are doing it MY way or not, it's about doing it according to their own rules and regs.
My position still stands and I'm pretty sure that the core of their concern will be their general customer base and their willingness to pump more money into their company. I currently have over 25k in Canon equipment in my house and am prepping myself to buy whatever they have brewing in the works for their next pro level body. They could theoretically begin to exclude people like me, but that only serves to put a black eye on their business for consumers like myself who have spent significant amounts of their non-qualified incomes on Canon products.
Perhaps they will in fact boot the large number of high dollar spending amateurs in hopes of pleasing the pros that spend less and I will be back here reading the "I told you so" comments.
So, you want to be a part of a program you, according to their rules, are not entitled to even be in, in the first place, and say it would be a black eye for them to enforce their own freaking rules? Are you high or something? My point still stands, either enforce your rules or change your rules to encompass your actual positioning... Dont have a set of rules and break them.
Again, that is at the company's discretion and not the consumer's. So as you have already done, the issue has been brought to their attention. No need to try to affect the consumer's mentality through your remarks as they have no control over it.
And no, I am not high. As a matter of fact, I think I've made very logical arguments (albeit without accusing people of being "high").
Again I ask, so you believe the ONLY people that should have the right to be in CPS should be FULL-TIME pros that use photography as their main source of income? As others have stated before, most photographers I know do a number of various things to make money including workshops, stock photo, extra job on the side, renting out gear, etc.
If your answer to my question is yes, then please diagram (in a very specific fashion) for me how it is you would set the criteria to determine just how "pro" you have to be in order to qualify? This should include type of work, hours spent, amount of income, percentages earned from photography, etc. It would need to be a feasible model for Canon to operate their program under.
The other question I would then ask is, how many memberships would still be left after you excluded all the consumers that don't fit into that model?
John, your arguments that you presented are more of the entitlist opinion of "what do you have that makes YOU (Pros) more special than anyone else to qualify for this service"... That's basically it in a nutshell... My opinion and argument is they, Canon, have already detailed what they want to qualify for this service within the USA... other countries and regions vary and are subject to their own rules.
This is how it is worded in Canon's USA CPS website: Membership is available only to those individuals (self-employed or employed by a professional imaging business
), who plays a direct role in the creation of moving or still images for third parties on a full-time basis
and are legal residents of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia (and Puerto Rico as of January 31, 2014).
So, based on THEIR rules, you have to make images, self employed, or staff of a photography studio or business in charge of making photography for other people or companies on a FULL TIME basis. There's no gray area... there's no maybe maybe-not... it's pretty black and white.... Most people assume full time as being 30+ hours a week... I'm sure if you talk to any full time working professional photographer, most will say they work almost double that at times. It's pretty simple... those are their rules. Enforce them or change them...
As for your other questions, yes, if you dont qualify as a full time working professional, according to THEIR RULES, they would wouldn't qualify. How many would they lose in that program? Probably a good chunk, but they would have their target audience in that program. I'm sure most people who would lose their membership, unlike you, already knew they were bending rules and knew, as they have it on the books, was just a matter of time. But, i'm also saying that if this is indeed what they want, then they MUST change the rules to specify WHAT AND TO WHAT LIMITS they want their CPS members to be and then increase the equipment and services to best suit their customers.