Loading…
19
That $200 stock photo subscription I thought was a steal
I signed up for a year of 'unlimited' stock photos for $200 thinking it would save me money on client projects. Turns out the 'commercial use' fine print was so narrow I couldn't use half the images without buying extra licenses. Has anyone else gotten burned by a deal that looked too good on the surface?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
nathan_kim3mo ago
Blame the fine print not the deal. You probably still saved money on the ones you can actually use.
9
ryan_hart383mo ago
Oh come on. That's a pretty wild take. The whole point of a deal is that you're supposed to get something useful, not a list of things you can't actually use. If a company hides the real terms in tiny print, that's on them, not the customer. I get being careful, but this just sounds like making excuses for a bad business practice. Saving a few bucks on stuff you didn't want doesn't really count as a win.
8
michael_williams3mo ago
Ha yeah I used to be on the opposite side of this honestly. I always thought if a deal seemed too complicated or had weird restrictions then the company was just trying to trick you. But after getting burned a few times on stuff where I didnt bother reading the details I kinda get what you're saying now. Like yeah the fine print sucks but if you take two seconds to skim it you can usually tell what's actually worth it. I still think companies should be more upfront but I've definitely changed my mind about blaming them for everything.
1