STAGE 2: KEEP your RED ONE and get EPIC-X Stage 2 package

[Scott Crawley]

Really, he wrote "sold/rented".

I stand corrected.

 

[keith morton]

Really, he wrote "sold/rented". I am in the rental business. I must really be in trouble. What if you sold your Red to buy other reds (Epic M) after waiting for more than a year for your x? I mean calling people names that buy $58,000 cameras so they can stay in business is a good thing? Thinking things through is a good thing.

Good Point! REALLY GOOD POINT!! Did ya Ketch that Liam????? Oh my bad...I meant "CATCH".

 

[Liam Hall]

Really, he wrote "sold/rented". I am in the rental business. I must really be in trouble. What if you sold your Red to buy other reds (Epic M) after waiting for more than a year for your x? I mean calling people names that buy $58,000 cameras so they can stay in business is a good thing? Thinking things through is a good thing.

I'm not a lawyer, I make films for a living... I meant people that broke their contract. It's clear that people have broken their contract either deliberately or unwittingly.

I agree name calling is wrong and should have phrased it better. I should have written; now that the tide has gone out, I'd like to know who is lying naked on the beach...

 

[Justin Kirchhoff]

How do you come to that conclusion? I mean that question sincerely

Those accused may not have been a part of the lease to own programs. Some may have sold theirs because they no longer saw a need to have them or needed to sell it because of a personal financial crisis. Or they just wanted to get an M...

 

[John C Picking Jr]

Please accept my apology, Stewart. I got caught up in this thread pretty good but no excuse. You did the right thing with Red but posting about it seemed to spoil it for me but I am nobody so had no right to get sarcastic.

No Epic, looking for a Scarlet when available. Hope to do some good with it. Thanks for not just letting it go. Likewise, Peace to you too. : )

How did I bring it to the public? it is in the public on a forum as a discussion thread, I commented. I didn't create the thread.

Or are you referring to my comment? In which case were else should I have stated it since this is where RED have deemed to have the discussion? Or should I just have stayed quiet? Why start a discussion thread if not to have responses? It's not my place to start another thread in response to this, I don't know what you are suggesting.

Either way it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to attack, just trying to point out that not everyone who responded publicly and in a negative way was in the wrong and could be fully justified in doing so, and used how RED has made mistakes in the past as an example.

I think I read correctly that you are getting an EPIC, that's cool John, they look great, I'd love to see some of the work you do on it. Peace

 

[Scott Crawley]

Well this is a Red Tide and it's effects will likely remain shrouded by the sea, known only by the effected sea life, the algae, and those unfortunate enough to eat there.

I agree name calling is wrong and should have phrased it better. I should have written; now that the tide has gone out, I'd like to know who is lying naked on the beach...

 

[Liam Hall]

Well this is a Red Tide and it's effects will likely remain shrouded by the sea, known only by the sea life, the algae, and those unfortunate enough to eat there.

It wouldn't be pretty would it!

To be serious though, Jim, Jarred and the RED team have gone way-up in terms of respect from with the way they've handled this. I guess that's why they are successful and command such loyalty from customers and wannabes alike.

 

[Jack Cooper]

Reply to Jim -- More listening please.

Reply to Jim -- More listening please.

Jim.

It has become quite obvious that everyone on this thread has quickly moved from listening mode to advocacy mode – obviously a lot of emotion around this topic.

First, in no way, shape, or form, was the previous post a legal “threat”. I would like to point out that I did, in fact, see Jarred’s post where he communicated that Red would be handling the various deal structures on a “case-by-case” basis.

As such, I am predicting that there will be few, if any “rights terminations” associated with those deals (again, an educated guess on my part). Based on my own conclusion, I believe the situation Saturday night turned out vastly different than alternatives Jarred was implying in the earlier morning posts.

I stand by my statement, if Red would have unilaterally terminated rights of at least 200+ camera owners, I think that collective group would have sought legal recourse based on the reasons I laid out in my previous posts – again, our professional economic opinion.

Please keep in mind, this is where the RED community needs to LISTEN (in this case read): IF, things had turned out differently, I believe those owners would have joined together – hence the term “class action” – based on the fact that a decision which, COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY RED – would have resulted in at least $12 million in stranded assets.

As you well know Jim, there is a difference in filing a suit, litigating a suit, and settling a suit – none of which I threatened. As you also well know, contrary to Jarred’s post referencing CA law, you just need one State’s Attorney General who is willing to hunker down on a DTPA action. Again, not a threat, just an observation based on 20+ years working with litigators.

Further evidence of the lack of listening in recent posts is the fact that you seem to have overlooked a well established point that our firm doesn’t have a horse in this race. Hence, we are an unbiased user of your products (actually, we are biased – we love Red). No matter where in the world we go, we have access to your amazing research, talent, and equipment – a fact that is a testament to your success and the hard work of the Red employees. There are folks much more talented than us who can manage Red assets in their respective markets – we are no longer in the ownership game, been there, done that.

Given the tone and tenor of your post to us, you have obviously mistaken the fact that we are not an adversary to Red, you, or this community, but rather a trusted adviser, which provides various points of views, on a relatively small scope of your business.

So with the objective of providing you insight and understanding beyond the 8 threads you follow, we found, and observed others, that the Stage process did not have the appropriate signal-to-noise ratio. Evidence of this is easily found on this board and with the events during the last 24 hours.

If you choose to do something similar in the future, let's hope we all learn from this first process. My experience is that a man in your position can never over-communicate. A tough job, but it's your company. Here’s to everyone in the community listening (and reading) better.

Have a great holiday and best of luck with the X launch. Thank you for all you’ve done.

 

[Bob Torrance]

I'm not a lawyer, I make films for a living... I meant people that broke their contract. It's clear that people have broken their contract either deliberately or unwittingly.

I agree name calling is wrong and should have phrased it better. I should have written; now that the tide has gone out, I'd like to know who is lying naked on the beach...

I'm not a lawyer either but I know several. The contract says to not transfer ownership, it doesn't say you can't sell your camera. So if people didn't transfer ownership but sold there camera (expecting to get their X soon) to buy more RED gear then what? I got tired of telling clients "no, I don't have an Epic yet, sorry". I'm just glad this all worked out (I think). There simply was not a lot of bad intentions here. Perhaps the thread has run its course.

Later,

Bob

 

[Justin Kirchhoff]

I'm not a lawyer either but I know several. The contract says to not transfer ownership, it doesn't say you can't sell your camera. So if people didn't transfer ownership but sold there camera (expecting to get their X soon) to buy more RED gear then what? I got tired of telling clients "no, I don't have an Epic yet, sorry". I'm just glad this all worked out (I think). There simply was not a lot of bad intentions here. Perhaps the thread has run its course.

Later,

Bob

It seems to me that some peoples intentions were similar to this situation.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I hesitate to add to the noise here, but the way I see it is very simple.

Red made a good faith offer. If you chose to ignore the spirit of the offer and use a loop hole, or leasing as an end run around selling your camera, you were taking advantage of reds generosity. Period. They made the offer for people who loved their cameras. Not so people could take advantage of it and make some extra money. End of story.

It's again very generous of Red to even consider letting people try to unfuck their situations.

Just my opinion,

Nick

 

[Michael Millichamp]

This thread should be closed.

It has gotten way out of hand.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

The above +1

Pat

 

[Steve Das]

Hope the thread stays open and isn't closed...although many may want it to just go away..
thinking they dodged the bullet. But so far only thing mentioned was a case by case policy.

It seems to me to have been dealt with correctly. RED never mentioned anyone's name "in public".

They didn't have to...deal threads..numbered in the low hundreds probably...were done here on reduser so unless
people deleted to cover their tracks..they're still there. It was all done on the downlow cause people knew what the
answer would be if they asked outright. So it stayed low key until Judgement Day(Epic X shipping) came last week.

Now why Red didn't catch wind of it is one Hell of a mystery. Doesn't anyone from Red hit the New Posts Button ?
A casual glance would have shown what was going on. Red Bomb Squad members..Moderators..anyone ?

Possession is nine-tenths of the law is well known truism of civilized law. So if an object is no longer in
your possession and you can not use it you are most likely not the legal owner.
On top of which if you accepted significant funds for such object you are most definetely not said owner no
matter whose name is on the titlework as at this point the registration is just an unfulfilled formality.

The thread was meant, I gather, to forestall future occurrence of similar cavalier treatment of agreements that should be treated more seriously.....Chris

Doubtfull if there will ever be future agreements. And it's a shame because Epic and SSD won't last forever.
Red put their hand out to shake old school style and people stabbed them in the back Goldman Sachs style.
Again...Total Mystery why no-one was watching Red's back on this one. But from this thread it seems
many like me had questions..but assumed it was a sort of test of people's true intentions or something tolerated but not liked.

One thing learned is not many people have seen Godfather I and II...or if they did...they slept through it.

 

[Jannard]

Jack... we are motivated to take care of our customers for the right reasons (not by the mention of class action lawsuits) and we are demotivated when our customers attempt to circumnavigate the rules. In the State of California, lease to own constitutes a transfer, which is prohibited by the terms of Stage 2. Having said that, I'll reiterate what has already been posted. We will work with our customers to get through this in a clean way.

I appreciate that you say you are a supporter, but legal language like DTPA action only pisses me off (and is not viable in this situation), particularly when the resolution was already stated...

Jim

Jim.

It has become quite obvious that everyone on this thread has quickly moved from listening mode to advocacy mode – obviously a lot of emotion around this topic.

First, in no way, shape, or form, was the previous post a legal “threat”. I would like to point out that I did, in fact, see Jarred’s post where he communicated that Red would be handling the various deal structures on a “case-by-case” basis.

As such, I am predicting that there will be few, if any “rights terminations” associated with those deals (again, an educated guess on my part). Based on my own conclusion, I believe the situation Saturday night turned out vastly different than alternatives Jarred was implying in the earlier morning posts.

I stand by my statement, if Red would have unilaterally terminated rights of at least 200+ camera owners, I think that collective group would have sought legal recourse based on the reasons I laid out in my previous posts – again, our professional economic opinion.

Please keep in mind, this is where the RED community needs to LISTEN (in this case read): IF, things had turned out differently, I believe those owners would have joined together – hence the term “class action” – based on the fact that a decision which, COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY RED – would have resulted in at least $12 million in stranded assets.

As you well know Jim, there is a difference in filing a suit, litigating a suit, and settling a suit – none of which I threatened. As you also well know, contrary to Jarred’s post referencing CA law, you just need one State’s Attorney General who is willing to hunker down on a DTPA action. Again, not a threat, just an observation based on 20+ years working with litigators.

Further evidence of the lack of listening in recent posts is the fact that you seem to have overlooked a well established point that our firm doesn’t have a horse in this race. Hence, we are an unbiased user of your products (actually, we are biased – we love Red). No matter where in the world we go, we have access to your amazing research, talent, and equipment – a fact that is a testament to your success and the hard work of the Red employees. There are folks much more talented than us who can manage Red assets in their respective markets – we are no longer in the ownership game, been there, done that.

Given the tone and tenor of your post to us, you have obviously mistaken the fact that we are not an adversary to Red, you, or this community, but rather a trusted adviser, which provides various points of views, on a relatively small scope of your business.

So with the objective of providing you insight and understanding beyond the 8 threads you follow, we found, and observed others, that the Stage process did not have the appropriate signal-to-noise ratio. Evidence of this is easily found on this board and with the events during the last 24 hours.

If you choose to do something similar in the future, let's hope we all learn from this first process. My experience is that a man in your position can never over-communicate. A tough job, but it's your company. Here’s to everyone in the community listening (and reading) better.

Have a great holiday and best of luck with the X launch. Thank you for all you’ve done.

 

[Omar Al-Masab]

I don't get it why do people bite the hand that is feeding them?

Most people got a boost in there career because of red, they made a lot of money of the red one, and then get a refund for the up grade to epic.
so why breach the contract and sell it? just to get the last drop of money out of it?
I don't know???

 

[Jason Wingrove]

Job done. Close it.

J

 

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Job done. Close it.

J

+ everyone...

 

[Shane Kelly]

At the time that we had to sign that form and pay the 5k, I deliberated over it for a day or so. Why would I want to keep my camera when the epic was not far away? I guess that my main motivation at the time was to get a jump in the line and make some rental money as people did with the red one. The other reasoning behind going for stage 2 was the fact that it's a hell of a deal and I get a second/backup body for essentially $9k. I always thought that I had to hold onto the camera until the epic was delivered, as the contract said.
As I've seen all of these executed cameras going for sale in the last year, I've sometimes thought about selling but then I'd get a rental or a job that required the camera and I came to realize that it didn't make any sense to try and do one of these deals. As the amount of red cameras for rental in my city slowly diminished,(especially the $300/day ones), I was actually getting more rentals and making more money. I then upgraded to ssd and, although I can't really charge more for solid state, it gives me such piece of mind that it's worth every penny.
The $9k that I originally saw as almost a penalty for getting in line has long since been recouped, I shot 2 commercials on the camera last week and am booked for another on the 19th. Sometimes I can make good business decisions despite myself
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, even if red said "sorry guys, we have to cancel the stages", I'd be disappointed but would understand given the current business climate. However, I would still have an awesome camera that beats the hell out of the Alexa and the 5d and pretty much every other camera out there. I'll still have it when I get my Epic and it'll go to work for the foreseeable future.
Later,
Shane.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

RED should publish the names of the people who sold/rented their Stage 2 R1s. Not only would it work as a kind of restorative justice, but we'd all know who the douchebags and scoundrels are that frequent this forum.

Seriously Liam? About 20 of my friends made this faux pas and none of them fall under your cowardly description
But you sure sound like one with insensitive comments like this

Many simply misunderstood the KEEP part as "you guys save us the hassle of trade in"
And they even sought advice from Red on how to respect the agreement.

This was both a misunderstanding by owners and frankly an oversight by Red who didn't realize it was
Occurring (multiple ads still exist) in the for sale section.
Red has handled this with class and gone above and beyond. But you calling my friends scoundrels and douchebags
When all are staunch supporters of Red, really was the only douchebag move on here and I would gladly say it to your face. You crossed the line buddy and it's far worse behavior than anything they inadvertently did.

You should apologize to everyone on here for that rude and immature comment