[nxc18]

I think my favorite part of this article is how the author is so understanding and positive about his users. I think if I had rented out cameras to people, told them not to point it at the eclipse, and then got a bunch of damaged cameras back, I'd be pissed. In fact, I might have choice words for those customers.

I think there's a lesson here in targeting inexperienced consumers. Perhaps a good preventative measure would have been handing out protective lenses before the eclipse so that customers would have really had to try to mess it up.

[olegkikin]

Why would he be angry? The customers are paying for the damage.

[monocasa]

There's still a potential opportunity cost from temporarily not having those damaged items in stock.

[jessaustin]

IANAPhotographer, but many other rental businesses (cars, boats, bicycles, etc.) make lots of money on overcharging for repair/theft. It wouldn't shock me to learn that camera rentals are the same.

[gist]

> and then got a bunch of damaged cameras back, I'd be pissed

It might not be good business to express that in a blog post

[SirZimzim]

Yeah, got to remain positive and cheery and use it as a positive "learning experience".

[mickronome]

It could also be that these people renting out camera equipment are guaranteed to have seen much worse damage, expected worse damage - and that in this instance - the customers appears to have taken responsibility for the damage to an unusual extent.

There's certainly enough positive surprises in the above to warrant an upbeat post, one that can also be used to educate about how camera systems can be damaged, and the limits of their insurance.

[quickthrower2]

Ha ha I was thinking the same thing. Wouldn't surprise me if they had some of the article written / drafted in advance. Excellent PR and free advertising.

[ars]

> .... I'd be pissed .... choice words for those customers.

Then clearly this is the wrong business for you.

Dealing with stupid customers simply comes with the territory.