And it appears that whatever she is doing is working...she's still on the telly and still having loads of talk about her. She is probably very aware that she needs to make hay while the sun shines and is looking at the reality of the longevity of it all.

I'm not making excuses for her - I personally wouldn't pay anyone on this earth for a signature. I also sit agog that someone would actually make a trip to London to do a TOWIE tour. But I'm also trying to look at it as the parent - I would NOT entertain paying for the signature - as well as the 'celebrity' - if it were an income stream I would think very carefully about not doing what I needed to keep it coming in.

So if there aren't many people in the grocery store then food should randomly be given away? I'm not trying to be ornery, but it's her livelihood.

I'm not nearly as concerned about her behaviour as I am the parents for the kid having a fixation for TOWIE and them paying for the photo. Gemma can do what she wants...the parents should have had better sense from the start.

No, her 'brand' is PR to get people through the door of her shop rather than another +size clothes shop. Her product is the clothes on sale, not her. And people have a right to buy or not to buy as in any other shop. Npbody was asking her to give her stock away. She would be paying for overheads no matter who was in.

Her posing for a photo with a child was going to cost her nothing.

We all do things in life for no financial reward but simply because they are nice things to do. At least I do and I hope I'm in the majority.

The shop is not her sole source of income. She is her brand and she earns money from TOWIE, personal appearance shows like CBB. Even if it was, why can't she look at photos with fans as below the line Advertising which she would normally pay for, not get for free?

It is not as simple as 'just walking away' when a child is involved. An adult, I agree but not a child.

So you're saying that only certain types of businesses are allowed to charge for whatever their 'services' or items of interest may be? Ok...good for you. Do you think money she earns doesn't keep her? Huh.

Why would she need a sign? When I went to Highclere there was nothing mentioned on any paperwork or website that you weren't allowed to take internal photos. There were people there totally ticked off and a fair few that refused to buy souveniers...they took umbrage just as people did with Gemma. Their choices.

You're trying to say there's a difference when clearly, at the base of it all, there is not.

Why are you talking about stock? Nobody was asking for free stock?! Stock cost her money to buy in, of course she shouldn"t have to give it away. She was standing, existing and visible whether a photo was taken or not. It was going to cost her nothing.

That's the difference.

Obviously her brand is her, her shop, her marketability. You turn around and say that she is her brand...which is it? She is her brand and it entails everything with her name on it.

I agree with you about doing nice things, but we are not all the same. I also don't rely on my 'brand' to put food on the table.

And yes it is as simple as just walking away when a child is involved. I'm a mother and grandmother and it's served me well over the years. No is a very powerful word and lesson - shame more kids didn't experience it and we wouldn't have a generation growing up with one of the biggest ambitions of being famous for being famous sake.

I'm making a comparison...I didn't think it was that difficult to comprehend. She is her stock - the kid came to see her just as I might go to the store to grab some fruit. It would have cost her lost revenue. It's pretty simple. We live in a country of free trade...don't want to pay for the service or product then don't partake. It is that simple.

I do agree that No is a word that should be used more with kids. They have to learn that they can't have everything they want, whenever they want it.

But I also don't consider a request for a photograph with somebody to be an unreasonable request. The only way to say 'No' in that instance is to explain that the person they want their photo taken with, a person they must like, is not a nice person who is demanding money for something they shouldn't. And that might not be something a parent wants to do - to introduce their child to the fact that money grabbing, nasty people exist in this World at that precise moment.

You see, it is not the child that needs punishing because they haven't done anything wrong demanding something.

I really don't see gemma the person as the same thing as stock re her giving something away for free.

If she were a supermodel whose very physicality was their living (like KATE Moss or Naomi Campbell) then fair enough, they are paid thousands of pounds to simply have their image captured. But that is not the case with Collins. Her brand is her personality, and she uses that brand as PR for her actual goods for sale, her stock.

To me, there is a huge difference and coming from an advertising/PR background i see her image as a Marketing tool, not a Product for sale but I accept others might see it differently.

I still think her actions on this show her up to be a very nasty and selfish individual. As again, i keep repeating, it wouldn't have cost her anything.

But it wouldn't have cost her lost revenue any more that anybody coming into any shop, looking at the goods and not making a purchase. Debenhams don't count every person that comes into the shop but doesn't buy something as having cost them lost revenue. All the costs, rent, electricity, salary for cashiers would have been spent whether somebody came and looked at the goods and didn't buy or whether the shop had been completely empty.

She was not at a personal appearance where somebody came in to see her without paying the entrance fee. That would be lost revenue.

She, herself was not on sale in the circumstance described. Her stock was.

If there wasn't a sign how did you know you couldn't take photos?

you can try justify profiteering as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that Gemma Collins is a spectacularly greedy woman. And lazy.

Her brand is on sale and the biggest 'stock' she has of her brand is herself. It's like saying that an empty airplane seat costs the airlines nothing. Of course it does...it's a missed opportunity for profit or covering running costs.

Look...I'm not agreeing she SHOULD ask for money for photos because I don't believe anyone should. But I think even less should anyone be so taken with another person they would consider paying for it. I'm just stating the view that her brand is her living and that is part of it. To her giving it away could be giving away income.

I'm happy to end this now...I think in essence we both agree it's wrong to do, but I think it's more wrong for anyone to actually pay for it. I love a healthy debate...thank you for keeping it rational and on track!

When we went in to the lobby we were told. That was well after we'd paid for parking, our entrance and the expense of driving to the venue.

I'm not justifying profiteering...I'm simply putting forward the idea that is her business and it's how she makes a living.

Why is she considered greedy? It's her business. I think I would actually question the state of the person who paid for it rather than the person who charged for it.

We obviously disagree on the essence of this. Thanks for the debate though. I do like having conversations like this where it doesn't turn into mudslinging! Have a fab weekend!

What?



Her brand is being a bit part Z lister in a reality TV show. She's not David Beckham - she's a woman who is lucky enough to have secured a few clothing deals on the back of being on the telly. If she is happy for the great unwashed to watch her on the box then surely she should be happy to interact with them with no profit?

Comments above in bold

So if there aren't many people in the grocery store then food should randomly be given away

It was this point that made no sense, sorry.

No worries...the comment I was responding to made the point that there weren't many people in Gemma's shop when the kiddo was in there. So my response was basically that it didn't make sense for foot traffic to dictate the price, or lack thereof, a product.