Glambot operator controversy

A few days ago, the operator of the famed Glambot, best described by PEOPLE as a ‘high-speed camera that captures slow-motion videos’ made a video in defence of JLo. A clip of her at the Glambot station that was set up on the Golden Globes red carpet led to people accusing her of being rude and dismissive over her lack of conversation and acknowledgement of the operator as he dished out instructions and pose suggestions. But just days after making the video defending JLo, it’s the operator of the camera who is now under fire for his treatment of non-famous clients.

In the initial video, Cole Walliser rationalized his experience with celebrities like JLo, who may not speak to him during their time at his station on the red carpet, saying it’s a fast-paced and high pressure environment:

"I never felt that people were, like, rude to me in that moment. The world is just so so crazy that when people are distracted or less chatty or thinking about other stuff, I don't take it personally."

But with his name appearing in headlines on sites like TMZ, people have started reflecting on the experiences they had with him in pursuit of securing the Glambot for their private events - and it’s not looking good.

It all started when a woman named Yinka shared a series of emails from 2019 between her and Cole. According to the emails, she initially reached out to inquire whether the Glambot was available for weddings and private events. In that email, she asked about his availability and his rates. He responds to her and says that while it is available for private events, he wanted to confirm that it’s within her budget before continuing correspondence.

"It is not cheap, if you feel like something like this might be within your budget range, then I am happy to discuss further," he said.

Despite not receiving an actual number, she assured him that she could afford it. Then Cole had this to say:

"I don’t see how you could since I didn’t say how much it was and could be between $10,000 and $1,000,000."

After asking him to narrow that number down a bit, the amount he decided to go with was $300,000 with a 10% deposit to secure the gear, at which point he would get a contract drawn up. She let him know that she would confirm within a few days, which left him with the impression that she was just being nosy about how much it cost without any actual intention of securing the device for her wedding.

“If you wanted to know how much it costs you just needed to ask, you don’t need to pretend you are going to book it,” he replied.

On top of that attitude, many have pointed out what they read to be microaggressions throughout that email thread. So it’s understandable that Yinka told PEOPLE that the tone of the interaction left her feeling ‘hurt’, and that the assumption she couldn’t afford it is nothing new for her as a Black woman.

What’s also emerged is that between her African heritage and her now-husband being South Asian, these are two cultures where over-the-top weddings are common. When she said she could afford it without hearing the number, there was a reason for that. The woman was having a three-day celebration, FFS. Naturally, social media users got curious, found photos of her wedding and say they are confident that she could have afforded multiple Glambots for her wedding if she wanted to.

Yinka sharing her story led to someone else sharing a screenshot of the response he got when he asked if Cole and the Glambot could be booked for weddings.

But perhaps the most unexpected commentary came from people who had worked the Glambot before. People like director Joseph Kahn, who has worked on music videos for major popstars like Mariah Carey and Taylor Swift, and who is also the creator of the camera.

On X, he revealed that he created and designed the camera and while it was ‘fun’, it was hard to juggle considering he was winning Grammys and such.

Nigel Barker also chimed in, saying that he, too, used to direct the Glambot on award ceremony red carpets before and went on to book it for an ALO campaign. But rather than the $300,000 price Cole quoted Yinka, he said the basic package is more like $25,000 in places like New York and L.A. Well that’s a discrepancy.

It’s also worth noting that the aforementioned industry experts in this field who jumped into the chat pointedly did not mention Cole but were presumably aware of the controversy because otherwise why would they add their two cents otherwise?

Cole currently has over four million followers on Instagram from the proximity to celebrities that this device was able to bring him. He seems to be fiercely protective over it becoming some thing you can ‘just’ rent for a private event or wedding. And perhaps the reason for that is because he probably feels like that cheapens it and reduces the exclusivity of it, and thus, him and his involvement. By not making it available for private events – or providing such terrible customer service that people wouldn’t want to book it – certainly means less money for him, but who knows how much he gets to bring it to the red carpet at award shows. Additional private events may not make much of a difference for his bottom line, hence his dismissive energy to the people who inquire about obtaining it.

But then there’s the difference in cost. If Nigel Barker is saying the basic package was only $25,000, where (in 2019 might I add) did he get the ridiculous and too wide of a range that he quoted Yinka? Was he hoping that by going that high, she wouldn’t end up booking it? Because then he’s a wedding vendor, not a vendor at the Golden Globes or the Oscars. And though I can’t fault him for wanting to remain exclusive, the customer service could use improvement, particularly if it’s different depending on not just if the inquiry comes from someone who isn’t famous but also if it differs in the level of unnecessary sass according to the background of the inquirer.

In this business, the person behind the camera typically doesn’t want to be the story. Cole has become the story and the subject… and, well, through the lens of the Glambot, it’s not a good look.