MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The Latest from Chad regarding Purchase incentives and commission structure  (Read 16437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2010, 12:48 »
0
I'm a software developer responsible for web site that activates software online.

 A customer enters a product serial number and a credit number, and in return gets an activation key by email Of course we verify every credit card before emailing the activation key. It's a standard procedure and there are a number of online verification services that do this, in real time.

Fotolia is apparently not doing this, probably to save money.  They're not at risk of losing any money because it doesn't cost them anything to 'produce' a copy of an image, except for a bit of CPU time and bandwidth.  A copy of a full size image might end up in the hands of a crook, who could resell it, but that risk exists with any image sale.




« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2010, 12:56 »
0
... It's a standard procedure and there are a number of online verification services that do this, in real time.

Fotolia is apparently not doing this, probably to save money...

Yep, my thoughts.

Of course this is not going to chance since it's not us actively putting money into their pockets - it's the image buyers doing that. As long as the buyers don't complain, FT won't change their system, as losing customers is worse than losing contributors. FT has way too many contributors that it can afford to lose rather than taking the risk of losing one single paying customer.

Obviously they rather take any opportunity to accept whatever payment from the funniest countries and weirdest forms of payment instead of preventing fraud which would only lead to higher overhead costs, that we and the buyers have to compensate.


donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2010, 13:05 »
0
How are they gonna lose buyers that don't pay any way?? All they do is gotta check. Why do we have to pay for their ignorance?? Wonder how they would feel if we charged them for liable if that free image they sent before payment cleared was used in a way that it profited the so called buyer?? BigStock puts their payments on hold until they clear...how hard is that??

« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2010, 13:35 »
0
...BigStock puts their payments on hold until they clear...how hard is that??

I'm not sure of Bigstockphoto buyers actually have to wait until payment is cleared. We, the contributors only get our credits if they clear within 7 days but I assume the buyers get their images instantly when they "pay".

I don't believe that any customer is going to stay with a company that makes them wait for 7 days until they can download the images when their payment info is verified...

Credit card payments are quite easy to verify but I had $15 refund for a failed wire transfer. That's a bit tough.

Wire transfers are not really fast and allow a lot of room for scams in my opinion.

Maybe someone can shed a bit of light on these kinds of transfers.

« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2010, 14:00 »
0
The question is how many images are scammed? Is it 1%, 5%, 25%? If it is only a small percentage, then putting payments on hold is a waste of time. If a download is deemed to be a scam then a deduction can easily be made off a future sale.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2010, 14:08 »
0
...BigStock puts their payments on hold until they clear...how hard is that??

I'm not sure of Bigstockphoto buyers actually have to wait until payment is cleared. We, the contributors only get our credits if they clear within 7 days but I assume the buyers get their images instantly when they "pay".

Yeah your right on that..I don't know what I was thinking, the buyer more than likely does get it instantly. At least at BigStock you can't draw those earnings until they have cleared. That way they can't start deducting it from your account because of the bad sales and end up in a negative balance.

« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2010, 14:15 »
0
Wire transfers are not really fast and allow a lot of room for scams in my opinion.
One of my refunds were a faile dwire transfer.  Since this must be a minority of sales (or not?), this could be indeed delayed until cleared.

Verifications should be more strict when coming from a new buyer.  If you have a cliente who has purchased images before, it's not that likely he will comit a fraud.

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2010, 14:15 »
0
Personally I would rather have it the way they are doing it at Fotolia - request my money right away - than having to wait 7 days to request it like at BigStock.  

I don't like getting the deductions either, but frankly I get more at IS than FT.

« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2010, 14:27 »
0
I don't like getting the deductions either, but frankly I get more at IS than FT.

Is this really about which agency creates more income for you?

Sure, we don't see how many sales get refunded at BigStock due to the 7 day waiting period but other agencies that play in the big field like IS, SS and DT do not show such regular fraudulent actions.

Especially IS must be doing a lot more to prevent that as I had barely any refunds (and I understand that it does happen...) but not like FT.


« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2010, 14:36 »
0
Sure, we don't see how many sales get refunded at BigStock due to the 7 day waiting period...

That doesn't make sense.  The waiting period only applies to how much of our balance we can request, not to when it's reported to us.  We see sales as soon as they happen, and would see refunds if they were deducted from our sales.  If it didn't work that way, if our reported balance doesn't include sales within the last 7 days, we'd be able to request the entire balance they did report.

Keep in mind that a big part of the problem with the way Fotolia handles bad transactions is that there's no statute of limitations.  I've had deductions from transactions that were more than a year old.  Did it really take them that long to notice?

« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2010, 14:41 »
0
I don't like getting the deductions either, but frankly I get more at IS than FT.

Is this really about which agency creates more income for you?

I think she meant having more refund at IS than at FT.

« Reply #36 on: February 20, 2010, 15:00 »
0
...I don't like getting the deductions either, but frankly I get more at IS than FT.

I'm sorry.

I didn't read that far...

I think individual results may vary but I've had sooo many refunds at FT that all other agencies combined couldn't account for half of what FT does to me.

« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2010, 15:25 »
0
Yes, the individual results do seem to vary quite a bit - out of 3000 sales only a single one of mine has ever been refunded, and that was an XS. Other people seem to have lost much much more.

« Reply #38 on: February 20, 2010, 15:57 »
0
Yes, the individual results do seem to vary quite a bit - out of 3000 sales only a single one of mine has ever been refunded, and that was an XS. Other people seem to have lost much much more.

Wow you got lucky.

Last week alone I lost over $20 and this is happening several times a month for me.

« Reply #39 on: February 20, 2010, 16:33 »
0
I don't like getting the deductions either, but frankly I get more at IS than FT.
Very strange.
There is NO refund for credit card's fraud at IS. They pay us even if they are not payed.

« Reply #40 on: February 20, 2010, 17:11 »
0
Very strange.
There is NO refund for credit card's fraud at IS. They pay us even if they are not payed.

Well I did get credits deducted due to a customer refund. I don't know how the customer paid but refunds happen even at IS

lisafx

« Reply #41 on: February 20, 2010, 17:36 »
0
.

I think she meant having more refund at IS than at FT.

Thanks Maria, that's exactly what I meant. 

I usually get one or two refunds every week at IS and I have had maybe 2 or 3 EVER at FT.

It is strange there would be such variation from person to person.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 17:41 by lisafx »

« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2010, 17:54 »
0
Wow you got lucky.

Last week alone I lost over $20 and this is happening several times a month for me.

I find this extraordinary. I don't think I've had much more than $30 clawed back in total from all agencies over 5 years and 200k sales. It's such a microscopic amount in relation to overall earnings that I'm quite surprised that any agency actually bothers to do so. Especially as all the the Top 5 are eye-wateringly profitable anyway.

In comparison to the differential in FT's strange floating 'credit value' in the various currencies and the numerous reductions in commissions, either directly or by stealth, it absolutely pales into insignificance.

« Reply #43 on: February 20, 2010, 18:22 »
0
...it absolutely pales into insignificance.

This is true for (almost) any given contributor but a saying goes "Many a little makes a mickle."

For FT or any other agency this is a nice way of having cash flowing back into their pockets again.Why take a hit if you can strip it from the contributors (since they didn't get the commission yet anyway).

Friend of mine got two footage sales reversed after he received the royalties from those. Well he started the next month with a big balance in the minus.

Handing down costs of fraudulent actions to the contributors is the simplest way of not addressing the issue of verifying validity of payment information.

For the agencies it's like not being affected by fraudulent activities after all... Quite sick.

« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2010, 18:25 »
0

In comparison to the differential in FT's strange floating 'credit value' in the various currencies and the numerous reductions in commissions, either directly or by stealth, it absolutely pales into insignificance.


I totally agree. Denis

« Reply #45 on: February 20, 2010, 18:30 »
0


For the agencies it's like not being affected by fraudulent activities after all... Quite sick.


I find the statement opening this thread worst then that. The statement conveniently fail to acknowledge buyer's credits above $1.00 and all other currencies which make credit more then a $1.50.  The statement try to make us believe that the whole FT buyer's world revolve between $0.75 and a $1.00 per credit. This is so untrue. Like I said before as an example if you buy a package of 20 credits in Europe, it will cost you 1.14 euro per credit which is equal to anywhere between $1.50 and $1.60 depending on the rate. And most of the sales are from Europe not North America. Therefore, FT buyer's world definitely does not conveniently revolve around the US dollar.   This totally not true. Denis
« Last Edit: February 21, 2010, 23:30 by cybernesco »

« Reply #46 on: February 20, 2010, 18:46 »
0
I find the statement opening this thread sicker then that. The statement conveniently fail to acknowledge buyer's credits above $1.00 and all other currencies which make credit more then a $1.50. Denis

I do agree.

« Reply #47 on: February 20, 2010, 22:00 »
0
Quick show of hands, who has NOT had refunds at FT this year?  Gosh, Lisa are you the only one?  ;)

You would think the credit card companies themselves would discipline FT or yank their merchant status or deny them the ability to transact in the countries that are doing all the fraud.

RacePhoto

« Reply #48 on: February 20, 2010, 23:24 »
0
.

I think she meant having more refund at IS than at FT.

Thanks Maria, that's exactly what I meant. 

I usually get one or two refunds every week at IS and I have had maybe 2 or 3 EVER at FT.

It is strange there would be such variation from person to person.

Are refunds at IS different from fraud deductions at the other sites?

Here's the problem behind all of this. These people who steal images with fake CCs aren't doing it to use them for their website or some rag that they print. They are stealing them for the free sites and the pirate sites and sometimes for the CDs with thousands of photos. That's how they can compile them for no cost in some cases.

It's not like someone just got a free photo, it's evident that the number of reversed transactions on many sites is a major problem with image theft.

« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2010, 05:05 »
0
I regards to refusnds due to CC fraud etc.  The way I see it that should be included in the 70% or whatever fotolia take for being the agent.

I have no control over their security measures but it is my content that gets stolen not fotolia's. They should absorb the theft themselves as it is 100% in their control and 0% in mine.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
410 Replies
77993 Views
Last post November 14, 2012, 11:47
by heywoody
4 Replies
1486 Views
Last post September 11, 2013, 20:55
by LesHoward
1 Replies
944 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 12:11
by OM
1 Replies
1658 Views
Last post December 31, 2014, 08:05
by klsbear
18 Replies
2526 Views
Last post November 22, 2018, 14:19
by pkphotos

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results