Author Topic: got $3.00 for a EEL sale? really? (Read 19340 times)

fotografer · « **Reply #25 on:** December 22, 2012, 03:30 »

Quote from: mayaartist on December 21, 2012, 17:50

I just had the same issue. Half an hour ago I had a one subscription sale and then it's gone. Than after 20 minutes it's come back. I've no idea what was that

This happens regularly at SS. It's something to do with the servers and always staightens itself out eventually.

mayaartist · « **Reply #26 on:** December 22, 2012, 04:54 »

Quote

Quote from: mayaartist on Yesterday at 17:50
I just had the same issue. Half an hour ago I had a one subscription sale and then it's gone. Than after 20 minutes it's come back. I've no idea what was that
This happens regularly at SS. It's something to do with the servers and always staightens itself out eventually.

Thanks fotografer,

To be honest I've never had this problem at SS. I'll keep my eye on it.

good sales for all

ibogdan · « **Reply #27 on:** December 24, 2012, 03:51 »

And it happened again. Yesterday evening as I checked my earnings I had with $4 more than this morning. Why is this happening? What did I do wrong, 123rf?

alex123rf · « **Reply #28 on:** December 24, 2012, 06:48 »

Hi Everyone,

Yes we do understand that there should be no mess ups when it comes to payment calculations. When purchases are made online, there's no need to manually input anything into the system, the system would accept it and if the payment goes through, the buyer may start downloading. All downloads are then logged and commissions are then appropriated accordingly.

However, when something is negotiated (like one of these big deals), our Finance staff has to input the invoice manually with all correct amounts. In this one such incident, there was a tiny error and while we rushed to execute the order, some of the downloads were logged at the wrong price per credit. We wanted to correct the mistake a little earlier but we wouldn't want the integrity of the data to be compromised. Downloading 180ish TIFF files is a little time consuming. However, once we have finished the downloads, our IT team was asked to make sure that all records correctly reflected the value of the corrected invoice.

I hope you can understand that we do take your payments and commissions seriously, and I do apologize for the mistake - we are all human and we all made mistakes every now and then. We have also been sincere and forthcoming in investigating EVERY SINGLE complaint about payment that you send to us and will continue to do so.

Thank you very much and I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Alex.

alex123rf · « **Reply #29 on:** December 24, 2012, 06:51 »

To those who have fluctuations in earnings on a daily basis, I welcome any emails with screenshots to help us in our investigations. Your screenshots would also help very much when we are trying to replicate the error on our own system as well as escalating it to IT for further action if necessary.

Thank you for your patience.

Alex.

Eco · « **Reply #30 on:** December 24, 2012, 07:31 »

If these mistakes or errors in calculation are truly ACCIDENTAL then statistically it should in some instances favour the contributor. It may thus be significant to note that these "mistakes" are ALWAYS in favour of the agency. How can this be?

The second thing of note is that these "mistakes" are almost always corrected only after an observant person started an enquiry. To be honest this does not inspire confidence, especially in an industry where we have to depend on the honesty and integrity of the agency. I am not saying that 123RF is dishonest in this case, but with the eminent royalty cuts there is a growing negative sentiment towards 123RF, which will inevitably result in an increased awareness of all matters related to the royalty structure and the calculation of royalties.

In my opinion 123RF is heading for a turbulent start to 2013. Hiding the page with the new royalty structure, deleting negative comments on their Facebook page, an escalation of errors in the calculation of royalties – all these things add up to an ever increasing divide between the agency and its contributors. I am surprised that 123RF is following this route. Any agency that thinks it can mistreat its contributors and that it won’t hurt them in the long run, is making a big mistake – more so if you are not one of the big four.

Contributors don’t necessarily need to delete their images or stop uploading to hurt an agency. Many contributors are also buyers and they will stop buying from 123RF. The removal of links on their websites and bad publicity in forums and elsewhere will eventually hurt an agency financially more than what they have gained in the short term with the royalty cuts. When will agencies understand and appreciate that the support and goodwill of ALL their contributors is essential if they want to grow and prosper in the long term.

alex123rf · « **Reply #31 on:** December 24, 2012, 08:36 »

Hi Eco,

We detected the error much much earlier than any complaint, but we needed more time to continue the download - as I mentioned we did not want half the downloads to be registered at a different price than the other half.

But AS SOON AS we finished the entire download, we got our IT team to correct the error and explained to all contributors affected.

It is not true that all adjustments are made in our favor. In my 6 year history with 123RF, I remembered quite a few incidences in the past when we detected miscalculations, errors, omissions, refunds that were meant to be deducted but weren't. Our management decided to absorb them as they were well in the past errors and did not warrant making such adjustments. For those incidences, 123RF absorbed quite a substantial amount of money.

But in any case, I still hope that you'll be with us in 2013 (and beyond) and I always welcome any form of dialogue.

Thank you very much,

Alex.

ibogdan · « **Reply #32 on:** December 24, 2012, 08:46 »

Oh, thanks for the Christmas gift, I just got a $4 refund. 123rf rocks!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #33 on:** December 24, 2012, 16:45 »

Quote from: alex123rf on December 24, 2012, 08:36

Hi Eco,

We detected the error much much earlier than any complaint, but we needed more time to continue the download - as I mentioned we did not want half the downloads to be registered at a different price than the other half.

But AS SOON AS we finished the entire download, we got our IT team to correct the error and explained to all contributors affected.

It is not true that all adjustments are made in our favor. In my 6 year history with 123RF, I remembered quite a few incidences in the past when we detected miscalculations, errors, omissions, refunds that were meant to be deducted but weren't. Our management decided to absorb them as they were well in the past errors and did not warrant making such adjustments. For those incidences, 123RF absorbed quite a substantial amount of money.

But in any case, I still hope that you'll be with us in 2013 (and beyond) and I always welcome any form of dialogue.

Thank you very much,

Alex.

So it is true that so far each time I've contacted 123rf about an error that they have eventually corrected it.

However, (1) I have had to follow up each time after the support person said they'd be in touch after they investigated. I always wait one week before complaining a second time. I don't want to be unreasonable. Support just drops the ball on contacting contributors about errors . In the case of the ELs, if you knew about the error with the ELs before you were contacted, why not e-mail contributors or post here about it? Get out in front of problems and it'll make it easier for contributors to trust you.

(2) I came back to 123rf in 2011 after a stint as an iStock exclusive to find I had a negative balance of $26.28. A refund had been made in April 2010 (I hadn't contributed since August 2008) and support explained it was a "one-off mass audit". Not sure how that squares with refraining from deducting really old mistakes or frauds.

(3) The two earlier problems I brought to support's attention were unrelated to this EL "mistake". One of them referenced an API problem with a partner sale. Both of them said the problem had been "fixed". Are you tell me that for those you had already found them, not notified me or corrected my balance and then when I contacted you, told me you had to "investigate" the problem? Again, what you say above just doesn't square with my experience over incorrect amounts for royalties.

It may just be really sloppy controls versus some big effort to divert funds, but things are not right. When you couple that with the introduction of this new royalty scheme, perhaps you can understand why trust in 123rf is evaporating.

jarih · « **Reply #34 on:** December 25, 2012, 07:09 »

Quote from: frozensage on December 21, 2012, 07:54

My also just turned into $17.25 haven't got an email yet. Maybe alot of ppl complaining.

How they calculate this $17.25 at all? Inside of royalty structure site, there they say 50%.. and EEL is $75.00 or is there something what I do not recognize?

The business relationship that kind of like micro stocking, all information must be open and trustworthy. If the company do not share important information enough, there is a "black hole" which is filled with a wrong information. This is very important and it's shame that all do not understand that.

Poncke · « **Reply #35 on:** December 25, 2012, 09:23 »

I have noticed that agency´s that come here only address simple issues, you never get an answer on the real issues that matter. This makes me believe that they dont have an answer because the issues raised are true and the agency got copped out.

ibogdan · « **Reply #36 on:** December 25, 2012, 10:42 »

I'm sorry but I don't trust 123rf anymore. They tried to cheat me for $14 after sending them my best work for four years. And I'm sick of their complicated explanations.
I now check my earnings 15-20 times a day despite their very annoying captcha. And as a reward for their weird behavior, starting next month, I'll get only 40% instead of 50% commission. Nice, 123rf, very nice.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #37 on:** December 25, 2012, 11:41 »

Quote from: jarih on December 25, 2012, 07:09

Quote from: frozensage on December 21, 2012, 07:54
My also just turned into $17.25 haven't got an email yet. Maybe alot of ppl complaining.
How they calculate this $17.25 at all? Inside of royalty structure site, there they say 50%.. and EEL is $75.00 or is there something what I do not recognize?

The business relationship that kind of like micro stocking, all information must be open and trustworthy. If the company do not share important information enough, there is a "black hole" which is filled with a wrong information. This is very important and it's shame that all do not understand that.

The customer paid much less than $1 per credit - 46 cents per credit if the royalty is correct. You can verify with support, but given the 180 EL order (from Alex's earlier post) a big volume discount is likely.

Merry Christmas!

fujiko · « **Reply #38 on:** December 25, 2012, 14:44 »

Discounts should always be on agency share of the sale.
I am always amazed how happy and eager agencies are to apply huge discounts and then pass it to the contributor. Now, after the royalty cut, it's even less than 50% of a randomly discounted sale.

Poncke · « **Reply #39 on:** December 25, 2012, 15:04 »

I think we probably signed off on their discounts when we agreed with the contract. However I cant find anything about discounts in the contract http://www.123rf.com/submit/agreement.php

But I agree its unethical and disgraceful to pass on discounts to contribs when you already take a 70% cut for something you didnt even create.

uvox4 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 13, 2013, 15:49 »

I have just got $0.906 for a PEL , which is 50 credits. Have sent of an email to much sure it is correct.

Any one else got one this low lately?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #41 on:** March 13, 2013, 16:30 »

Quote from: uvox4 on March 13, 2013, 15:49

I have just got $0.906 for a PEL , which is 50 credits. Have sent of an email to much sure it is correct.

Any one else got one this low lately?

No, but in the past I had some insanely low numbers that were errors - or they got fixed after I complained. They said that 40 cents a credit was the minimum price on which royalties would be paid - so 20 cents a credit for us at 50% royalties. If it's below that, then it's wrong.

Mantis · « **Reply #42 on:** March 13, 2013, 17:57 »

And this is like rubbing salt into an open wound after their RC debacle. The pittance we make on 123 can't even be calculated correctly, and the delays in "getting it right" cost me money. What I would get in one month I can no longer rely on when I budget.

palagarde · « **Reply #43 on:** March 13, 2013, 20:15 »

1, 2, 3, GO! away

pathetic

mtkang · « **Reply #45 on:** March 14, 2013, 10:05 »

to be fair, 123rf is actually one of the stable agency for me..and sales is increasing in my case.

I am sure some guys are seeing the same results..

tickstock · « **Reply #46 on:** March 14, 2013, 10:07 »

uvox4 · « **Reply #47 on:** March 15, 2013, 07:41 »

Quote from: alex123rf on March 13, 2013, 20:55

Quote from: uvox4 on March 13, 2013, 15:49
I have just got $0.906 for a PEL , which is 50 credits. Have sent of an email to much sure it is correct.

Any one else got one this low lately?

@uvox - Our team has investigated your account and your email which came in approximately 5 hours ago. We have found that there are no PEL downloads on your account - both on your earnings page as well as on our database tables. Our Submission Email team member has replied to your email with even more conclusive details.

Thank you for reaching out.

Alex.

I received my reply back. I didn't get a PEL. It was a XXLMH. The confusion was that on viewing my downloads on my android tablet the column formatting was wrong making it look like it was a sale in the PEL column. It was hard to notice as the formatting is fine for the beginning and end of the columns but goes funny in the middle. If you look at the same page on a computer it is OK. 123RF are getting their software people to change the page. The issue also arose on a different tablet. No PEL , maybe next time.

dirkr · « **Reply #48 on:** March 15, 2013, 10:32 »

Quote from: uvox4 on March 15, 2013, 07:41

I received my reply back. I didn't get a PEL. It was a XXLMH. The confusion was that on viewing my downloads on my android tablet the column formatting was wrong making it look like it was a sale in the PEL column. It was hard to notice as the formatting is fine for the beginning and end of the columns but goes funny in the middle. If you look at the same page on a computer it is OK. 123RF are getting their software people to change the page. The issue also arose on a different tablet. No PEL , maybe next time.

90 cents for a high res pic doesn't sound too good...
123RF is just way too cheap.

Mellimage · « **Reply #49 on:** March 18, 2013, 06:04 »

Does anyone know what the XXLMH license should be selling for? I do not even see this License type listed with the images.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: got $3.00 for a EEL sale? really? (Read 19340 times)

fotografer

mayaartist

ibogdan

alex123rf

alex123rf

Eco

alex123rf

ibogdan

Jo Ann Snover

jarih

Poncke

ibogdan

Jo Ann Snover

fujiko

Poncke

uvox4

Jo Ann Snover

Mantis

palagarde

alex123rf

mtkang

tickstock

uvox4

dirkr

Mellimage

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors