Author Topic: Card payments being reversed at Fotolia. (Read 7434 times)

michmac · « **on:** January 24, 2009, 05:31 »

There appears to be a massive increase in buyers credit card reversals at Fotolia at the moment. The one I had yesterday was backdated to Feb 2008 and other people are reporting reversals of payments from 2007. Anyone else think it's unfair to penalise contributors for what looks to be a Fotolia accountacy error? Chargebacks are normally rectified in a maximum of 12 months.

disorderly · « **Reply #1 on:** January 24, 2009, 10:06 »

I can't say it's unfair; if Fotolia didn't get paid, why should they take the hit alone? But incompetent? That I'll agree with. To take a year and a half to figure out they have an accounting problem, and then to ding us without so much of a word of warning are signs both of incompetence and lousy supplier relations.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2009, 08:08 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 24, 2009, 10:06

I can't say it's unfair; if Fotolia didn't get paid, why should they take the hit alone? But incompetent? That I'll agree with. To take a year and a half to figure out they have an accounting problem, and then to ding us without so much of a word of warning are signs both of incompetence and lousy supplier relations.

"Incompetence and lousy supplier relations" are business as usual for some companies.

b79 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2009, 12:18 »

01-23-2009 12:55:01 pm Buyer's credit card declined (Photo Buy credit, 12-05-2007 01:47:19 pm) -1.4 Validated
01-23-2009 12:55:01 pm Buyer's credit card declined (Photo Buy credit, 10-12-2007 09:28:24 am) -0.35 Validated

ps. the sold contents part doesn't show i had any sale for 1.4 on 12-05-2007 or for 0.35 en 10-12-2007 (or for any value at the time it says). do they remove the canceled sales from the list?

DanP68 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2009, 15:28 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on January 25, 2009, 08:08

Quote from: disorderly on January 24, 2009, 10:06
I can't say it's unfair; if Fotolia didn't get paid, why should they take the hit alone? But incompetent? That I'll agree with. To take a year and a half to figure out they have an accounting problem, and then to ding us without so much of a word of warning are signs both of incompetence and lousy supplier relations.

"Incompetence and lousy supplier relations" are business as usual for some companies.

Well said. I have no regrets for leaving Fotolia. They were a constant headache, and it appears they still are.

Peter · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2009, 16:27 »

Quote from: DanP68 on January 25, 2009, 15:28

Quote from: HughStoneIan on January 25, 2009, 08:08
Quote from: disorderly on January 24, 2009, 10:06
I can't say it's unfair; if Fotolia didn't get paid, why should they take the hit alone? But incompetent? That I'll agree with. To take a year and a half to figure out they have an accounting problem, and then to ding us without so much of a word of warning are signs both of incompetence and lousy supplier relations.

"Incompetence and lousy supplier relations" are business as usual for some companies.

Well said. I have no regrets for leaving Fotolia. They were a constant headache, and it appears they still are.

I am glad that you left fotolia too. More money for me.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2009, 20:35 »

I had one of those messages too, strange for me to give money back from credits that were purchased two years ago.

Peter · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2009, 04:17 »

this is not new to me at all. click to My Credits - Other Credits.

they took over 40$ from me, but what can you do.... I used to it. Dont look back, try to eaen as much as possible to compensate it...

michmac · « **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:54 »

When I had a business and my customers defaulted on payment I didn't penalise my suppliers.....anyhow they would have thought I was crackers if I had done!

helix7 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2009, 10:53 »

It's B.S. that Fotolia passes these chargebacks on to us. But as usual, what can we do? I've protested chargebacks before, with no luck of course. But I still feel as though microstock is one of the few businesses in the world that can get away with this.

The way I see it, it's like Sears selling a lawnmower to someone using a stolen credit card. Sears eats the charge, or maybe the credit card company. They don't take the money back from the lawnmower manufacturer.

In microstock, we supply an image, Fotolia sells that image. At that point our financial involvement should end. Instead, Fotolia feels entitled to take back our money, even though we fulfilled our end of the agreement. An image was sold, a license was issued. From that point forward, anything that goes wrong should be Fotolia's problem.

But again, what can we do? I've protested chargebacks, but all that probably does is give someone at the Fotolia HQ a good laugh.

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** January 26, 2009, 11:10 »

Quote from: helix7 on January 26, 2009, 10:53

In microstock, we supply an image, Fotolia sells that image. At that point our financial involvement should end. Instead, Fotolia feels entitled to take back our money, even though we fulfilled our end of the agreement. An image was sold, a license was issued. From that point forward, anything that goes wrong should be Fotolia's problem.

But again, what can we do? I've protested chargebacks, but all that probably does is give someone at the Fotolia HQ a good laugh.

I'd agree entirely ... but there is something you can do.

You always have the option of closing your account with FT and/or going exclusive elsewhere. I don't think IS undertakes this practice __ but then it does help itself to 80% of the sales revenue in the first place.

Of course FT's operating margin must be significantly lower than IS, because of the higher payout, so maybe it is something we have to put up with for the higher % commissions.

Pixart · « **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2009, 11:54 »

It is downright unnaceptable that there's chargebacks to 1997 though, with no backup provided.

I get annoyed by chargebacks as much as everyone else, but it isn't exactly like a lawnmower being charged back by Sears. The agency doesn't actually purchase our art for sale do they, they distribute it for us. It's almost like consignment sales for traditional artists. There should be some kind of time limit though, good grief.

fullvalue · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2009, 13:52 »

Absolutely there should be limits. As I understand it, people have a limited time frame to report unauthorized use of their credit card. I think it's 60 days.

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2009, 15:54 »

Gladly I never had any sale reversed. What bothers me most - as discussed in a DT (I think) thread a while ago - is not being sure that credit card is fully verified before the buyer dlds images.

Regards,
Adelaide

hali · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2009, 16:04 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 26, 2009, 15:54

Gladly I never had any sale reversed. What bothers me most - as discussed in a DT (I think) thread a while ago - is not being sure that credit card is fully verified before the buyer dlds images.

Regards,
Adelaide

Adelaide, in the shop I used to work, usually if the charge is a large one, we call in for a verification code. but for little amounts we don't. But also we do have a list of stolen cards, or recurring disputed sales, that we refused the card and ask for cash.
But you are right, perharps, they should have first got a verification from the credit card company to see if this card is not stolen, and if this user is known to be contesting the charge. Scams like that are common, which is why it is done little by little, rather than one lump sum that is large.
As for Sears, they also charge a restocking fee (about 25%) because there were too many scammers using the goods for say a party, then returning it, so maybe stock agencies should do the same. This way, at least, the contributor gets some money even on reversed sales.

Tuilay · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2009, 16:14 »

i shall play devil's advocate and say this.
my suspicion is that some of these credits could be vector artists taking our images (buying them), then returning them after they've copied it . big guess, but it's not uncommon to see photographs ripped off by painters, (i remember one National Geographic cover that was ripped off by painter who actually had it in an art gallery), so i'm sure some vector artists are made from the same gene

madelaide · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2009, 18:45 »

Tuilay, what happened to you, sex change surgery?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Card payments being reversed at Fotolia. (Read 7434 times)

michmac

disorderly

HughStoneIan

b79

DanP68

Peter

traveler1116

Peter

michmac

helix7

gostwyck

Pixart

fullvalue

madelaide

hali

Tuilay

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors