pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: BigStock Raises Payout To $50  (Read 10839 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 19, 2009, 14:50 »
0
Iv'e just learned that BigStock has raised their payout to $50.
Well, at the moment that is a bit of a backstep for me as my sales there are not all that great.
What do you think?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 15:24 by takestock »


« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2009, 14:59 »
0
This is not good news, since they are slow sellers.

« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2009, 15:00 »
0
I'm not thrilled, although it's less of a kick in the teeth than other sites' reduced commissions.  (You know who you are.)  It means I'll go from monthly payouts there to bimonthly; annoying but hardly the end of the world.  And I do understand the effect on their expenses of reducing the number of payments.  Last time I checked, PayPal charges businesses $1 for each payment sent via Mass Pay.  That has to add up.

dbvirago

« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2009, 15:05 »
0
Looking back at my payment history, I haven't asked for anything less than $50 since January 07. I guess at some point, I thought it was $50 and stuck with that.

« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2009, 15:41 »
0
Looking back at my payment history, I haven't asked for anything less than $50 since January 07. I guess at some point, I thought it was $50 and stuck with that.

LOL...me too!  ;D

« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2009, 15:56 »
0
(Sniff) It was good while it lasted.

« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2009, 16:21 »
0
I thought the payout has always been $50 so I'm not too depressed. My current total is $45 so it'll still be every two months or so for payouts for me. I think that Veer will soon supersede BS in sales for my images.

« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2009, 16:27 »
0
I don't mind if they raise it to $100 as long as they improve sales.  Most sites are doing well but BigStock is in a bit of a rut.

« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2009, 17:06 »
0
What bothers me about this change is having no suitable notification of the limit raise. The notice is buried in the "Alert" tab with nothing signifying that a new message is in there. The prior alert in that tab was from back in May. You'd think they'd at least send out an email or put a flag on the site so you'd go to the Alert tab.

The explanation there is a reasonable one. Too bad they weren't more up-front with it.

« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2009, 18:11 »
0
That's a shame as I'm close to $30. After an improvement in sales in May and June, BigStock is very quiet for me now so I may have to wait for a while longer for a payout.

« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2009, 18:12 »
0
I just checked my balance there and saw this:

Quote
**A minimum commissions earned required for payout is $30.00 to receive payment by Paypal or MoneyBookers and $50.00 to receive payment by US check.

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like business as usual.

« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2009, 18:27 »
0
They just haven't updated that page yet.  Click here.

« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2009, 19:08 »
0
Rats!  And I just hit $30 the other day...and with the "7 day grace period" I'm gonna have to wait a bit longer before I hit the payout button.  :(

« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2009, 02:37 »
0
Looking back at my payment history, I haven't asked for anything less than $50 since January 07. I guess at some point, I thought it was $50 and stuck with that.

LOL...me too!  ;D

ditto

« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2009, 02:50 »
0
No excuse with the technology out there, paypal are releasing a micropayments API later this year, there are now sites that pay at month end no matter what the balance.

It could be that they have many dormant accounts that are slowly reaching the payment point and this is just a way to hold on to the revenue longer, as it will be earning interest, it should be accured ready for payout, but my understanding is that some companies will use it as working capital.

On the positive side I had a newsletter from the3dStudio just yesterday stating that they are scrapping the payout limit and as I have a few dollars already in my account with them, it is good news but in the current economy it is not good when other businesses are holding your payments.

David  ;)

« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2009, 05:39 »
0
I normally cash out at $30.

I am over the threshold and 7 day grace period has passed. I also saw the alert, dated 19th August, stating that they would be raising the threshold NEXT WEEK.

So, quick as a flash, I decided to cash in my earnings before the threshold rise NEXT WEEK, only to be told I have not got enough in there.

Looks like they have actually implemented the raise NOW, rather than the next week in the message.

naughty naughty Bigstockphoto, and shame on you.

lisafx

« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2009, 09:16 »
0
Looking back at my payment history, I haven't asked for anything less than $50 since January 07. I guess at some point, I thought it was $50 and stuck with that.


LOL...me too!  ;D

ditto

Me too.  I never requested less than $50, even in the beginning. 


« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2009, 09:20 »
0
I can't believe anyone is this concerned over a few bucks.  You'll get the money, but it will just take a bit longer.  If your argument that it will take you forever to get there, you should reevaluate whether the return from submitting to BigStock -- even microstock in general -- is worth your time and energy.

« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2009, 09:26 »
0
Not concerned, annoyed.  BigStock is a relatively weak earner at #6 for the year, but their low minimum meant I was getting a monthly payout on a regular basis.  Now it'll be every two months.  Me, I don't like to wait.

« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2009, 09:32 »
0
I can't believe anyone is this concerned over a few bucks.  You'll get the money, but it will just take a bit longer.  If your argument that it will take you forever to get there, you should reevaluate whether the return from submitting to BigStock -- even microstock in general -- is worth your time and energy.

Well as we say in the UK, I am skint at the moment, every penny counts and I am fed up to the back teeth with every company under the sun from ebay to Dreamstime trying every trick in the book they can to hang onto our hard earned pennies.

I would rather that 'few bucks' which belong to me, was earning some pithy interest in MY bank account, or being spent on my bills, than be used by a company who haven't the decency to get it right when they decide to move the goalposts.

didn't anyone tell you there is a recession on?

« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2009, 10:21 »
0
Is it not another example where the Agency have changed the T&C's without any consultation, and yes the contributors agreed to the T&C's, but a little respect and communication when changing how you pay someone would be a good thing, otherwise it just looks like they can just do what they want, and do not care about the suppliers of the assets they do not own but trade.

David.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2009, 12:52 »
0
I can't believe anyone is this concerned over a few bucks.  You'll get the money, but it will just take a bit longer.  If your argument that it will take you forever to get there, you should reevaluate whether the return from submitting to BigStock -- even microstock in general -- is worth your time and energy.

Really?  Isn't it the same few bucks  that concerns BigStock?  If they are concerned, why shouldn't I be?  It has taken more than a year to accumulate $10 on that site.  They just raised my payout from three years to five.  Do you think BigStock would be concerned if their buyers paid on the same schedule?


« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2009, 13:24 »
0
I think BigStock -- and every other microstock agency -- thinks the same way when they institute these changes.  They know some people will get mad, but those who get the angriest tend to be those with the lowest sales.  Someone said this difference amounts to a wait of five years for a payout vs. the current three years?  If you're so traumatized by this, you could stop contributing, and it wouldn't bother them.  But if say, Yuri, got mad and yanked his portfolio, an agency would be sure to notice.  But that's the thing in a change like this... Yuri's not likely to care because he's likely to get a payment every week and a half as opposed to every week.  His total revenue won't change (aside from the theoretical few pennies he could have earned in interest during that period.)   I'm still a beginner in this, and I'm not crazy about the change but I know I have the option to just stop contributing, wait till my next payout (currently getting one every two to three months) and delete my portfolio.  But it's my goal to be more like Yuri and less like someone getting a payout every five years, so I'm going to keep my eyes on the prize and keep uploading.

« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2009, 13:59 »
0
I think BigStock -- and every other microstock agency -- thinks the same way when they institute these changes.  They know some people will get mad, but those who get the angriest tend to be those with the lowest sales.  
<...
>...

That is to simplistic a view, so lets be cynical and look at it another way with a Hypothetical Scenario:
"A business decision to raise or hold onto working capital"

You have a microstock business and have been trading for a while, and you have many hundreds of contributors who signed on when you first launched a few years ago and just stopped uploading, these photographers sales have slowly been creeping closer and closer to the pay-out mark, as your website has increased your market share it has become more likely that the photographers you expected never to make a payout may reach a payment level.

Now you are worried and looking at paying out a lot of money to photographers that are not active, you decide to raise the payout level and delay or negate this payout, the contributors that are no longer active are not going to know, some that are active will shout a bit but they are only a small part of the potential payout.

The reason that you first set the payout level was when you started your business, it was nothing to do with the cost of paying the photographers, the reason was a real cynical choice, as knowing that in your business plan you expected that 75% of your photographers to never make a payout, so you could factor this revenue into your working capital, this working capital is now coming under threat, and to raise the capital needed to cover this you cannot increase prices or cut commissions.

You have more than covered yourself in the T&C's and you raise the payment level, this is legal so you are not worried, it may not be ethical but who really cares a few photographers that will just *sigh* and wait, the active photographers will not rock the boat, and you know that the active contributors will just keep uploading, and with falling revenue you have just increased your 'working capital' and reduced the next few payout amounts.

But this is just a Hypothetical Scenario so there is nothing for your photographers to worry about is there?

This is just a cut throat business and everyone needs to be more business minded, I spoke to an owner of a stocksite once and asked why they did not just pay out what was owed at the end of each month, and the answer was that revenue from photographers that will never make a payout is part of the business plan, and that some sites actually run just on this revenue.  

David  >:(        
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 14:27 by Adeptris »

« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2009, 14:12 »
0
And yet another one that thought it was already 50 :)
Looking back at my payment history, I haven't asked for anything less than $50 since January 07. I guess at some point, I thought it was $50 and stuck with that.

LOL...me too!  ;D

ditto

« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2009, 14:39 »
0
The powerconsumption cost from the computer while uploading/cathegorizing with Bs is about the same as the earnings.   But 30-50$ who cares... ;)

« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2009, 14:56 »
0
The powerconsumption cost from the computer while uploading/cathegorizing with Bs is about the same as the earnings.   But 30-50$ who cares... ;)

The high percentage of low earners that have consumed the power, paid the invoice, and would more than welcome any pay out amount, including the $30 payment level that they agreed to when they signed on and they have been slowly building towards.

I am not affected by this change, but do empathise with fellow photographers   

David  
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 15:00 by Adeptris »


RacePhoto

« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2009, 15:10 »
0
Iv'e just learned that BigStock has raised their payout to $50.
Well, at the moment that is a bit of a backstep for me as my sales there are not all that great.
What do you think?

I think Adeptris covered it, without quoting the whole program. They have many people who will never reach $50, but some that may reach or are approaching $30. This keeps a large sum of operating capitol for the agency. They wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't some financial trouble threatening their business. (opinion)

This will just accelerate my exit from one more agency. I'm sure it won't break their hearts.  ;D The more people that leave and leave them with the unpaid earnings, the better it is for BS.

Funny how we got into this at one level and in the last year a number of agencies are changing the rules, raising payout levels, lowering commissions, adding cheap subscriptions, raising levels for bonuses and in general when there needs to be a cutback, it comes from the photographers. The comparison to an abusive relation is perfect. Anyone who reads the forums can see the constant flow of new threads describing how one agency or another has just pulled some new trick to screw contributors.

Ok cheerleaders keep telling us how great it is selling microstock.  ???

« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2009, 15:43 »
0
The trend in agencies "screwing" contributors is a textbook example of supply and demand.  The supply of contributors is growing so uncontrollably that it makes sense for an agency to take a survey of the competitive landscape and lower commissions, payouts, and generally put the squeeze on "suppliers" as long as the market allows it. Frankly if I were them I'd be doing the same thing.  It's up to each individual contributor to decide his/her tolerance for negative changes and get out when the time is right for him/her.  But no one is forcing you to stick around if you don't like how you're being treated.  Enough of the vicitm mentality.  If you can't make microstock work for you under current conditions, then you'll be weeded out and only the strongest will survive.  But if the agencies go too far and their most valued contributors start dropping, they will surely reverse course.  This is how the free market works, boys and girls... if you don't have the stomach for it, you should consider getting off the ride.

lisafx

« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2009, 15:59 »
0
I can sympathize with those who are upset about having to wait longer for a payout. 

At least Bigstock pays out quickly.  I would rather have them require a bit more for payout then to start holding back on paying contributors altogether, as StockXpert seems to be doing.

« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2009, 16:28 »
0
The trend in agencies "screwing" contributors is a textbook example of supply and demand.  The supply of contributors is growing so uncontrollably that it makes sense for an agency to take a survey of the competitive landscape and lower commissions, payouts, and generally put the squeeze on "suppliers" as long as the market allows it.
<...
>...

When a business 'screws' it's suppliers there are a few differences, if you work for a company they offer a new rate and contract, if you supply widgets you will be asked to supply your widgets at new agreed rate, if you supply a service you will be offered a new contract at a new agreed rate.

In all these cases if you did not agree terms, any money owed would be paid up in full, all stock held would returned or still sold at the old contracted rate, only new stock on a new contract would be at the new rate.

The contributors had an agreement that stated that once the supplier was owed an amount of money it would be paid out, if any company wants to change it's T & C's a new contract should be offered to all suppliers from a specific date, and any supplier that does not agree within a set timeframe, would then not be on the new contract and should be paid in full and thier assets no longer offered for sale, unless the site want to carry on under the old terms.

If I was a farmer supplying milk at 0.8 a litre, and my merchant offered a new contract at 0.7, if I refused I would expect that all transactions up to the date were paid in full.

As a small farmer it should not matter that I supplied far less milk than the farmers with the bigger herds, I still delivered every litre, each litre of milk was sold at the same rate to the consumer, and I am just as deserving of a payment as the bigger suppliers.

Where else would you agree one rate with a merchant and after a sale is made and they are holding your money just allow them to change your payment terms to thier advantage?   

David  >:(    
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 16:37 by Adeptris »

« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2009, 23:19 »
0
Does this announcement not worry anyone, the problem seems to be just as I thought it was, due to the high volume of $30 requests, does that mean they do not have the revenue for the payout, revenue that they should have accrued, or the payment administration costs have become to high?

As much as we are the stocksites Supplier they are our Customer, try contacting any of your service providers and say "Hello I have a lot of small payments to pay out and they are a pain, as I do not owe you much this month I will just pay you out when I owe you another 40% more, ok"

As a developer it is not hard to create a paypal payments file, and most accounting systems have check (cheque) calculating and printing facilities, if it is administration costs then an option would be to propose an administration fee or percentage for payments between $30 and $50.


David  ???

BigStock issued this announcement on Aug 19th. (Wed)

Minimum commission request amount being raised to $50 next week

Contributors:
We are raising the minimum commission payout to $50 next week. We have held ours at $30 for a long time but the industry standard is much higher and due to the high volume of $30 requests, we need to raise it to $50.

Thank you for understanding, we sincerely hope that this doesn't affect anyone appreciably.

BigStockPhoto
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 01:46 by Adeptris »

« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2009, 21:09 »
0
I just requested a payout today. I've been receiving about 1 a month or a bit more. We'll see if they process it or make me wait. It's marked as "Pending" right now. I'll let you all know how it goes.

« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2009, 23:22 »
0
I still don't think this is something anyone should be losing sleep over.  I might lose $30 of commissions that are owed to me if BigStockPhotos goes under?  It's the end of the world!  I won't be able to treat my family to McDonald's tomorrow.

Seriously, consider the silver lining if BigStock does call it quits (even if they fly to Bermuda with all the $30 payouts they owe us)... the few people who regularly bought from them would have to switch to another service, say SS or IS or StockXpert or DT or FT, etc... sites I'm much more fond of than BigStock.

But if this happens and everyone wants to start a class-action lawsuit against the owners of a defunct BigStock, count me in... though my portion of the legal fees would probably eat up my entire $30!

RacePhoto

« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2009, 23:44 »
0
The trend in agencies "screwing" contributors is a textbook example of supply and demand.  The supply of contributors is growing so uncontrollably that it makes sense for an agency to take a survey of the competitive landscape and lower commissions, payouts, and generally put the squeeze on "suppliers" as long as the market allows it. Frankly if I were them I'd be doing the same thing.  It's up to each individual contributor to decide his/her tolerance for negative changes and get out when the time is right for him/her.  But no one is forcing you to stick around if you don't like how you're being treated.  Enough of the vicitm mentality.  If you can't make microstock work for you under current conditions, then you'll be weeded out and only the strongest will survive.  But if the agencies go too far and their most valued contributors start dropping, they will surely reverse course.  This is how the free market works, boys and girls... if you don't have the stomach for it, you should consider getting off the ride.

Have to agree, as one who's "leaving the kitchen"  ;D I've said before, none of these places is holding us hostage and making us upload and try to sell images.

Free market and supply and demand are practical ways to operate a business. But that doesn't address the issue.

Changing the rules or commissions or payouts after making a promise or signing someone to a contract, doesn't appear very straight forward. Using the excuse that there are too many $30 payouts, is a bit weak. Making too many $30 payments is a good thing, because people are selling photos and getting paid, which means the agency is making more money.

Anyone ask if they could get out and close their account at any of the sites? Not just BS, but any of them? Here's the answer you'll get. 1) You can turn your sales into credits or 2) Yes, we'll close your account and you'll lose any accumulated credits. So not only do they change the rules, they won't give us our money either.

In the story of the carrot and the donkey, a carrot is tied to the end of a string, which is attached to a stick protruding from the donkeys harness. No matter how many steps the donkey takes in pursuit of that carrot, he never gets any closer to his goal.  ;)

I'll repeat the point. Best thing that can happen for any agency is have people quit who are owed money, and never have to pay them. I don't know the real numbers, but 75% gets tossed out as the number who never reach payout. Changing the limits or driving suppliers away, is pure profit. This isn't directed at BS, but at all the agencies who have and will change the contracts, levels, sales commissions, or add subscriptions after the fact, or some other scheme that benefits the agency and derives the funding from contributors/suppliers already have established accounts.

It's one thing for me to sell images for 25c at SS and know going in that I'm going to get paid that. No complaints. It's another to have anyone agree to one contract and payment schedule with any agency and then have them change it after the fact!

Quote
But if this happens and everyone wants to start a class-action lawsuit against the owners of a defunct BigStock, count me in... though my portion of the legal fees would probably eat up my entire $30!

I'd rather wish them the best and a happy vacation, and give up whatever credit I have, than feed a lawyer 2 cents!

How about this: BigStock is closing your account due to low sales, and we need to reduce our server and accounting expenses. Here's the money we owe you?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 23:49 by RacePhoto »

lisafx

« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2009, 11:32 »
0
I really don't understand why this is a big deal.  AFAIK all the other sites have a minimum payout of $50.  BigStock is just doing the same. 

Anyone to whom the extra $20 makes the difference between getting paid and not getting paid (ever) has not put any work into building their portfolio there anyway.  And they sure aren't relying on BigStock to pay their bills.

And as for taking this as some signal of BigStock's demise, that seems totally out of left field.  They are not on the top tier of earners, but sales seem steady.  I see no indication they are in any kind of trouble.

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2009, 13:34 »
0
Maybe they need to pay for review expenses due to the hordes of submitter applicants precipitated by (web version of the print article) http://www.allyou.com/budget-home/money-shopping/convert-skills-into-cash-00400000052026/page6.html. We have not had much fun as a result of that dubious magazine piece (Wal-mart exclusive apparently).



 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 13:40 by zymmetrical »


lisafx

« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2009, 15:47 »
0
Maybe they need to pay for review expenses due to the hordes of submitter applicants precipitated by (web version of the print article) http://www.allyou.com/budget-home/money-shopping/convert-skills-into-cash-00400000052026/page6.html. We have not had much fun as a result of that dubious magazine piece (Wal-mart exclusive apparently).

Oh joy, yet another of these articles.  I can't believe those articles turn up many people with the equipment or skill to produce images of the quality that will sell in microstock these days.  Haven't most pro photogs and serious amateurs known about micro for a couple of years now?

Where do those writers go to get their information about the microstock industry - the year 2001 ???



 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 15:53 by lisafx »

« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2009, 16:33 »
0
Is this not an historic stock industry self inflicted wound, if the stocksites were like Shutterstock and split the website and registration between buyers and contributors, then they would seperate the two.

The model adopted by new websites is the same as nine years ago, when they needed to grow a pool of like minded new contributors for a brand new model, they did not have the pool of skilled artists there are today, in my own experiences you can join any stocksite, you have to register before you can select "Sell your Images", where you are free to upload anything.

This could be changed with a set of easy questions about an artists knowledge, the size of the images and the quality of the kit, a few questions would then filter out some new contributors, shutting the door slightly.

So if the stocksites are getting a few thousand images from the point and shoot brigade, then whose fault is it, the article or the registration process?

The article had it right anyone can still register to submit images to microstock, they just failed to research and tell the whole story.

David  ;)  (Ref: to another topic the article has a nice use of square images)
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 16:37 by Adeptris »

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2009, 16:37 »
0
(4 more applicants based on that article since my last post) - I just feel poorly that there are not so many intermediate ways to help absolute beginners get into the game. There is a lot of people with creative potential locked down by life choices that keep them from fulfilling their potential (primarily, producing offspring).  As long as their is a spark there to progress, I can't see it as a total dud situation. 

Crowd sourcing vs professionalism is a funny balancing act, we often see huge improvements from lackluster submitters in a short period of time. Zymmetrical is not microstock but crowdsourcing is still an important part - microstock has paved the way for anyone to excel, if they have the drive.

Just think.. planet earth will be at 7 billion people by 2010, with the fastest growing sector being the economically disadvantaged and youth - I think in many industries there needs to be so much attention paid to learning and accessibility.. or it's just going to continue on with this top-heavy corporate crap. Standards and professionalism need to continue to be refined but there still has to be an open door to people who want to move up.

.. in the meantime, until we have our revelation, the editorial hammer will continue pounding away like we are in the pits of Mordor.

« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2009, 18:01 »
0
Hi David,

Thanks for mentioning that we dropped the $50 minimum payout on PayPal payments at The3dStudio.com. We have been working on some other good things this week that will be announced in the next few days.

Your profile at T3DS can now have a photo displayed. That was suggested by one of our artists. We appreciate all the suggestions from our Members and the info here in the MicrostockGroup as we scramble to get up to speed in the world of stock photos.

 :)

[email protected]

RacePhoto

« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2009, 00:06 »
0
I really don't understand why this is a big deal.  AFAIK all the other sites have a minimum payout of $50.  BigStock is just doing the same.  

Anyone to whom the extra $20 makes the difference between getting paid and not getting paid (ever) has not put any work into building their portfolio there anyway.  And they sure aren't relying on BigStock to pay their bills.

And as for taking this as some signal of BigStock's demise, that seems totally out of left field.  They are not on the top tier of earners, but sales seem steady.  I see no indication they are in any kind of trouble.

I think I go off in too many directs which can cause things to get muddled.

Sites change payout levels. Sites change commissions. Sites add new lower prices and subscriptions. Sites change sellers status levels, which are supposed to increase pay percentages. Sites change the rules and their distribution, any time they want. There's more but the part that gets me is, they sign people up with a contract and hold photographers to a hard line, throw out anyone who doesn't follow the rules exactly. But with a couple weeks notice, change the contract to their benefit and the detriment of photographers.

It seems like poor business practice. Agencies are inflexible in dealing with suppliers, but change anything they please when it looks like a new way to save money or make more profit with the already uploaded photos, sent in under an existing contract.

My answer would have been, people who joined at the $30 level, could cash out once at $30 and after that, would have to reach $50. Everyone wins! Anyone who joined after Aug. 1st, 2009 would have to reach $50 to cash out. Same as sites that didn't ask before opting in everyone for subscriptions, which changed to allow contributors to decide if they wanted in or not. Same as SV or LO paying everyone when they closed.

You go to the store and pick up a box of food. It's marked $1.98, the shelf is marked $1.98 but when you get to the checkout, it's $2.98. You ask and they say "we decided to change the price." You would say... "Anyone to whom the extra $1 makes the difference..."  ;D  People who will never reach payout and quit will be losing their earnings. It could be $19 or $40. Not a small one dollar.

I still like the other way. Close the account, pay the persons earnings and everyone goes away happy. Or at the end of the year, everyone gets paid whatever they earned in the year.


Quote from: lisafx
$60 is a significant amount of money. Because of the special circumstances it seems like they could go ahead and pay you even though you won't ever reach their regular "payout level".  

In that SS thread, $60 is a big number, for someone who doesn't work for the site and quit. But in this thread someone losing $30 isn't working hard enough so they should just let it pass.

Not picking on you, because we've always had fun, but it seems that you find BS's change OK for $30-$40, but SS is wrong for $50?

Edit: seems the panic post about not getting paid, was a six hour deal, and he did get paid. Funny how that happens. SS has integrity and pays people who earned money, even if they left the agency months ago. I won't be redundant about other agencies that change the rules and hold earned money, under a previous contract.  >:(
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 00:58 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2009, 05:39 »
0
Hmmmm.  I didn't get the alert.   ::)  Go to cash out, and the payout button is missing, so I check my alerts to see if something has changed, and there's nothing there.  Thank goodness for MSG, because I wouldn't have a clue they raised the payout limit.  I'd still be sitting here scratching my head wondering what happened to the payout button!  LOL


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
156 Replies
33497 Views
Last post December 26, 2008, 10:30
by Perrush
7 Replies
6603 Views
Last post December 21, 2009, 10:32
by cthoman
2 Replies
4650 Views
Last post February 20, 2013, 14:15
by RacePhoto
39 Replies
12219 Views
Last post June 11, 2014, 18:41
by Jo Ann Snover
25 Replies
5934 Views
Last post July 15, 2014, 14:39
by cthoman

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle