pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties"  (Read 97701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #425 on: February 25, 2014, 07:19 »
0
Not weighing in on the incompetence vs malice debate (could be 100% for both), doesn't it look like somehow they paid out 100% or some very high payment (maybe the reciprocal of what you're supposed to get) during these months, when people were suddenly reporting large amounts per sale from their PP sales, which hadn't happened before.
OTOH, these single payments did seem extremely high, without any obvious reason why so many buyers would suddenly have bought files at higher, non-sub prices, rather than a gradual increase as seems to have happened at SS.


« Reply #426 on: February 25, 2014, 07:39 »
+5
Seems like $50 was a typo...now it is under $10 they won't recoup
Typo... it is well known that on Canadian keyboards '1' and '5' are very close.

I will open tickets every weekend until I get an explanation. Their numbers couldn't not be right. According their calculations in Sept and Oct I earned 60% less then usual.
I don't trust them.

« Reply #427 on: February 25, 2014, 07:51 »
0
Interesting thoughts on photos.com. The claw backs could be related to photos.com as that seems to make sense. If that is true no one will ever see an itemized report on the claw backs! Sending in a ticket will be a waste of time but do it if it makes you feel better. I feel sorry for contributor relations. They probably only have one person to look at all those e-mails.   

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #428 on: February 25, 2014, 08:01 »
+4
Interesting thoughts on photos.com. The claw backs could be related to photos.com as that seems to make sense. If that is true no one will ever see an itemized report on the claw backs! Sending in a ticket will be a waste of time but do it if it makes you feel better. I feel sorry for contributor relations. They probably only have one person to look at all those e-mails.
They won't look at them, they'll just hit the auto-button to tell you that the calculation is correct.

« Reply #429 on: February 25, 2014, 08:05 »
0
True enough but I suspect there will be "no response"

« Reply #430 on: February 25, 2014, 08:37 »
+4
.. etc etc
As the photos.com is now shutting down i can only sespect that they did not pay Istock what they owed when they were suposed to do so. So Istock ended up paying us the money out of their pocket to meet the deadlines and the demands from the contributors while they did not receive the money from photos.com for the sales.
..
etc etc


photos.com is owned by Getty Images. http://www.whois.com/whois/photos.com

5 seconds max to look that up.

I can understand that people are disappointed that they have not earned as much as they thought they had and now have to pay back the over payment. But it's annoying how the internet turns everything into a conspiracy.

« Reply #431 on: February 25, 2014, 08:42 »
0
Was a duplicate post
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 08:51 by KimsCreativeHub »

« Reply #432 on: February 25, 2014, 08:48 »
+4
We know photos.com is owned by Getty, I didn't have to look that up. Second the amounts are random and there is not proof as to why they are what they are. I could care less about bashing iStock or Getty but to keep them honest is important. I remember when on the video side someone made a stink about Vetta Video pricing, I sided with iStock but man was I wrong. Luckily he stuck to his guns and changes were made for the better! It pays to make some noise in these situations as there seems to be no over sight for us.

« Reply #433 on: February 25, 2014, 08:49 »
+2
I just got my email also, looked at my stats and at first glance looks like there may be some fuzzy math.

 I am going to print out the stats and go through each sale Whitchurch should be $0.28 for each DL and make notes, to make sure the "claw back" is actually correct and I will post it here when I'm done if I find its inaccurate.

This is why I opt out of PPs on any site... The lack of transparency.


My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com

Tror

« Reply #434 on: February 25, 2014, 08:52 »
+4
I can understand that people are disappointed that they have not earned as much as they thought they had and now have to pay back the over payment. But it's annoying how the internet turns everything into a conspiracy.

BS. No company can just claim you owe them money without presenting evidence. I doubt here the competence of istock mto make the numbers correctly. It should not be left like this.

« Reply #435 on: February 25, 2014, 08:56 »
+5
"Quote from: Ron on Today at 05:30

    I dont understand, everyone knew they messed up and that a claw back was on the way. If you held onto the overpayment, there is no impact on your financials. The money wasnt ours in the first place. Bring on the down votes, but its the same with taxes. You need to pay back overpayments. So you put the money aside for when they come and get it. If you've spent the money, you only have yourself to blame."


You are missing the point, Ron.  Many posters here are saying the AMOUNT doesn't make sense, it's too much (percentage wise) based on the income they normally make. It's not a well balanced, realistic clawback, at least that's how I am reading many of these posts.  I personally would have FAR MORE RESPECT and be FAR MORE TOLERANT of the clawback if they would have attached a detailed financial accounting justifying the clawback. But they just posted am amount.  That's suspicious, very suspicious.

I think this post from another thread is pertinent for this one.

« Reply #436 on: February 25, 2014, 09:02 »
0
$74.58

My ticket:

"I have received from you by e-mail a "Partner Program Recoupment Notification"
I'm asking you to provide me relevant documentation that corroborates the alleged over-payment of Partner Program royalties to me, in the past months of September and October 2013.

Thank you"


Was I too soft?


« Reply #437 on: February 25, 2014, 09:08 »
-5
We know photos.com is owned by Getty

In which case the suggestion (which I was responding to) that this is to do with photos.com (i.e. Getty) not paying iStock (i.e. Getty) is clearly wild. And a distraction.

There is no reason to believe that this is anything other than a mistake which has been complicated to untangle. Presumably because thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of micropayments represents an enormous accounting nightmare.

I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.

« Reply #438 on: February 25, 2014, 09:09 »
+4
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.

« Reply #439 on: February 25, 2014, 09:16 »
-3
We know photos.com is owned by Getty

In which case the suggestion (which I was responding to) that this is to do with photos.com (i.e. Getty) not paying iStock (i.e. Getty) is clearly wild. And a distraction.

There is no reason to believe that this is anything other than a mistake which has been complicated to untangle. Presumably because thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of micropayments represents an enormous accounting nightmare.

I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.

Could whoever voted this down explain which bit they disagree with specifically ?

« Reply #440 on: February 25, 2014, 09:23 »
+3
I didn't vote it down bunhill as I would like to see action over screaming any day. I am sure it is a nightmare for Getty but that is no excuse for not giving a detailed report of the loss to those who are affected.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #441 on: February 25, 2014, 09:31 »
0
It makes sense to me:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=19

The fact that Photos.com is shutting down in March is very telling and I am almost certain that what happened is related to Photos.com.
I had an email about the recoupment too amounting to $60.06. However i had a sale for $39.84 for one sale on Photos.com for that month amongs the other sales for a lot less from both thinkstock and photos.com all in total amounting to $74.69 (including the $39.84 from photos.com). So the overpayment is related to photos.com that is for sure.
As the photos.com is now shutting down i can only sespect that they did not pay Istock what they owed when they were suposed to do so. So Istock ended up paying us the money out of their pocket to meet the deadlines and the demands from the contributors while they did not receive the money from photos.com for the sales.
Obviously for Istock to pay us in the first place Istock would have known the sales details. Otherwise they would have not payed us randomly.
So Istock had specific info from photos.com on each of the sales but they did not receive money from Photos.com (hence they are shutting them down).
Meanwhile, Istock had payed us already, but had not received the payments from photos.com. So Istock decides to get the money back from the accounts it payed in. For those sales.
As far as I am concerned the sales did occur for each of the files involved thats why we were payed in the first place. Istock did not made them up.
So for Istock to demand (sorry, they are not even asking for it they are just getting it out of our accounts) the money back, Istock has to really come clean with a reasonable explenation as to why we were payed for those specific sales in the first place and then why we have to give it back. It is clear that the buyers have payed for the files they have dowloaded so we should be entitled to our share.
If Photos.com got payed by the buyer for the sales of our files then refused to pay Istock, Istock has to get the money from Photos.com rather then the contributers.
Have you noticed how the reason for the closure of photos.com is also not explained and kept confidential? Think about it
.

« Reply #442 on: February 25, 2014, 09:35 »
0
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.

FWIW Getty Images, the parent, has a C- rating with the BBB.   And I say FWIW because I realize this latest is iStock PP, not related to the Getty part of it -- but still, it IS the parent company. 
http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/photographs-stock/getty-images-in-seattle-wa-37000916

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #443 on: February 25, 2014, 09:44 »
0
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.
But we're not 'customers', we're suppliers.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #444 on: February 25, 2014, 09:54 »
0
From istock forum,
Posted By Altinosmanaj:
The fact that Photos.com is shutting down in March is very telling and I am almost certain that what happened is related to Photos.com.

According to Kelvinjay:
"Assuming that this is actually a serious question, no, there is no connection at all between photos.com ceasing to offer its subscription service and the accidental overpayment in PP royalties on iStock. That's like adding 2 and 2 and getting 22."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359316&messageid=6987698

I wonder how much Kelvin knows, but isn't letting on, or isn't being allowed to share.

« Reply #445 on: February 25, 2014, 09:59 »
+1
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.
But we're not 'customers', we're suppliers.

Yep, the customers will receive refunds on request to maintain an A rating - at our expense, of course! We're suppliers and we are totally expendable.

« Reply #446 on: February 25, 2014, 10:01 »
+2
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.
But we're not 'customers', we're suppliers.
What is on BBB page:
BBB's goal is to successfully resolve complaints involving buyers and sellers in a fair and timely fashion. This includes complaints involving consumer-to-business and business-to-business transactions that involve the advertisement and/or sale of a product or service. Information concerning the nature and resolution of complaints filed with BBB is used in developing BBB Reliability Reports on companies.
I think we can consider to contact them. Personally I will wait 10-15 days and if I don't get a response to my ticket I'll contact BBB.
Imagine if 10% of 9k of concerned contributors contact them. Even if they cannot accept our complainants it will be a huge mess.

« Reply #447 on: February 25, 2014, 10:12 »
-1
I wonder how much Kelvin knows, but isn't letting on, or isn't being allowed to share.

Kelvin always seems straightforward. So I doubt he would step into a conversation if he had something to withhold. My guess is that closing photos.com is mostly to do with brand consolidation. Though the well reported EU trademark ruling perhaps did not help either. Thinkstock has always been the stronger brand.

I cannot understand why people want this to be anything more than a mistake. I agree with those saying that the accounting should be better. Perhaps consolidating the brands will pave the way for better accounting and reporting.

« Reply #448 on: February 25, 2014, 10:17 »
+3
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.

I would agree to that in general. Constructive conversation almost universally is the better choice.

It's just that for any major issues with Istock in the past (RCs, Google Deal,...) constructive conversation lead nowhere.
Constructive conversation only works if both parties are willing to engage in it.

« Reply #449 on: February 25, 2014, 10:22 »
+1
hi to all,
I do not often come here because of my English, I saw that you were talking about the thread I opened, so I pass just here to tell you this:

I think kelvinjay right, and I trust him, he does his work, as we do ours. After that, I try to have information, that's all, I do not try to be vicious in this thread.
In addition, I also was affected as you've probably seen my post in the other thread, and I opened as much, a support ticket for an explanation


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
23146 Views
Last post March 21, 2010, 22:37
by UncleGene
4 Replies
8948 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
8697 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
25 Replies
49848 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
8 Replies
1750 Views
Last post September 27, 2023, 06:57
by Anyka

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors