Author Topic: SOOOO Mad!!!!! (Read 11531 times)

MarkRyanDesigns · « **on:** October 30, 2012, 14:09 »

Did anyone else just get a bunch of photos/illustrations refunded? I just got a bunch of refunds issued on some illustrations, Illustrations that would have brought in decent coin before the micostocks companies killed the art industry now I am lucky if I make $10-20 off and they refund due to too credit card fraud. This is BS! Being a artist sucks!!!! You get ripped by everyone!!!

JoEr · « **Reply #1 on:** October 30, 2012, 17:12 »

Refunds are a not funny, no.

And why no sites seems to be using Verified by Visa and Mastercard SecureCode to prevent credit card frauds is a mystery.

click_click · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2012, 18:42 »

Quote from: MarkRyanDesigns on October 30, 2012, 14:09

Did anyone else just get a bunch of photos/illustrations refunded? I just got a bunch of refunds issued on some illustrations, Illustrations that would have brought in decent coin before the micostocks companies killed the art industry now I am lucky if I make $10-20 off and they refund due to too credit card fraud. This is BS! Being a artist sucks!!!! You get ripped by everyone!!!

How long have you been with IS?

I just had a bunch of files refunded a couple weeks ago.

It happens ALL THE TIME at IS. Get used to it.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #3 on:** November 05, 2012, 12:55 »

Got a bunch of refunds too. I wonder why they can't just pay these expenses out of their own pockets. It's their responsibility to prevent credit card fraud.

Poncke · « **Reply #4 on:** November 05, 2012, 13:46 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on November 05, 2012, 12:55

Got a bunch of refunds too. I wonder why they can't just pay these expenses out of their own pockets. It's their responsibility to prevent credit card fraud.

How? If you knew how the game worked you wouldnt say that. Chargebacks cannot in any way be prevented. Credit card companies only care about their customers, and if the customer files a chargeback it will almost always be granted. Its up to the merchant to dispute the chargebacks though. But for digital goods the merchant will rarely win the case. Trust me.

One trick for chargebacks is claiming friendly fraud. Just say you didnt authorize the charge on the credit card because your kid used the credit card and they will grant it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fraud

JPSDK · « **Reply #5 on:** November 05, 2012, 17:08 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on November 05, 2012, 12:55

Got a bunch of refunds too. I wonder why they can't just pay these expenses out of their own pockets. It's their responsibility to prevent credit card fraud.

I completely agree on this. It is their problem. And they take their commision to have the shop set up.
It makes me mad every time I get a refund, and I mail a protest to them.
Also... It all adds to the annoy factor, it is one of the reasons that I might not continue to do business with them.

I understand the OP.
We are so being taken the piss on.

If someone forms a group that gatheres up refunds, there is a good chance we can win a case, it is not a normal business model.
All it would take is 500 refund emails and the lawyer would be paid.
There are so many arguments for a lawyer:Do the refunds happen because of credid card fraud? Prove it.
Is the refund happening because of the agencys individual deals and return policies with customers? Prove it.
In EUthere are rules for returning goods, and you cannot return things forever. And If the agency makes such a deal, its the agencys responsibility.

I cannot see any resons why there should be refunds at all. They have a review of every file and such they are in control if the files are good enough.

This kind of refund policy, also makes me mad and almost put the agency and their business model in the same category as Nigerian scams.

Poncke · « **Reply #6 on:** November 05, 2012, 17:13 »

IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.

JPSDK · « **Reply #7 on:** November 05, 2012, 17:25 »

YES you can prevent fraud. You could for example only sell the file if the customer personally walked into the headquartes with gold coins in his hand.
You could have 30 people weigh and validate the gold.

Point is here, that we contributors have no chance to prevent fraud, and its only because they are working cheaply that there is fraud at all.
It is their shop and its incompetent to not be able to manage it. And if they are incompetent, they deserve a lesser fee.

Poncke · « **Reply #8 on:** November 05, 2012, 17:35 »

Sorry Jens but thats BS and you know it. The fraud rate in the payment industry is about 1%. There is always some risk when selling online. And who says the chargebacks where fraud? What if the image was not used or someone made a mistake and purchased the wrong image? Maybe the image was not up to standards?

cthoman · « **Reply #9 on:** November 05, 2012, 18:02 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 05, 2012, 17:35

Sorry Jens but thats BS and you know it. The fraud rate in the payment industry is about 1%. There is always some risk when selling online. And who says the chargebacks where fraud? What if the image was not used or someone made a mistake and purchased the wrong image? Maybe the image was not up to standards?

I don't think digital files should be refunded. It's kind of like open software boxes. They don't allow returns on those either. I don't allow refunds at my own site. I would definitely make exceptions for certain circumstances (like double purchases or upgrading to an extended license). But, for the most part, the nature of the format prevents it from being returned.

Credit card fraud is a trickier matter. You can try to put up walls to prevent and flag known suspicious behavior, but some of these crooks can be very determined. I had talked with a site owner about it, and the way they described some of these perpetrators of cc fraud was scary.

Poncke · « **Reply #10 on:** November 05, 2012, 18:05 »

Quote from: cthoman on November 05, 2012, 18:02

Quote from: Poncke on November 05, 2012, 17:35
Sorry Jens but thats BS and you know it. The fraud rate in the payment industry is about 1%. There is always some risk when selling online. And who says the chargebacks where fraud? What if the image was not used or someone made a mistake and purchased the wrong image? Maybe the image was not up to standards?

I don't think digital files should be refunded. It's kind of like open software boxes. They don't allow returns on those either. I don't allow refunds at my own site. I would definitely make exceptions for certain circumstances (like double purchases or upgrading to an extended license). But, for the most part, the nature of the format prevents it from being returned.

Credit card fraud is a trickier matter. You can try to put up walls to prevent and flag known suspicious behavior, but some of these crooks can be very determined. I had talked with a site owner about it, and the way they described some of these perpetrators of cc fraud was scary.

Its the credit card company that makes that decision. IS has no control over that. Maybe IS shouldnt put it on the contributor, thats maybe a different discussion, but the chargeback cant be stopped.

JPSDK · « **Reply #11 on:** November 05, 2012, 18:31 »

the agency can always stop selling by credit card at all. As I said they could demand gold coins.
That would be bad for the business, obviously, but it would be safe.
See, now they have chosen a somehow risky business model. Their choice, their risk for which they take 84% commision, so spare me of refunds.

As for refunds for other reasons, like files not getting used or not the right ones.
Spare me... its still their warehouse, they can hire 100 piccolos to hand carry and polish the files and deliver them on horseback.
It is not the contributers problem if they cannot sort out the display and make a declaration of the goods in a way so the customer gets what he wants.

They are middlemen, and they are paid to be. They are paid for taking a risk, the contributor is not.

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** November 05, 2012, 18:36 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 05, 2012, 17:13

IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.

While I will not argue with you that chargebacks are a hazard of doing business, it is totally false that it is money out of their pockets. It is the contributors who entirely fund their shoots, and it is the contributors' intellectual property that is being stolen and distributed without any payment. So no, Istock does not take the financial hit on a product they do not have any stake in producing, nor any stake in protecting.

And also, while I agree with you that the occasional chargeback can't be avoided, there was a time a couple of years ago when Istock publicly announced that they were all going on vacation over the holidays and there was nobody minding the store. There were tens of thousands of fraudulent downloads over that time, and when contributors tried to get HQ to do something, they couldn't be bothered to come back to work early to deal with it. Many of us lost hundreds, and even thousands of dollars when they clawed back those royalties.

So YES, Istock should take responsibility for keeping our work safe, to the degree that they can, and they continue to fail miserably. It isn't a priority for them, because contrary to what you believe, they don't lose anything at all when our work is stolen from them.

Poncke · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2012, 18:43 »

Quote from: JPSDK on November 05, 2012, 18:31

the agency can always stop selling by credit card at all. As I said they could demand gold coins.
That would be bad for the business, obviously, but it would be safe.
See, now they have chosen a somehow risky business model. Their choice, their risk for which they take 84% commision, so spare me of refunds.

As for refunds for other reasons, like files not getting used or not the right ones.
Spare me... its still their warehouse, they can hire 100 piccolos to hand carry and polish the files and deliver them on horseback.
It is not the contributers problem if they cannot sort out the display and make a declaration of the goods in a way so the customer gets what he wants.

They are middlemen, and they are paid to be. They are paid for taking a risk, the contributor is not.

Right, so you suggest lowering sales and increasing costs as a solution to prevent fraud. So in effect as contributor losing more money over your solution instead of taking fraud as a calculated business risk. If you remove credit card payments (thus PayPal as well) all there is left to pay with is cash, money order or cheque. Its not 1980.

And mistakes can always be made by a buyer. I get your cynicism, but its not making real sense.

I agree that it shouldnt be put on the contributor.

Poncke · « **Reply #14 on:** November 05, 2012, 18:49 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 05, 2012, 18:36

Quote from: Poncke on November 05, 2012, 17:13
IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.

While I will not argue with you that chargebacks are a hazard of doing business, it is totally false that it is money out of their pockets. It is the contributors who entirely fund their shoots, and it is the contributors' intellectual property that is being stolen and distributed without any payment. So no, Istock does not take the financial hit on a product they do not have any stake in producing, nor any stake in protecting.

And also, while I agree with you that the occasional chargeback can't be avoided, there was a time a couple of years ago when Istock publicly announced that they were all going on vacation over the holidays and there was nobody minding the store. There were tens of thousands of fraudulent downloads over that time, and when contributors tried to get HQ to do something, they couldn't be bothered to come back to work early to deal with it. Many of us lost hundreds, and even thousands of dollars when they clawed back those royalties.

So YES, Istock should take responsibility for keeping our work safe, to the degree that they can, and they continue to fail miserably. It isn't a priority for them, because contrary to what you believe, they don't lose anything at all when our work is stolen from them.

It is a financial hit. They have overhead and the sales of images pay for that overhead and gives them a net revenue. With those refunded sales, they have less income to cover their overhead. Maybe they dont take a direct financial hit, but it is a financial hit on the balance sheet as its less money in the bank in the end.

JPSDK · « **Reply #15 on:** November 05, 2012, 18:50 »

Poncke..
My arguments are principal, not realistic.
Im stating the reasons why losses should not be put on the contributor.

Reasons that would hold in court.
Reasons meant to show how far away from traditional good business manners they are.
Business should be fair, then it will last and everybody will prosper, as it is now, there is to much wasted talent.

Poncke · « **Reply #16 on:** November 05, 2012, 18:53 »

Jens, Lisa et all, let it be clear that I agree it shouldnt be put on the contributor. I am merely explaining how chargebacks work and that IS has little control over that.

JPSDK · « **Reply #17 on:** November 05, 2012, 18:57 »

Let it be clear that we agree on that.

Im just so annoyed, and I have not had many refunds.
Its just the general arrogance and abuse.
If it was the local merchant, I would have had a rampage in the shop.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #18 on:** November 05, 2012, 19:13 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 05, 2012, 18:05

Its the credit card company that makes that decision. IS has no control over that. Maybe IS shouldnt put it on the contributor, thats maybe a different discussion, but the chargeback cant be stopped.

Well, that's exactly what I meant; IS shouldn't put it the chargeback on the contributor. They get 85% of our sales, part to provide a (working!) shop where customers can buy our goods, part to -in my opinion- cover any expenses from legal issues/fraud.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** November 05, 2012, 20:23 »

If they didn't charge us for refunds, they'd surely cut our commissions.

JPSDK · « **Reply #20 on:** November 06, 2012, 03:22 »

They have already done. 84% is a lot.
If they cannot make a working store on that sort of commision share, they are incompetent, and the business deserves to die.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #21 on:** November 06, 2012, 03:49 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 05, 2012, 18:36

Quote from: Poncke on November 05, 2012, 17:13
IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.

While I will not argue with you that chargebacks are a hazard of doing business, it is totally false that it is money out of their pockets. It is the contributors who entirely fund their shoots, and it is the contributors' intellectual property that is being stolen and distributed without any payment. So no, Istock does not take the financial hit on a product they do not have any stake in producing, nor any stake in protecting.

And also, while I agree with you that the occasional chargeback can't be avoided, there was a time a couple of years ago when Istock publicly announced that they were all going on vacation over the holidays and there was nobody minding the store. There were tens of thousands of fraudulent downloads over that time, and when contributors tried to get HQ to do something, they couldn't be bothered to come back to work early to deal with it. Many of us lost hundreds, and even thousands of dollars when they clawed back those royalties.

So YES, Istock should take responsibility for keeping our work safe, to the degree that they can, and they continue to fail miserably. It isn't a priority for them, because contrary to what you believe, they don't lose anything at all when our work is stolen from them.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #22 on:** November 06, 2012, 04:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 05, 2012, 18:36

Quote from: Poncke on November 05, 2012, 17:13
IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.

While I will not argue with you that chargebacks are a hazard of doing business, it is totally false that it is money out of their pockets. It is the contributors who entirely fund their shoots, and it is the contributors' intellectual property that is being stolen and distributed without any payment. So no, Istock does not take the financial hit on a product they do not have any stake in producing, nor any stake in protecting.

And also, while I agree with you that the occasional chargeback can't be avoided, there was a time a couple of years ago when Istock publicly announced that they were all going on vacation over the holidays and there was nobody minding the store. There were tens of thousands of fraudulent downloads over that time, and when contributors tried to get HQ to do something, they couldn't be bothered to come back to work early to deal with it. Many of us lost hundreds, and even thousands of dollars when they clawed back those royalties.

So YES, Istock should take responsibility for keeping our work safe, to the degree that they can, and they continue to fail miserably. It isn't a priority for them, because contrary to what you believe, they don't lose anything at all when our work is stolen from them.

yes the contributors FUNDS IT ALL! the entire industry. Our pics are their life-support and life-blood! without them, no IPOs, no money but the dole-que.
They tend to forget that not sometimes but ALL the time.

Digital66 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 06, 2012, 07:52 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 05, 2012, 17:13

IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.

What a naive comment!

Poncke · « **Reply #24 on:** November 06, 2012, 08:02 »

Quote from: Digital66 on November 06, 2012, 07:52

Quote from: Poncke on November 05, 2012, 17:13
IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.
What a naive comment!

Care to explain why you think that?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SOOOO Mad!!!!! (Read 11531 times)

MarkRyanDesigns

JoEr

click_click

Noedelhap

Poncke

JPSDK

Poncke

JPSDK

Poncke

cthoman

Poncke

JPSDK

lisafx

Poncke

Poncke

JPSDK

Poncke

JPSDK

Noedelhap

ShadySue

JPSDK

ClaridgeJ

ClaridgeJ

Digital66

Poncke

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors