I guess money is what makes THEM happy.

Quote from: pancaketom on September 20, 2019, 16:14

I guess money is what makes THEM happy.

I think that is unfair. They reported what caused the anomaly. Giving the benefit of the doubt that they are honest in their explanations, they seem reasonable.

There was a computer goof, both in currency (since 1AUD < 1USD) and in double-reporting. That has been corrected.  If I were driving the ship, I might have handled the communication differently, but the end result would have been the same.  Obviously, tell us first.  Then possibly roll back the excess payment over 3 months, or such that no contributor went below 50% of expected revenue in any given month, until it was recaptured.

The end result would have been the same regardless. You had a windfall in June due to software error. The error has been fixed, and the account normalized.

Not really any different than if your bank (Wells Fargo or whoever) accidentally put extra money into your account one month.  That money is not yours, and will be recaptured when recognized.  One couple discovered that just last month when they found an extra $100K in their account. They went out and spent it, and are now in court for grand theft as a result...

It wasn't just June - some refunds went back to last year. Istock can claw the money back from me, so tomorrow I'll phone the IRS and see if they'll let me claw the overpaid tax back from them. No wait, I'll have to wait until my next return goes in to make that adjustment.

Thanks, Istock, as usual, you acted with total disregard for the consequences or impact this would have on your contributors.

"Not really any different than if your bank (Wells Fargo or whoever) accidentally put extra money into your account one month.  That money is not yours, and will be recaptured when recognized."

It's very different when you genuinely believe and have a statement from Istock verifying the fact that you have earned this money.

The end result would have been the same regardless. You had a windfall in June due to software error. The error has been fixed, and the account normalized.

Windfall in June .
At Canva June was $200 less than May and $400 less than June 2018.

Quote from: pancaketom on September 20, 2019, 16:14

I guess money is what makes THEM happy.

I think that is unfair. ...

You can look at this a number of ways - yours is one that is pretty close to the iStock after-the-fact "ooops" email.

The bank account analogy doesn't  match the earnings report situation - no bank is in charge of the calculations of what should be deposited into your account; they tell you where the deposit came from and how much it was. You, the customer, have your independent source of whatever the transaction was and how much it should be. If the numbers don't match, you can immediately take action.

Getty is in charge of the books - we have only their accounting for what sales took place, when, where, with which customers and for how much. As contributors, we are flying completely blind with no independent verification of anything (unless we happen to know the purchaser for a transaction)

Getty has time and again demonstrated how inept they are at keeping their books. I wouldn't put it past them to keep costs down by spending as little as possible on accounting or review of the accuracy of the books, new software, etc. Getty has also repeatedly demonstrated that you can't rely on anything they say, where they will eat the costs of any mistake they make that costs the contributor. As pointed out above, the poisonous KK Thompson was the author of the money isn't what makes you happy remark, back when they were doing Getty's bidding and slashing contributor royalties.

There are other ways mistakes can be handled. As one example, when a business advertises a product at the wrong price because of their own goof, in many jurisdictions they are required to honor that mistake even though it then eats into their profits. Sometimes they're not legally required to do that but the business wants to generate some goodwill from customers and does so as a way of saying "sorry".

Being honest that you're useless at keeping the accounts doesn't count for much. Their whole system of payments is error ridden and slow - a month and a half in arrears for an internet-based business?

It may not be a kind remark, but it's eminently fair.

As far as 15% commission being too small, well you clearly never ran an organization like this.  Obviously, if you think you can do so much better, have at it. We contributors will be glad to take a larger chunk for the short time before you fold.

I made a series of instructional videos in the 1990s, ending up with 54 videos, all 60-90 min long.  VHS originally, then later converted to DVD. I paid the artists 10% of all gross sales (not 15%, just 10%).  I shut down in 2000 when I finally concluded that everyone around me was making money, but I was just taking money in the left hand and paying it out the right hand, and leaving nothing in my pocket.  It costs one heck of a lot more to run a business like that than most people realize.  Everyone thought I was getting rich, but they had no idea of the duck where most of the action was out of site and under the water...

Well, you can't be much good at business if you can't make a profit when you keep 90% of your sales revenue. I seem to recall that iStock/Getty had some side arrangements in various deals that enable them to take more than 85% overall. Wasn't there something about buyers paying a lump sum for entry into a cheap-images scheme and then the commission being calculated on the image sale price with the lump being retained? Or maybe that was some other agency - so many of them have diddled us over the years that it's impossible to keep track.
Meanwhile, Alamy seems to do OK while paying up to 50% commissions, which according to your business analysis says that they are going bust... except perhaps they aren't.
If the financiers at Getty didn't have to claw in money to cover the servicing of all the loans they've taken out in order to repay the owners what they paid for the business so it can then be sold on so the next consortium can take out another loan to repay themselves then they might be able to afford more than 15% (or less) commission.
It seems to me that the various financiers who have bought and sold GI have "maxed it out" like a credit card in the hands of an irresponsible shopper, and after maxing it out they then sell it on to someone else who can get a bigger credit limit. IT's been a magic money tree for financial manipulators.

If I may enter this conversation, mindstorm do have valid points.

It is one thing to think agencies as partners or collaboration
and another to act like working there or just being in slavery.
Companies and freelancers do cut loose associates or customers
that ask more for less, delay payment have bad or no communication etc.

I have read various posts here and there.
The one that I never forget is a contributor declaring
"{agency} made for me / brought me {amount of money}".
The agency have to promote your work and  bring you money.
Not happy? Read again the contract. Honor the terms.
Terminate the cooperation. Find a better deal.
You still are the owner of you and your digital products.

What does anyone expect?  I'm surprised they bothered to explain. If like me you are signed up to them don't say you weren't warned 

Baldrick:

you can't be much good at business if you can't make a profit when you keep 90% of your sales revenue

 

not sure what point mindfart was trying to make with that example