MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Policies and bad contributor relations  (Read 4492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 24, 2009, 11:02 »
0
not worth my time and typing

nruboc and disorderly - go away

gostwyck - why do you post in my threads? also go away

lisa - thanks for posting, obviously this community sucks, so any time a thread comes up where it isn't about not getting accepted or how we are getting rid of our images for pennies or ridiculous rejections, it attracts the riff raff of the site.  Your post was helpful and its one reason why I'm removing mine.  Thanks for actually being helpful.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 12:32 by ichiro17 »


nruboc

« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2009, 11:29 »
0
Its sad that they have not progressed beyond that point.  I just thought I would let the community know in case that happens to them not to expect too much from SS. 


On a similar note, I have come to not expect too much from your posts. I have come to the conclusion that you are either dumb or pretending to be stupid.

« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2009, 11:50 »
0
I'd have thought it was a simple matter of living with your decisions.  They didn't tell you to leave; that was your own decision.  Why in the world should they make a concession in your case?  It's not like they want to encourage people to go exclusive with competitors.  As for their lack of response, or at least a response that makes you happy, I'd have to wonder if maybe you're better off.  If I were the one writing a response, you definitely wouldn't like it.

I have found the people at Shutterstock to be eminently fair and, in the case of some serious PITA contributors, long suffering beyond reason.  And beyond reason is the phrase that applies here.

lisafx

« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2009, 11:52 »
0
$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".  

This is probably a decision that has to be made at the top level.  It might be worth e-mail/sitemailing Jon Oringer, the CEO.  I imagine he would be the one who could bypass their normal minimum payout for you.  He was certainly quite helpful the one time (in 5 years) I had a problem at SS.

OTOH he may not be inclined to do so if he reads your comments trashing his site and his employees.  

It's still true that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 11:55 by lisafx »

« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2009, 12:20 »
0
^^^ Three good answers!

You could always use your $56 to buy our images  ;D

« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2009, 12:34 »
0
I'd have thought it was a simple matter of living with your decisions.  They didn't tell you to leave; that was your own decision.  Why in the world should they make a concession in your case? 

Why is it perceived as incorrect to want the money that is due you at the end of a business relationship, regardless of whether you have reached an arbitrary payout level?  One should expect some respect from others in a partnership regardless of any "forfeit" rule in their terms.  It just isn't good PR - "Oh, SS is out to bone us whenever they can and keep our money".  It would look more contributor friendly if they worked with people instead of being unyielding.

« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2009, 12:35 »
0
I'm still fairly new to microstock and continue to be surprised at how crummy behavior by these agencies is routinely accepted and rationalized.  At any normal business,  the "support" people would simply send out the $60 - seeing an unusual situation, and a request from a contributor with a significant history.  Let's not climb over each other trying to think up reasons why this should be difficult, unwise or unwarranted.  I work for a company that sells software over the net, and we routinely make all sorts of adjustments when customers have problems or complaints.  It doesn't take an act of Congress, and it doesn't screw up our business to occassionally break a "rule" to retain a customer - or to just make an aggravating customer go away so our support guy doesn't continue to hear from him.


 

« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2009, 12:47 »
0
Well, they enforced their buyer's contract in getting that money back, so I don't think it's bad relations for them to enforce their contributor contract equally.  They have to draw the line, or else keep on making concessions to every conceivable "exceptional" situation that might arise, both from buyers and sellers.

Plus, it speaks a lot about them as a microstock site that they actually refunded the money to all the contributors that they did.  There are some sites (and one in particular I'm thinking of) that you wouldn't catch dead refunding money to contributors.

« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2009, 12:50 »
0
Yes, but the OP didn't get (or can't get) his refund.  One would assume that had the EL been paid for correctly initially, he would have withdrawn it at his last cash out.  Now, unexpectedly, this money from an issue from the past is in his account.  How greedy are they not to go ahead and pay him the amount due?

« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2009, 12:56 »
0
Thanks Sean

I believe SS sued the buyer, who therefore agreed to settle and payout for ELs for all the downloaded images.  So given that extraordinary event, why be so anal about policy?


« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2009, 13:13 »
0
UPDATE:  Somehow this issue got to the attention of the proper people over at SS and finally someone has acknowledged the issue and it apparently is being taken care of.

I'm interested and hoping it gets resolved quickly

« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2009, 13:15 »
0
Good news!

bittersweet

« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2009, 13:30 »
0
What's that they say about the squeaky wheel? ;)

« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2009, 13:37 »
0
That's great ichiro, I hope it works out with a happy ending for you.

In my fantasy world, every agency should pay out ALL earnings at year end, if contributors hit payout or not.

« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2009, 14:28 »
0
I was hoping for some oil for that would fix that squeak.  What I didn't want but expected was the first few responses.

RacePhoto

« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2009, 16:07 »
0
That's great ichiro, I hope it works out with a happy ending for you.

In my fantasy world, every agency should pay out ALL earnings at year end, if contributors hit payout or not.

Mine too!  :D Simple enough, clear the books, start over.

« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2009, 17:14 »
0
All is well now, its unfortunate that some of the process was frustrating, but I guess thats the case with any business.  I know that Wal-Mart has had a reputation for being a huge pain for their suppliers in terms of getting paid, so I should know that the frustration is part of the process - I don't know if my original post here helped solve the issue, but now that its solved, I'm happy...and hopefully nruboc and disorderly have a hard time chewing on this for their relatively unhelpful, spiteful posts.

Thanks to all for their responses - and submitters should note that, despite my initial frustration, some sites may make it frustrating at first but at least SS is willing to fix the issues if they are legitimate.



lisafx

« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2009, 17:34 »
0
Congratulations Ichiro!  Very happy it was taken care of for you.

You will have your (deserved!) money and Shutterstock's reputation will be cleared :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1588 Views
Last post September 07, 2007, 14:43
by Istock News
5 Replies
2934 Views
Last post February 13, 2009, 13:16
by RT
12 Replies
5537 Views
Last post July 28, 2009, 16:12
by Moonb007
11 Replies
4149 Views
Last post December 09, 2010, 06:48
by luissantos84
10 Replies
5326 Views
Last post April 26, 2015, 16:35
by BelieveInStock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle