MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Veer Contributor Agreement Posted  (Read 15095 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2010, 12:07 »
0
That's a shame. I liked the end of the year automatic payment idea.

« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2010, 12:32 »
0
That's a shame. I liked the end of the year automatic payment idea.
+1

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2010, 12:36 »
0
WHAT????  That's the only reason I went ahead and joined so if it was a slow site, as everyone mentioned,  I'd still get my payout without having to wait forever. Those slow site sit in limbo forever when they don't get sales. I guess we can't do any thing to change it.

« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2010, 12:44 »
0
Another relaunch. Things didn't go so well the first time?

« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2010, 13:25 »
0
If we are losing year end payouts, it would be nice if the minimum payout would be dropped to $50 minimum. The more frequent payouts would be evenly spread out over the year so I can't imagine that it would over stress the payments dept. This would help encourage the submitters with smaller portfolios.

lisafx

« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2010, 13:47 »
0
With the term "Marketplace" removed, how will Veer differentiate its microstock offerings from the macro images?   

Or will there no longer be any differentiation?  If not, will the micro prices be going up or the macro prices be coming down? 

« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2010, 14:08 »
0
What exactly does "cash purchase" mean? Are they going to allow to wire money? At least with credit cards there is some identification of buyers. Are they going to start money laundry?

« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2010, 14:10 »
0
With the term "Marketplace" removed, how will Veer differentiate its microstock offerings from the macro images?   

Or will there no longer be any differentiation?  If not, will the micro prices be going up or the macro prices be coming down? 


Hi Lisa,

We actually touched upon these questions in an announcement from earlier this year:

http://ideas.veer.com/group/marketplace/discussions/132

We will continue to have a wide variety of images from premium-priced images to value-priced images, all offered under the royalty-free licensing model.  Micro prices won't be going up, but the images themselves will be integrated into the broader Veer website

« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2010, 14:19 »
0
What exactly does "cash purchase" mean? Are they going to allow to wire money? At least with credit cards there is some identification of buyers. Are they going to start money laundry?

This refers to buyers being able to purchase images in the same manner formerly only possible with the general Veer RF content, as opposed to only the credit system currently offered for "marketplace" images.

All buyers will of course have to enter in identifying information in order to make a purchase, we have no plans to go into the 'money laundering' business.... ;)

rubyroo

« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2010, 14:19 »
0
Hi Ryan,

Could you explain the amendment to section: IV E a little more please?   I've only had a first skim of the 'compare' document, so sorry if I've missed the answer to this, but that section really jumped out at me.  My question is:

What sort of difference is involved in a cash vs credit sale price?  i.e. is our royalty bumped up or bumped down in this scenario - or have I misinterpreted the wording?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 14:47 by rubyroo »

lisafx

« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2010, 14:55 »
0
Hi Lisa,

We actually touched upon these questions in an announcement from earlier this year:

http://ideas.veer.com/group/marketplace/discussions/132

We will continue to have a wide variety of images from premium-priced images to value-priced images, all offered under the royalty-free licensing model.  Micro prices won't be going up, but the images themselves will be integrated into the broader Veer website


Thanks for the clarification and the link Ryan.  :)
I will check out the discussion for more details.

« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2010, 20:36 »
0
How will the cash price compare to the credit price for images - will they be about the same, or will the cash price be more (but we will still get paid as if it were a credit sale = lower royalty rate?)

--=Tom

« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2010, 22:17 »
0
Maybe it's too late or maybe it's the beer. Maybe it's because my native tongue isn't English.

What does it mean when you speak of licensing images with cash?

As mentioned before, do the buyers literally walk into your office paying in bills and coins for the image they want?

And how did the buyers pay for the images before? In cows or sheep? Sorry for my sarcasm but I just cannot understand what you mean when you speak of paying licenses with cash. I mean buyers use credit cards, wire transfers or Paypal and other forms of electronic payments so how is this such a significant improvement?

I appreciate any clarification.

Microbius

« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2010, 04:53 »
0
The way I interpret the statements above it just means you can get a cash price for the image and pay for it like you would any other online purchase at checkout without having had to buy credits prior to choosing the image. I think this will help by making impulse purchases more likely and stopping customers worrying about unspent credits in credit packs.

« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2010, 05:00 »
0
The way I interpret the statements above it just means you can get a cash price for the image and pay for it like you would any other online purchase at checkout without having had to buy credits prior to choosing the image. I think this will help by making impulse purchases more likely and stopping customers worrying about unspent credits in credit packs.

The way I interpret it also...:-)

Patrick.

« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2010, 05:39 »
0
Which might be a good thing because sometimes a buyer only needs a couple of images and doesn't want to tie up more money by buying credits that might not get used immediately. I have been in that situation myself.

I think this is a good idea.

« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2010, 05:50 »
0
I think $100 payout figure is too high for veer market place, there just isn't the earnings there to justify it.
Veer presently represents about 2% of my monthly earnings. Not a real big incentive to keep going with them but I have. Dash for cash has sucked me in for a while longer.

As they form only 2% of my earnings to get a monthly payout that would mean I would have to be earning around $60,000 per annum total from all my agencies.

A payout figure of $50 would be more realistic and would be inline with payout values for canstock,bigstock,fotolia etc.

« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2010, 06:20 »
0
we bought 2 blog sized images at canstock last weekend, purely because I can convert earnings to credits at any amount (basically enough for just for the 2 images). obviously I'm not a big buyer :) but who knows how many others are out there who dont want to buy credit packs.

« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2010, 08:20 »
0
Removal of the automatic end-of-year payout for royalty balances that havent yet hit the $100 minimum payout threshold.
I don't care about the cash thing since it's just a smokescreen for this more drastic change. I don't agree with the change of terms that there will be no annual payout any more, just a payout at the 100$ limit. It's clear that many small contributors like myself will never reach payout but Veer will sit on the (our) resting money or spend it, just like what happened with Fotomind.

What should I do? Not acknowledge the changes so the current agreement keeps being in force? Is there some sneaky small print that allows Veer to change these conditions unilaterally? If so, I'll delete my 600 images in the queue and my 100 or so accepted in the current Dash program. No kidding. I don't accept that change.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2010, 08:25 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2010, 14:48 »
0
Dear Veer,

Seems like a pretty shady move making a big change right after baiting new artists and introducing changes immediately following Dash for Cash.   What's it been, 10 days?

Look, at the end of the year I got a payment of $1.75.  I had mixed feelings about it as a business person
- on one hand I knew it cost you more than that to make such a small payment and I did have a chuckle over it.  On the other hand I applauded Veer for holding up their end of the bargain and I even raved about it on the forums.  I wonder how many contributors you got under the guise of being paid out every year end?  Classy move on your part.

Jeeze, isn't your minimum payment $100 anyway?  What is the point of paying automatically accounts with over a $100 balance on Dec 31st?  You and I both know that you are going to be sitting on thousands of dollars of unpaid earnings.  I'm not just talking about year end balances, I'm talking about lifelong balances.

Do the right thing.  Drop it to a reasonable amount - perhaps a $25 minimum payout at year end. 

And if you are not aware, there is another agency that frequently makes major detrimental changes to their contributor agreement.  (To be fair, at least Veer gave notice).  You won't see see many of us promoting them.  They do have customers so we all put up with major BS from them.  If you want to be like them with no clients you won't have many artist left.

« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2010, 15:32 »
0
Dear Veer,

Seems like a pretty shady move making a big change right after baiting new artists and introducing changes immediately following Dash for Cash.   What's it been, 10 days?

Look, at the end of the year I got a payment of $1.75.  I had mixed feelings about it as a business person
- on one hand I knew it cost you more than that to make such a small payment and I did have a chuckle over it.  On the other hand I applauded Veer for holding up their end of the bargain and I even raved about it on the forums.  I wonder how many contributors you got under the guise of being paid out every year end?  Classy move on your part.

Jeeze, isn't your minimum payment $100 anyway?  What is the point of paying automatically accounts with over a $100 balance on Dec 31st?  You and I both know that you are going to be sitting on thousands of dollars of unpaid earnings.  I'm not just talking about year end balances, I'm talking about lifelong balances.

Do the right thing.  Drop it to a reasonable amount - perhaps a $25 minimum payout at year end. 

And if you are not aware, there is another agency that frequently makes major detrimental changes to their contributor agreement.  (To be fair, at least Veer gave notice).  You won't see see many of us promoting them.  They do have customers so we all put up with major BS from them.  If you want to be like them with no clients you won't have many artist left.

I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday. Funny how the terms changed AFTER some of us signed up.

Quote
I don't care about the cash thing since it's just a smokescreen for this more drastic change. I don't agree with the change of terms that there will be no annual payout any more, just a payout at the 100$ limit. It's clear that many small contributors like myself will never reach payout but Veer will sit on the (our) resting money or spend it, just like what happened with Fotomind.

Yep.

« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2010, 17:55 »
0
I always considered the year end payout an exceptionally fair policy that made Veer stand out from its competitors. To suddenly cancel it and drop a bombshell like that as if it was just a minor adjustment certainly puts Veer back in line with some of its competitors. Welcome to the bottom line.

« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2010, 19:30 »
0
   Removal of the automatic end-of-year payout for royalty balances that havent yet hit the $100 minimum payout threshold. 

So this should be just "Removal of the automatic end-of-year payout" ?

ap

« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2010, 21:47 »
0
I always considered the year end payout an exceptionally fair policy that made Veer stand out from its competitors. To suddenly cancel it and drop a bombshell like that as if it was just a minor adjustment certainly puts Veer back in line with some of its competitors.
+1

« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2010, 04:14 »
0
Veer is one of the poorest performing agencies. Having a high payout limit of $100 means I probably have to wait years until I can get my cash out.

This move makes it very unlikely that I will supply them with many more images in the foreseeable future.

Oh, and I like the underhanded way of first attracting new uploaders and then changing the payment rules. I will remember that.

« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2010, 04:32 »
0
I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday. Funny how the terms changed AFTER some of us signed up.
:P
Also, you should know that my rejection ratio went up from 4 to 30% as I'm approaching the magical 400. I will know soon enough if I can reach it or not, and if not, I'm gone for good. Let's see. The shots are stuck still September. Their FTP never worked with their bizarre settings, and the past week, even their Flash upload made my FireFox block. Those guys don't realize that it was now or never. I'd rather send a CD to Peter (StockFresh).
But, let's see. End of June is soon enough.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 04:40 by FD-amateur »

Microbius

« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2010, 06:36 »
0
I was thinking that the $100 payout change was pretty awful, then I thought hang on, if I'm not going to make that in the forseeable future why the heck am I uploading to them anyway? All they've done is make it more obvious that they probably aren't worth uploading to in the first place. Own goal.

« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2010, 07:07 »
0
I was thinking that the $100 payout change was pretty awful, then I thought hang on, if I'm not going to make that in the forseeable future why the heck am I uploading to them anyway? All they've done is make it more obvious that they probably aren't worth uploading to in the first place. Own goal.

Yeah but before I could let them sit there and earn me a couple of beers a year, download work was already done.
now its 2 cartons of beer every 5 years.

« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2010, 07:17 »
0
If we are losing year end payouts, it would be nice if the minimum payout would be dropped to $50 minimum. The more frequent payouts would be evenly spread out over the year so I can't imagine that it would over stress the payments dept. This would help encourage the submitters with smaller portfolios.

I agree.....with the sales I have at the moment it takes at least 4 years to get that $ 100,--!

« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2010, 07:34 »
0
pulled port this morning...they can keep my $6 but that is ALL they're getting from me...what a waste of time and truly unethical behavior.

« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2010, 10:09 »
0
Paying to have a portfolio uploaded is a positive step. One of the few I've seen in the past while.  Collectively, there is a continuous drive downwards. Whether it's the many methods used at Fotolio or decreasing the number of uploads per week at iS or increasing the number of rejections. In the long term they all contribute less to a photographers (or illustrators) earnings. Simply changing the payout like Veer did does a similar thing.

Regarding the dash for cash program. These type of promo tends to be a slap in the face to those members who chose to believe in the agency from the start and upload their portfolios early. For me, I have nothing left to upload so I can't participate. So it seems fitting that I should take my images down instead and have done just that.

« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2010, 11:10 »
0
Well, this thread certainly got a little... animated. I was mildly disappointed that they got rid of the end of the year payout, but I wasn't ready to take to the streets with torches.  ;D

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2010, 18:28 »
0
It would be nice if Ryan or Brian could address our concerns and suggestions and the reasons behind this sudden change to the agreement.

« Reply #34 on: June 15, 2010, 15:15 »
0
It would be nice if Ryan or Brian could address our concerns and suggestions and the reasons behind this sudden change to the agreement.
one would think...

« Reply #35 on: June 16, 2010, 06:06 »
0
It would be nice if Ryan or Brian could address our concerns and suggestions and the reasons behind this sudden change to the agreement.
one would think...
Of course. Dash for cash is probably quite successful with small contributors (like me). In fact the upload bonus is a loan from them to us for which they have no guaranteed return. Financially that's not very sound, since the "loan" had to be payed back at the end of the year under the old agreement, whatever sales. Many pictures won't even have been sold once in the rest of the year. On average over all pictures and contributors, there is a risk that they won't get their investment back in the current year.

Now, this is a typical site that is not run by passionate photographers (like Dreamstime, ShutterStock, iStock) but by "managers". Their bonus won't be that large at the end of the year if they post a loss (or less profit), even if it's an investment that will pay off the next year. Managers come and go, photographers stay. I really can't blame them if they keep an eye on the financial side.

(and I can see Rian smiling now).
« Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 06:15 by FD-amateur »


« Reply #37 on: June 16, 2010, 08:50 »
0
> That many of you are worrying that you won't hit $100 in royalties over the course of a year is unacceptable to > me.

Than change it to $ 50! lol
I`m tired of all that marketing talk...

« Reply #38 on: June 16, 2010, 16:29 »
0
wow.... just last night I was looking at their site....  I thought, humm...   doesn't look too bad.   Maybe I'll upload the port,  I'm looking for fresh meat...
Tomorrow afternoon, I'll go surf MSG and see what kind of comments there are about Veer.  And low and behold, one of the first things up for reading is this thread.

I take it that the majority would not recommend Veer? 

Still on the fence, straighten me out folks.  Should I or shouldn't I?    8)=tom

« Reply #39 on: June 16, 2010, 21:36 »
0
re: Veer, nobody knows what the sales will be like. Corbis' previous forays into microstock were not particularly well done in my estimation, but if you are going to upload to Veer, you should do it now while they are paying you. Hopefully when they relaunch or whatever they are planning to do the sales will start to roll in. Meanwhile, nobody knows.

As far as the auto payouts every year, I would have liked to see auto payouts over 50$ or something at the end of the year. I totally agree it makes no sense to do it for some tiny sum (like under 20$ or something). If I don't get close to payout every year, the site is pretty worthless though. I am certainly expecting to hit over 100$ before the end of the year, especially w/ the dash for cash (which seems to be putting your money where your mouth is).

Prove me right guys.

--= (a different) Tom

« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2010, 06:29 »
0
wow.... just last night I was looking at their site....  I thought, humm...   doesn't look too bad.   Maybe I'll upload the port,  I'm looking for fresh meat...
Tomorrow afternoon, I'll go surf MSG and see what kind of comments there are about Veer.  And low and behold, one of the first things up for reading is this thread.

I take it that the majority would not recommend Veer? 

Still on the fence, straighten me out folks.  Should I or shouldn't I?    8)=tom

I was with them the first time around and didn't have much success. My reject rate was big, but finally got over 100 approved. In 6 months, I only had 2 downloads. I realize that's a small port, but I believe I should have seen more than 2 downloads. Others with WAY larger ports reported the same type of low earnings. So I pulled my images off. When they announced Dash for Cash, along with saying they are going to be doing some heavy marketing this summer, I decided to give it another go. My last batch of uploads was 5-30. Just yesterday I had more approved, I have 184 approved, 100 still pending, and 16 rejects. So it looks like they have improved in the reject department, but approvals are very slow. I have had 81 views and 0 sales.

I am hoping they are going to do the heavy marketing thing, but we won't know until end of summer.

lisafx

« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2010, 15:02 »
0

I was with them the first time around and didn't have much success. My reject rate was big, but finally got over 100 approved. In 6 months, I only had 2 downloads. I realize that's a small port, but I believe I should have seen more than 2 downloads. Others with WAY larger ports reported the same type of low earnings. So I pulled my images off.

Same experience here.  Extremely high rejection rates.  I managed to get around 1000 or so images on the site but in 6 months of sales never reached payout level.  Fortunately they paid me my $80(ish?) at the end of the year.  Now they won't be doing that. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2422 Views
Last post May 07, 2010, 13:24
by GrantP
13 Replies
9485 Views
Last post August 05, 2010, 18:56
by Suljo
13 Replies
6266 Views
Last post January 12, 2011, 13:08
by Risamay
5 Replies
3945 Views
Last post July 10, 2014, 13:53
by dbvirago
12 Replies
3995 Views
Last post February 25, 2023, 12:59
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors