Author Topic: New Veer Contributor Agreement Posted (Read 18071 times)

Maui · « **Reply #25 on:** June 12, 2010, 04:14 »

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.

FD · « **Reply #26 on:** June 12, 2010, 04:32 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 11, 2010, 15:32

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

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.

Microbius · « **Reply #27 on:** June 12, 2010, 06:36 »

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.

qwerty · « **Reply #28 on:** June 12, 2010, 07:07 »

Quote from: Microbius on June 12, 2010, 06:36

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.

studioportosabbia · « **Reply #29 on:** June 12, 2010, 07:17 »

Quote from: Stu99 on June 10, 2010, 13:25

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,--!

anonymous · « **Reply #30 on:** June 12, 2010, 07:34 »

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.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #31 on:** June 12, 2010, 10:09 »

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.

cthoman · « **Reply #32 on:** June 12, 2010, 11:10 »

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.

donding · « **Reply #33 on:** June 14, 2010, 18:28 »

It would be nice if Ryan or Brian could address our concerns and suggestions and the reasons behind this sudden change to the agreement.

anonymous · « **Reply #34 on:** June 15, 2010, 15:15 »

Quote from: donding on June 14, 2010, 18:28

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...

FD · « **Reply #35 on:** June 16, 2010, 06:06 »

Quote from: anonymous on June 15, 2010, 15:15

Quote from: donding on June 14, 2010, 18:28
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).

Brian O'Shea · « **Reply #36 on:** June 16, 2010, 08:08 »

Hi All -

I can try to help clarify: the timing of this agreement change was coincidental.
Dash for Cash is a marketing promotion planned months in advance - on a separate timetable from our need to get a new agreement up 30 days ahead of the new version of Veer.com going live. The new agreement is required for launch to support the new site features.

Dropping the automatic year-end payout was necessary. As some of you have mentioned, paying out $.35 and $.70 royalty balances absolutely killed us on fees. We also had feedback from contributors who found such a low automatic payout more of an annoyance than a benefit.

I think you'll find the changes to Veer.com exciting - it's going to make our site look top-notch all around, and you'll start to see a significant marketing and customer activity ramp-up beginning late summer. If the sales ramp-up isn't quite as fast or as steep as we'd like, we are open to reevaluating the minimum payout threshold later this year.

We want contributors to hit payout. Sitting on unpaid royalties is not our game and is more of an annoyance for our Finance team. That many of you are worrying that you won't hit $100 in royalties over the course of a year is unacceptable to me. We've been working hard on the new site and will be working hard after relaunch to deliver more activity.

- Brian

golem · « **Reply #37 on:** June 16, 2010, 08:50 »

> 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...

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #38 on:** June 16, 2010, 16:29 »

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?

=tom

pancaketom · « **Reply #39 on:** June 16, 2010, 21:36 »

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

cathyslife · « **Reply #40 on:** June 17, 2010, 06:29 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on June 16, 2010, 16:29

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? =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 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 17, 2010, 06:29

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Veer Contributor Agreement Posted (Read 18071 times)

Maui

FD

Microbius

qwerty

studioportosabbia

anonymous

PeterChigmaroff

cthoman

donding

anonymous

FD

Brian O'Shea

golem

a.k.a.-tom

pancaketom

cathyslife

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors