Please tell me a rich guy just bought a hundred articles...

[Lor]

jrichards said.......
"So from our perspective it is going to be impossible for us to collect that money as it has already been sent out. So these orders will remain paid."

Don't shoot me for this, but with regards to CC already paying out those funds to writers, writers are fair, reasonable people. :) It's a simple fix. Hold the funds for the last 3 days of each month. If any sales turn out to be fraudulent, CC hasn't lost money. The writer will still be paid for 30 days, but the knock-off point for each pay day will be the 27th of the previous month, rather than the 30th/31st. Why should CC lose those funds?

How does it work when a customer buys an article on the 30th/31st and returns it by the third day. Is CC out the funds they just paid to the writers or do those writers have a negative balance? Isn't this the same thing?

[jrichards]

Hey Barry

Thanks for doing some thinking on this subject. It's a tricky one because of course we want to make it as easy as possible for customers to make purchases (which is good for all of us!), but at the same time we don't want to allow them to make fraudulent purchases. Your idea about moving to a credit system where people pay up front for credits and then spend their credits as they will once the payment has cleared is a good one. I'll be thinking about that plenty as we move forward.

Hi Lor,
Thanks for your comments. I'm certainly appreciate how reasonable authors have been through as we work through these fraud related ideas. And delaying the payments is certainly an option for us, I'd love to hear some discussion as to how other authors feel about this and how this would influence their willingness to keep using constant-content as a place to post their articles.

Just to deal directly with refund cases. If we do get a refund case, we just cover those refunds without passing those costs back to the writers. As part of what constant-content does we do our due diligence to make sure that articles are of the highest quality and original and if for some reason a buyer requests a refund (it doesn't happen very often) we assume those costs. I see that as part of what the 35% (30% if there is a referring author) that comes to us does.

jrichards
Constant-Content.com

[nickpaddy]

Hey JRichards,

As far as feedback on the holding off of payment for a day or two idea, I'm all for it. I'd much rather get paid a couple of days later and have a secure site to work from that's not getting ripped off by scamsters; what's good for CC is good for the authors too.

[Elizabeth Ann West]

I think holding the funds for 3 days is reasonable. There is no need to pay the authors late, just change the policy to "Each month's pay period is from the 27th of the previous month to the 27th of the current month, or 3 days from the end of the month if there are less than 30 days."

Most of us can remember the previous owner, and then payment was very sporadic. It could be the first of the month to 4-5 days later. As long as authors know they are getting a paycheck on the first of the month I don't think one or two articles selling at the end of the month will change that. Plus, many of us are used to waiting sometimes months for payments because the threshold was $50.

As far as what the 35% covers, I agree about it covering refunds since we do have an editorial process. I don't think that amount should cover fraudulent transactions moving forward. Why? Because if C-C takes on that burden, then there is the chance the site could face instability from just a few large fraudulent transactions. I don't want to have to worry my favorite on spec writing spot might go away, or be unable to cut checks at the end of the month to authors. Also, I don't want to see C-C forced to issue spending caps on buyers in order to mitigate their risk.

I do think some of the problems might go away too if we had better buyer profiles. Scam artists would be less likely to put legitimate information in there, and that should flag. Also, legitimate buyers with profiles about what types of articles they are looking for etc. would help authors here with writing on those topics. I like that C-C is open to just about everything, but it would be helpful if authors had more tools to address content needs than just the Recently Sold list and requests.

[Lor]

I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it. Creative people have no trouble changing their mindset. I'm not sure how some of the invoicing works for those big private orders. I guess you'll need to hear from some of the older members. Perhaps it can be a slightly different arrangement with paymets from those buyers, especially the big ones, who may only pay at the end of each month.

It's not really a delay, but a cut-off point. You would still pay after the 1st of each month as per usual and those 3 days will be added to the next month.

Lor

[geniuswaitress]

Maybe you could just do this with first-time customers. Established buyers could download immediately. That might cut down on the scammers.

[BarryDavidson]

JR,

I didn't mean buying credits, but that is certainly something you could offer. When a company's budget comes out, they can just put it and account on CC for purchasing quality writing instead of having little things eat at their money slowly - leaving no money for writing at the end of the quarter.

I meant verifying the customer's payment methods. If they are using a checking account they:
(1) Add their account info

(2) Constant Content runs through a one dollar charge which is refunded. A transaction code is generated which the customer must get in order to verify the account.

(3) Find a way to make this process take at least three days.

Most people and companies can access their bank and credit card accounts online much like Paypal. This is the reason I mentioned making the process last at least three days - even if it means verifying the accounts manually (although I don't recommend it). It would give CC at least 72 hours to verify payment methods, and allows a person who's information is being used fraudulently to notice before any money is taken out of their accounts.

Paypal is trickier, but the same can be done from another angle. Generate the transaction code, and email the main account address. The first time will take longer, but once it's verified the customer can buy at any time.

This will be tougher for existing customers. You could craft a letter to all existing customers explaining that your security is being upgraded. In this upgrade, you might ask them to voluntarily submit to the new steps. If not they can still buy, but will have to wait 72 hours before they can download the content. (I don't really like the 72 hour thing, so I hope you can think of something better.)

[Lor]

Hi Barry,
You have a great idea, but ...
I'm not sure keeping the customer waiting three days for their copy is a good thing. We could lose them. CC isn't the only player in town. The buyers want their articles and they want them now or they'll move on. Anything that slows down or disrupts that relationship could hurt us.

It is a good idea, but for a new company; not an already established one. That's my take, anyway :)
Lorraine

[BarryDavidson]

[quote="Lor"]Hi Barry,
You have a great idea, but ...
I'm not sure keeping the customer waiting three days for their copy is a good thing. We could lose them. CC isn't the only player in town. The buyers want their articles and they want them now or they'll move on. Anything that slows down or disrupts that relationship could hurt us.

It is a good idea, but for a new company; not an already established one. That's my take, anyway :)
Lorraine[/quote]


I agree that a three day waiting period is a bad thing. Unless, of course, the customer is brand new. Established customers who have made several purchases wouldn't need to do this unless they add a new payment method. Think of it like adding a new checking account or credit card to your existing Paypal account. They make you verify them before they are permanently added to your list of funding options.