That is another view. I was only replying to what I had read. I am sure there are two sides to the story and other information we don't know about. I am glad they all worked it out, that is the bottom line :thumbsup

I highly doubt that ATK (or any other program for that matter) would be forced to pay for content that they never ordered or didn't want...based on a post here at GFY. I don't think Kim would have any issues telling someone he's not paying for something that he didn't order or does not want.

there is always two sides of a story, i was not intending to imply that the scenario i described was indeed the "other side of this story", merely saying that it could be..

i know a couple content buyers and all the shit people send them and all the crap they have to hear about day after day... i for one would not want their job.

I must say you nick does seem to go in line in how you work and behave (even if in your advantage in some cases). You seem to be a great guy to work with though :thumbsup

:error:error:error I spend on average $3000 a day on shooting. That's what quality work costs. So to add profit to that $5k would not be totally unreasonable for one days work. i know 98% of the web sites out there buy ghetto crap, but there still is a few quality sites that need pro content. :2 cents:


Been following this thread, and I am glad to see there is some resolution.

hahahaha :helpme

lol:1orglaugh

That post says more about BVF than he realises. $14,000 is nothing to a big sponsor. To a little guy it sounds a lot.

Great advice. We only survived because we diversified into Internet content provider, a lot of my mates in the business who did not are suffering. Then we only survived because we went into the paysite market. A lot of those who did not are regretting it.

Diversify.

Exactly.

I doubt many will be shooting for ATK for "payment on delivery" in the future. Those who do are welcome. Of course ATK should not be commissioning so much either. Let's cut the BS and talk straight, clearly ATK cannot afford to pay and have been avoiding paying some. Even when pushed they can only do a payment plan.

Whose fault is it they ordered content they could not afford, the buyer or seller?

Another version of the story COULD also be that ATK is working on some big projects (mentioned earlier in the thread), the content was misplaced (mentioned earlier in the thread) so the invoices was disregarded (problem with communication, mentioned earlier in this thread), for whatever reason it may be ATK might not have the time to review all the content right away (I'm guessing it is not a small order) so they agree to pay ½ "upfront" rigth away and the rest once they reviewed and approved the content.

We are getting close to year-end, especially bigger companies needs to handle their tax-writeoffs, employees go on vacation, likely there is more than just 1-2 companies that need to revise their structures etc etc etc

Whatever the reason is congrats to the winners and good to see things are being worked out :2 cents:

Get off of my nuts...I have no reason to pay 14,000 for content period because I shoot my own....And when it comes to the web, you're even more "little" than me.....

It would actually be MORE expensive if I paid in crack....also riskier as it would be embarrassing to get arrested for it because around here, they will lock you up for a blunt ROACH...

i would say stop speculating :2 cents:

this business usually works very easily: shooter sends models, client approves, client says what he wants, shooter shoots and pays model, props, location, makeup etc.
then shooter sends content, client checks, client pays. done.

there are NO reasons not to pay immediately as long as content was shot according to the specifications. because the shooter has already paid everything he needed to pay in advance and needs the money back. plus he needs money to live and to be able to do the next shoots.

end of discussion

That`s really lame.

business model for 2008: shooter sends models, client approves, shooter sends invoice, client send funds, shooter produces content, shooter delivers content, done.

This is pretty spot on, not to mention both people in this thread have made it clear they have shot for the program in question for a long period of time, so the program knows what they are getting, the quality of the work and such.

luckily i can rely on my existing clients (so far), but this is exactly what happens with new clients

That would be the ideal world obviously, unfortunately it does not always work that way, I'm not talking just with content but in general. I can totally relate to the photographer as our business model is very similar, we pay upfront to our clients and get paid months after by the telecoms so his scenario is far from unknown to me.
I'm not taking any sides as I don't know the full story behind, neither does anyone else on the board it seems so the entire discussion is based on speculations.
Keep in mind also that neither of us actually know if the content was shot according to the customer specifications, as the photographer mention there was some errors on both sides which obviously should have been resolved a long time ago.
Regardless of the reason it's good to see it's getting resolved :2 cents:

Very scary. They are not paying a few content providers over a long period of time and now instead of clearing the debts they are going for payment plans. God forbid they start missing out on affiliates. Or is it only content providers who fell through the cracks?

Pretty lame excuses are abundant here.

The last place you will find me is on your nuts. The thought has made me queasy!! :1orglaugh.

As for you being bigger than me on the Net, I saw you at a show once and I would say you are bigger than most on the Net. :1orglaugh

The Internet is just part of my business. :winkwink:

You leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Deal?

Compared to a scrawny old man hunched over with osteoporosis, ANYBODY would look large to you....

Great it all work out a payment plan made:thumbsup