@Datagirl wrote:
I'm not tired of shopping, I'm tired of fighting for my life with these editors to get my shops approved. I think in this past month, I have had more rejections than in the past 3 years! Maybe its me, I don't know.
I did a debrand, have done many of these before and I have always cropped my photos a bit to give them a better picture. This editor said absolutely no cropped photos and rejected my shop without giving me an opportunity to correct. Ok, whatever, I let it go, wasn't worth the $30 to fight it. Job gets reposted for $100, I grab it, re-do it, was sure not to crop anything. It got kicked back to me asking for additional photos. Seriously? Ok, I went back out, I took all of the photos requested, uploaded. Rejected. No notes as to why, no reason given, no email sent. I mean, I am not an idiot, at least I don't think so!
I emailed the scheduler to let her know, I have more pics, happy to try and rectify so you have a report you can use.
Some editors are just so easy to work with and others just suck!
@energyboost wrote:
As a former editor and longtime forum reader, I would like to say "these shoppers wore me out." When I was editing a lot of shoppers miss things they consider minor, but the client does not. There seems to be this preconceived notion that editors like to return shops or exclude/reject shops, and that is just not true. It is in no one's best interest to reject a shop because it costs the editor money, the company has to re-shop it, and the shopper is pissed off. No one wins in this scenario. NO ONE. In what world does rejecting a shop benefit anyone? I have edited for three companies over about five years total. All the companies offer a very low rate for excluded shops (.25c-.50c) as compared to $2-3 for an accepted shop. The editor having to chase a shopper down for the correct picture, which they may not even have, is costing the editor money because they are spending time trying to get into contact with the shopper or make the correction so they can accept the shop. In this scenario, if a required photo is not turned in, the editor has spent time hand-holding the shopper to get the correct picture, only to reject the shop and receive little compensation. Honestly, yes, there are some bad editors out there. Remember, editors are dealing with hundreds of shoppers a day. Overall, the complaints I am reading on these forums are just that, complaints. Shoppers would always ask an editor to accept something "this one time," not realizing that could put the editor's job at risk because the shopper did not follow the guidelines. When writing these posts, people should remember that editors often read them. They, too, are people just trying to make a living. Lastly, I always wished shoppers would take pride in their work. Some shoppers don't proofread or use spell check and then expect the editor to fix it. Take pride in the work you do. Editors and schedulers know the shoppers who turn in good-quality work. Those shoppers are often approached first with bigger bonuses or extra work before the shops are placed on the board. Merry Christmas, everyone, and thanks for listening!
@shopperbob wrote:
In that some, if not most, editors are ICs, what if the problem is the MSC? What if they, the editors, are only relaying mandates from the companies?
@French Farmer wrote:
I'm still trying to understand your original post regarding the editor responding that cropped photos are not allowed.
You aren't saying which shop this refers to.
I say this because I have done debrand shops and have cropped photos, resized them etc. Never had that response from an editor.
However, if I'm wondering if this was a BP shop that you reused a photo, already submitted, that was then cropped.
Now, that was the original complaint that I wish the new poster who says they were once an editor could have least have given an idea of the response.