Home » Blogs » JasonK's blog
» Explanation of Payment Delays

Explanation of Payment Delays

Submitted by JasonK on 19 Aug 2009

There have been recent comments around the internet regarding Plimus’ decision to delay payment to some vendors. Financial matters can be a sensitive issue and, understandably, the idea of receiving a partial payment will upset some. However, our decision to deliver only partial revenue for a standard scheduled payout is rooted in the interest of security and we have specific protocols in place to protect the interests of all related parties: vendors, customers, affiliates as well as ourselves as a company.

Please note: we delay payments for specific and purposeful reasons. There is a method to our madness, so to speak, and we do not randomly select accounts for this occurrence. If you are experience this issue, be assured that there’s a good reason for it and we’re more than willing to discuss this matter individually.

There are several factors that may prompt us to withhold funds partially or even completely. Some of these are outlined as follows:

• Elevated refund or chargeback levels: If a vendor has high refund or chargeback rates, we’ll hold some funds to protect customers in case of future refunds.
• Significant revenue declines in the last cycle: Similarly to the above case, we may hold funds in this situation to protect customers in case of future refunds.
• Past fund withholdings, for which identified resolution metrics have not yet been met: Occasionally, some vendors who’ve already been through this process may again enter this course of action if predefined criteria has not been met.
• Insufficient or unclear revenue history and purchase patterns: Vendors with sporadic or unclear revenue histories make it difficult for us to predict future revenue. As a result, we may hold some funds in case of future refunds and chargeback’s regardless of their previous levels.

This may not be an ideal solution for some. However, we stand behind the policy even if it means that some unhappy clients will vocally and publicly disagree. We openly accept this criticism, but we do ask that you contact us directly with any issues you may have requiring discretion. After all, there are actual people behind the Plimus name and as previously stated, we really are open to criticism, willing to listen, work with you to define common resolutions, learn and grow with every situation in order to provide a superior ecommerce experience.

Respectfully,

Jason Kiwaluk
Affiliate Network Manager
email: jasonk(at)plimus.com
Skype: yowasuphomeboy

I'd like to comment on the

Submitted by swbrains on 29 Sep 2009.

I'd like to comment on the payment withholding policy. While this hasn't happend to me (yet), I am concerned regarding the "Elevated refund or chargeback levels" metric.

Please be aware that for those of us vendors offering services, there is often an offer of a refund for unused portions of the customer's term of service. For example, in the case of web hosting, most hosts will require payment up front, but offer a refund of the unused time if the customer cancels before the end of their term, which may be monthly, quarterly or annually. In the case of annual contracts, there is a fairly significant opportunity for customers to cancel within a 12-month period. So, theoretically, in these types of services, you could have a refund percentage that's quite high in terms of customers being issued refunds, while the refunded amount may be significantly less than the actual fees charged overall. I dont think this metric should be weighted the same for those vendors offering recurring services as it is for those selling a product. If half of the customers purchasing a tangible product want a refund, that could represent a problem with the vendor's product or follow-up service. However, in the case of subscription services, refunds to half of that vendor's customers could be considered quite normal.