u/Left_Lobster1843

Went through the settlement databases this week and filed everything I qualified for. These are open right now, sorted by deadline.

Derick Dermatology pays up to $75 per household to anyone who visited their website, no proof required. Deadline: July 21.

Cosequin pays $25 per unit up to $150 per household to California residents who bought their dog joint supplements, no receipts needed. Deadline: July 21.

Barefoot Dreams pays $8 flat through PayPal, Venmo, or Zelle to US shoppers on their site between October 2023 and June 2026. You need the ID and PIN from your notice. Deadline: July 31.

Nutricost pays up to $20 per household to buyers of their magnesium glycinate, no proof required. Deadline: August 7.

Google Assistant pays up to $178 per household from a $68M fund if you bought a Google Home or Nest Hub or used Assistant. No proof, and there are two claim types you can combine. Deadline: August 27.

FitOn pays up to $10 per household to app users covered by the video privacy claim, no proof required. Deadline: August 31.

Circle K pays up to $50 per household for their data incident, but only to people who received the notification letter. Deadline: September 3.

Labcorp pays around $50, or up to $5,000 with documented losses, to patients whose data went through AMCA between August 2018 and March 2019. You need the notice ID and PIN. Deadline: September 3.

Disney YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream pays about $50 per household from a $50M fund to subscribers between April 2019 and March 2026, no receipts needed. Deadline: September 8.

Every claim files on the official administrator site in 5 to 10 minutes. Some get checked against company records, so only file the ones that apply to you.

You guys are welcome.

the tools got better. the credibility got worse. teams now have multi-touch models, AI agents pulling reports, dashboards that update in real time. and the quarterly pipeline review is still a fight between sales, marketing, and finance about whose number is real.

their VP of RevOps eventually said the actual issue out loud. nobody had defined what "sourced" versus "influenced" meant inside the company. so every team interpreted the same data differently and every report became evidence for whoever was presenting it. the platform wasn't broken. the definitions underneath it were.

the teams who solved this didn't buy better software. they spent a week getting sales, marketing, and finance to agree on five definitions before they touched a tool. it was the least exciting work and the highest leverage.

for anyone running multi-touch attribution longer than a year, did it actually settle the credibility argument or just give you fancier slides for the same fight?

i'd been deep in a Highspot vs Mindtickle bake-off, treating it like a feature comparison, convinced our reps just didn't have the right material to close. then i actually sat through a stack of our own calls. the content was fine. reps had everything they needed and still fumbled it, blew the discovery, froze on objections, talked right past the buyer. it was never a content problem. it was a skill problem. and that one thing made the whole decision for me, because these two tools aren't really competitors, they answer two completely different questions. Highspot exists to make sure your reps have the right thing to say and can find it the second they need it, content, guided selling, surfacing what actually works. Mindtickle exists to make sure your reps are any good at saying it, onboarding, coaching, role-plays, practicing before they're live on a real deal. so the question was never "which platform is better," it was "when my team loses a winnable deal, is it because they didn't have the right material or because they didn't know how to use it." we had the material, so we went Mindtickle. a team of sharp closers drowning in disorganized content would've been just as obviously Highspot, and neither call would've been wrong. (one heads-up if Highspot's on your shortlist, it's mid-merger with Seismic right now, so weigh that before you commit.)

Did UGC on 5 platforms last month and actually tracked each one instead of lumping it together. The gap between them was bigger than I thought so here's the honest breakdown.

Billo: $210. Steady but the briefs are rigid and pay per video is capped low. Fine for volume, bad for upside.

Collabstr: $340. Two deals, both flat fee. Decent for landing brand names you recognize but you're competing with everyone and prices keep getting undercut.

Bounty: $1,180. This was the surprise. It's per-view and they now have a paid ads side where you earn off the brand's ad spend, so a couple of my videos kept earning after I posted them instead of being one-and-done. Most of this came from two videos that brands scaled.

Insense: $290. Solid platform, professional brands, but slow. Application to payout took weeks and a lot of briefs never moved.

JoinBrands: $180. Random small stuff, not worth building around.

Total was about $2,200. A year ago that would've been split evenly across flat fees. Now most of it comes from the one platform where the work keeps paying instead of stopping the second I hit submit.

Friction worth saying: the per-view/ad-spend stuff is variable. One month a video pops, the next nothing scales and the number drops. It's not a salary. If you need predictable money the flat-fee platforms are steadier, just lower ceiling.

bounty.app Code for bounty if anyone wants it: 0I5PPIH3

What's everyone's split looking like? Still mostly flat fee or is it shifting?