Re The New Policy Updates and Collaborative and Original Content 13 pages: First ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13
Posted: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 1:49:40 AM
vivendulies wrote:
Besides even a Watermark as annoying as zazzles is for todays software no challenge. It is literally just a finger tip. This is a $20 ipad app. For $50 you get the functionality on any PC or mac from this software house.

Actually, if the watermark is large and consistent enough, it can be pretty time-consuming to get rid of it in a clean print-quality manner. These inpainting tools/apps work more or less decent under ideal conditions, but you don't really need them if you already have professional software at your disposal, such as Photoshop or Photopaint, what does the job as well if not better due to the more sophisticated tools you have. But I agree, you can get rid of watermarks with some time and effort, depending on how good the output must be and what/how much you have to uncover. Not that it matters in the end, thieves don't care about real output quality, so either approach works for them.
Posted: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 7:17:44 AM
I agree with @VivenDulies that the risk of stolen images/art/assets is neither greater or smaller than pre-Create.

There are two other factors that play in for me: (1) The mindset of users is different when they believe they are on a download site and (2) the new terms, as written and in my opinion, give a thief more weight in a copyright fight over my own works.

Related to (1), I went looking for a particular method of stealing ONLY because I see how Create works. I found it Monday, and I emailed Pro Support. Haven't heard back. I can have a high-res compilation or single asset (if uploaded by Designer that way) or customized compilation or base compilation and then add text after I upload it back to Z. And I'm not even a high-level geek.

I can see that the reason I am able to image grab is related to something instituted by Z some time ago. But THAT feature itself didn't make me think to look where I did - Create's download functionality did. "If this works like that, then… " Mindset.

Having seen copied designs promo'd by Z even and recently dealt with MP theft, not happy about the revelation. My recent situ was a nonprofit organization that I'm sure copied out of ignorance. But that's the mindset - I can, so I will. Is that a "worst case"? No. But it's pretty high up there for me.

Disclaimer: You know this disclaimer holds no legal weight, right? Just like forum posts…
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:10:54 PM
I am bumping this thread only to remind Z people that though it looks like the hassle is over, it is not, and no one forgot about all the concerns raised. The designers are waiting for the answers, and tomorrow is Friday so it would be nice to hear from you. Thank you!
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:35:21 PM
vivendulies wrote:

I feel so underappreciated ... Sad I know I'm not Disney ... but as a collective we are just as important if not more important ...

"HTML Source Code Create tool" wrote:
No use of Disney Parks and Resorts, including but not limited to Disneyland, Disney World, Epcot Center, etc.\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\t\t\t\u003cli\u003eNo text that may violate the integrity and reputation of the brands represented or Zazzle\u003c/li\u003e\r\n\t\t\u003c/ul\u003e","zi_partner_DisneyShopping_Guidelines_FinePrint


Apparently they put some thought into create tool abuse, didn't they.


yes it looks that way, Shocked
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:28:51 PM
WittyBetty wrote:
I am bumping this thread only to remind Z people that though it looks like the hassle is over, it is not, and no one forgot about all the concerns raised. The designers are waiting for the answers, and tomorrow is Friday so it would be nice to hear from you. Thank you!


I'm in the process of updating the OP to include all those posts with 'questions' (different to those already posted in OP) to make answering them hopefully easier for admin as well as being a convenient summary for designers with the odd 'answer' thrown in.
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2019 7:04:56 PM
SquirrelHugger wrote:
NikolaTigerDesigns wrote:


Nope. Zazzle could pay out of their cut, or charge the customer extra, and let us keep our entire royalty.


I don't have a problem with giving away free stuff, especially if it's an opt-in program ... but I strongly disagree with forcing others who don't choose to opt-in to pay for it. If you see value in giving away freebies, then do so, but give it away for FREE. But not as part of a revenue-sharing arrangement over which others have no say or choice.


+1

Fuzzy Felosarix wrote:
- If they want to add something from another designer's "Create" offerings, make that an upcharge, and give the "Create" designer some portion of the upcharge instead.

But do not take it from my royalty. I didn't do less work.


^^This^^ I, personally, do not like the idea of having to give up 25% of my royalty to another designer because a customer decided to use that other designer's element to add to my design. However, I don't think this will happen all that often, or at least I'm hoping that will turn out to be the case, so I will continue to leave customization on for all of my products, since I don't want to limit myself in terms of sales.



PawsitiveDesigns wrote:
vivendulies wrote:


Just a little side note:

"zazzle designer license terms 11/22/2019" wrote:

You represent that:

● You are the owner of the Content or that the Content is in the public domain;

● You have the legal right grant this license to Zazzle and to enter into this Agreement;


Doesn't work with licenses that forbid explicit the download either because it creates a conflicting clause with the download permission.



Well then, that's quite clear. It appears that either a lot of designs are about to be deleted from Zazzle or there will be a lot of Zazzle designers in violation of the ToS. Sad.


I'm thinking that the above quote from the upcoming ToS refers only to images by Designers that are uploaded into Create for customers to use for adding on to our designs. I don't think our designs that are currently in the marketplace are subject to this, are they? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Those images uploaded by designers into Create for the customer's use have to be the designer's own original designs. They can't take something from Pixabay, for example, and upload it to Create, but that same image from Pixabay (as long as it was posted there prior to Jan. 1, 2019 when they no longer are allowing use of the images as-is) can be used to make a design we can post for sale in the marketplace. I think I have that right.

Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
After all is said and done the simple solution remains, give us opt outs and let us make our own choices. I don’t understand why that even has to be said.


I couldn't agree with more on that, Shelli, although when it comes to collaboration, I believe we have a choice on whether or not we want to enter into one, if I'm understanding that correctly. The other things we don't have a choice in the matter (25% of our royalty being given to the secondary content designer if a customer adds secondary content to our designs; whether or not we want to have chat, etc.)
Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2019 8:25:26 PM
Karen Coffelt wrote:

PawsitiveDesigns wrote:
vivendulies wrote:


Just a little side note:

"zazzle designer license terms 11/22/2019" wrote:

You represent that:

● You are the owner of the Content or that the Content is in the public domain;

● You have the legal right grant this license to Zazzle and to enter into this Agreement;


Doesn't work with licenses that forbid explicit the download either because it creates a conflicting clause with the download permission.



Well then, that's quite clear. It appears that either a lot of designs are about to be deleted from Zazzle or there will be a lot of Zazzle designers in violation of the ToS. Sad.


I'm thinking that the above quote from the upcoming ToS refers only to images by Designers that are uploaded into Create for customers to use for adding on to our designs. I don't think our designs that are currently in the marketplace are subject to this, are they? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Those images uploaded by designers into Create for the customer's use have to be the designer's own original designs. They can't take something from Pixabay, for example, and upload it to Create, but that same image from Pixabay (as long as it was posted there prior to Jan. 1, 2019 when they no longer are allowing use of the images as-is) can be used to make a design we can post for sale in the marketplace. I think I have that right.


It has to spell it out when it means that and it doesn't. So no, it applies to all content you upload.

Please, read the terms carefully and if you have trouble to understand something ask the attorney of your choice, who represents your interests and yours alone.

Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 12:13:13 AM
You're not giving up 25% or ANY % if you haven't sold anything and wouldn't without the change.

If your design attracted a buyer because of its fabulous image, why would someone 'replace' it or add another 'whole image'? They wouldn't.

They'd have to substantially alter your creation (making it unrecogniseable) to lose 25% of your royalty, in essence saying your design was not at all what they wanted to begin with.

I have polled my brides and they have confirmed in a majority if a design is 99% what they want they will order it ... UNLESS there is a FREE edit option for the remaining 1%. A small % of brides would pay for the 1% edit.

But ... the majority won't make changes if the design is 'mainly' what they are looking for.

Those of you who do 'complete and perfect and finished' designs are unlikely to encounter anyone wanting an edit. Those of you who just happen to be in the right place at the right time and they're just using your 'product' as a base for 'their own design' then yes ... there will be a carve out and yes ... you woudn't have made a sale without it.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 1:09:49 AM
LeahG wrote:
[...]

Those of you who do 'complete and perfect and finished' designs are unlikely to encounter anyone wanting an edit. Those of you who just happen to be in the right place at the right time and they're just using your 'product' as a base for 'their own design' then yes ... there will be a carve out and yes ... you woudn't have made a sale without it.


This is an assumption which isn't based in reality. Yes some might not have bought it without the option others would have and it is always a fact that you pay for the secondary content. That is just math and accounting and contract law.

Anything else is lying oneself in the pocket.

Once the program is up and running and you have representative data from before and after you can start to talk bottom line, not before.

And no your anecdote is not proof of anything. It is just an anecdote.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 2:11:53 AM
Quote:
in the right place at the right time


How many times has one heard those words after a catastrophic event?

How ironic to see them here.

Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 2:19:45 AM
To me the point is not whether secondary content is added or whether my design would have sold without it. It is the idea that I should pay for the extras instead of being paid extra for them as has always been the practice in the past.


Should the designers of this secondary content be paid? Yes.

Should I have to pay them? No.

If I go to a restaurant and order a side dish it cost me extra. They don’t make the chef pay for it.

Let me just add too The this carve out cannot be compared to a referral carve out. The secondary design did not bring the customer to me. They were already on my design. In fact my design is what is causing them to add the secondary content so maybe I should get the carveout and who should pay that?
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 2:51:11 AM
This carve out is the equivalent of asking us to pay the designer of the icons every time an icon is used.

Or to pay extra to the font designer for text being added to our design.

If Z wants to charge extra for these things then they should add the extra cost to the buyers price like every body else in the world does.

Secondary content should be no different.





Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 2:52:01 AM
I see where a royalty split / cut off may be justified this way (the sale wouldn't have happened without an element added from the Create). But, first of all, it's still an assumption because what if the customer would happily buy that product without that element and added it only because it was here and it was free?

Charging DESIGNERS for elements that are shared for free download is an insane idea. Remove free download and charge a customer, and you get a normal situation. A customer wants an element, a customer pays $1, there is no problem in this scheme, there is nothing to justify, it is not questionable, it is simple and people are already used to it, everyone is happy.

Why Z decided to reinvent the wheel and came up with this super questionable scheme, is beyond me.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 2:53:42 AM
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:

The secondary design did not bring the customer to me. They were already on my design. In fact my design is what is causing them to add the secondary content so maybe I should get the carveout and who should pay that?


THIS!
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 3:45:51 AM
My take on this is... many of us designers do not really like the fact that customers can customize our designs, because we do not know what they will do with it. Yet, we allow this so that there will be more sales. This is also the strength of zazzle, that opposed to items you see in a store, you can personalize the products if you like and the fact that we the designers allow this, is the fact that has made Zazzle such a succes.
I feel with the shared royalty, we the designers are now penalized for being so nice that we allow our designs to be modified. I think we should get the royalty we have set for the product. If Zazzle wants to earn more (or has to pay for them) for extra items that a customer adds or replaces our designs, they can just charge the customer for that. This should not be taken out of our royalty, in my opinion.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:13:37 AM
vivendulies wrote:
LeahG wrote:
[...]

Those of you who do 'complete and perfect and finished' designs are unlikely to encounter anyone wanting an edit. Those of you who just happen to be in the right place at the right time and they're just using your 'product' as a base for 'their own design' then yes ... there will be a carve out and yes ... you woudn't have made a sale without it.


This is an assumption which isn't based in reality.

Once the program is up and running and you have representative data from before and after you can start to talk bottom line, not before.

And no your anecdote is not proof of anything. It is just an anecdote.


It is based in reality, research has been carried out and those of us who have customers contact them for edits, KNOW they wouldn't have bought the item without the edit.

And those of us who have been able to 'see' the product the customer created (minus any tweaking from ourselves) using our design can often see an end result that looks nothing at all like what we created.

I can see this myself via the review photos customers submit. Members of my group occassionally post pics (from their reviews) of how the customer has 'shredded' their design making it unrecognisable. It is always 'interesting' to see.

If you have a lot of reviews and some with photos .. have a look.

Thank you for 'your' assumption.

Next ...

You're all repeating the same false logic and are unwilling to listen to reason so I won't repeat myself further ... can lead a horse to water ...



Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:25:31 AM
LeahG wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
LeahG wrote:
[...]

Those of you who do 'complete and perfect and finished' designs are unlikely to encounter anyone wanting an edit. Those of you who just happen to be in the right place at the right time and they're just using your 'product' as a base for 'their own design' then yes ... there will be a carve out and yes ... you woudn't have made a sale without it.


This is an assumption which isn't based in reality.

Once the program is up and running and you have representative data from before and after you can start to talk bottom line, not before.

And no your anecdote is not proof of anything. It is just an anecdote.


It is based in reality, research has been carried out and those of us who have customers contact them for edits, KNOW they wouldn't have bought the item without the edit.

And those of us who have been able to 'see' the product the customer created (minus any tweaking from ourselves) using our design can often see an end result that looks nothing at all like what we created.

I can see this myself via the review photos customers submit. Member of my group occassionally post pics (from their reviews) of how the customer has 'shredded' their design making it unrecognisable.

Thank you for 'your' assumption.

Next ...

You're all repeating the same false logic and are unwilling to listen to reason so I won't repeat myself further ... can lead a horse to water ...





Sorry but it sounds to me like you drank the koolaid.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:26:22 AM
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
LeahG wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
LeahG wrote:
[...]

Those of you who do 'complete and perfect and finished' designs are unlikely to encounter anyone wanting an edit. Those of you who just happen to be in the right place at the right time and they're just using your 'product' as a base for 'their own design' then yes ... there will be a carve out and yes ... you woudn't have made a sale without it.


This is an assumption which isn't based in reality.

Once the program is up and running and you have representative data from before and after you can start to talk bottom line, not before.

And no your anecdote is not proof of anything. It is just an anecdote.


It is based in reality, research has been carried out and those of us who have customers contact them for edits, KNOW they wouldn't have bought the item without the edit.

And those of us who have been able to 'see' the product the customer created (minus any tweaking from ourselves) using our design can often see an end result that looks nothing at all like what we created.

I can see this myself via the review photos customers submit. Member of my group occassionally post pics (from their reviews) of how the customer has 'shredded' their design making it unrecognisable.

Thank you for 'your' assumption.

Next ...

You're all repeating the same false logic and are unwilling to listen to reason so I won't repeat myself further ... can lead a horse to water ...





Sorry but it sounds to me like you drank the koolaid.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:27:39 AM
LeahG wrote:
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
LeahG wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
LeahG wrote:
[...]

Those of you who do 'complete and perfect and finished' designs are unlikely to encounter anyone wanting an edit. Those of you who just happen to be in the right place at the right time and they're just using your 'product' as a base for 'their own design' then yes ... there will be a carve out and yes ... you woudn't have made a sale without it.


This is an assumption which isn't based in reality.

Once the program is up and running and you have representative data from before and after you can start to talk bottom line, not before.

And no your anecdote is not proof of anything. It is just an anecdote.


It is based in reality, research has been carried out and those of us who have customers contact them for edits, KNOW they wouldn't have bought the item without the edit.

And those of us who have been able to 'see' the product the customer created (minus any tweaking from ourselves) using our design can often see an end result that looks nothing at all like what we created.

I can see this myself via the review photos customers submit. Member of my group occassionally post pics (from their reviews) of how the customer has 'shredded' their design making it unrecognisable.

Thank you for 'your' assumption.

Next ...

You're all repeating the same false logic and are unwilling to listen to reason so I won't repeat myself further ... can lead a horse to water ...





Sorry but it sounds to me like you drank the koolaid.

no need to quote me, I wasn't thinking about deleting it.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:27:48 AM
James

The part of the new terms where users can't insult each other https://forum.zazzle.com/feedback/re_the_new_policy_updates_and_collaborative_and?m=1684616#1684616

Please address in the absence of a 'block'.

I check the forums to see valid feedback not 'bickering and backbiting'.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:29:17 AM
LeahG wrote:
James

The part of the new terms where users can't insult each other https://forum.zazzle.com/feedback/re_the_new_policy_updates_and_collaborative_and?m=1684616#1684616

Please address in the absence of a 'block'.


not meant as an insult, just making an observation.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:36:41 AM
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
LeahG wrote:
James

The part of the new terms where users can't insult each other https://forum.zazzle.com/feedback/re_the_new_policy_updates_and_collaborative_and?m=1684616#1684616

Please address in the absence of a 'block'.


not meant as an insult, just making an observation.


koolaid (we don't have it in the UK) but if it causes hyperactivity, I believe the person posting on every thread, every day (almost every minute) would qualify for the 'koolaid' comment so perhaps take a closer look at those persons (as oppose to myself who is still trying to allay fears and 'help) and maybe you'll see what many of the rest of us (who don't post on this forum regularly and many not at all because of certain hyperactive trolls) see.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:52:33 AM
LeahG wrote:
If your design attracted a buyer because of its fabulous image, why would someone 'replace' it or add another 'whole image'? They wouldn't.

Because they can. I've seen people modify in a way I would describe as unattractive, regularly. I don't care if they do. But I shouldn't pay extra for it.

LeahG wrote:
They'd have to substantially alter your creation (making it unrecogniseable) to lose 25% of your royalty, in essence saying your design was not at all what they wanted to begin with.

They have to add an Image or illustration which qualifies. Nothing says it has to be big or design altering.

LeahG wrote:
I have polled my brides and they have confirmed in a majority if a design is 99% what they want they will order it ... UNLESS there is a FREE edit option for the remaining 1%. A small % of brides would pay for the 1% edit.

Which is great, but we don't all sell to brides. That makes this the same as asking Democrats what Republicans would do, in my opinion.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 5:59:20 AM
LeahG wrote:
You're all repeating the same false logic and are unwilling to listen to reason so I won't repeat myself further ... can lead a horse to water ...

Yes, people are repeating their points in response to new posts, including you. With respect, your logic is no more or less true or false than theirs.

Somewhere in the marketing of this, people were persuaded to participate. One presumes that's to make money. In that case, based on currently known facts, and logically, it can't be both that you will earn lots while we spend little.

Just joining the dots.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 6:34:59 AM
LeahG wrote:
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
LeahG wrote:
James

The part of the new terms where users can't insult each other https://forum.zazzle.com/feedback/re_the_new_policy_updates_and_collaborative_and?m=1684616#1684616

Please address in the absence of a 'block'.


not meant as an insult, just making an observation.


koolaid (we don't have it in the UK) but if it causes hyperactivity, I believe the person posting on every thread, every day (almost every minute) would qualify for the 'koolaid' comment so perhaps take a closer look at those persons (as oppose to myself who is still trying to allay fears and 'help) and maybe you'll see what many of the rest of us (who don't post on this forum regularly and many not at all because of certain hyperactive trolls) see.



Just for clarity,

"Drinking the kool aide" or saying someone has "drunk the Kool aide" is a phrase that is often used to say that someone has hopped on board with the new program, or agreed to the new way of doing things or the new policies, etc.

It is interesting how a misunderstanding can happen based on location and cultural "norms."
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 7:00:55 AM
LeahG wrote:

koolaid (we don't have it in the UK) but if it causes hyperactivity, I believe the person posting on every thread, every day (almost every minute) would qualify for the 'koolaid' comment so perhaps take a closer look at those persons (as oppose to myself who is still trying to allay fears and 'help) and maybe you'll see what many of the rest of us (who don't post on this forum regularly and many not at all because of certain hyperactive trolls) see.

Koolaid = Jonestown

You're a Pro. A real Pro not someone who, like me, has just happened to sell enough to be called one (though in about 2 years I would be silver, a long time but I never promote). I have a different feeling about my designs than you do. Every time you soft pedal things with how your polls go I get the urge to make sure Zazzle knows everyone is not in agreement with you or wants the same as you, and if they can't/won't accommodate there will be losses. Not because it's not legal to use my designs that way, but because I don't want it. If you want to play with my pics go to Pixabay except I have a very different name there.

I've already started putting products elsewhere despite their interface being very difficult for me (my fault, old and tech deficit) and the available products miniscule compared to Zazzle.

I just want to make sure Zazzle is aware of the repercussions from all of us.

d

eta JB beat me lol
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 7:41:47 AM
Type type type... delete delete delete.

I hereby officially step back from the forum. Enjoy the bickering and biting, 'Zazzle designer community members'. I pass.
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 10:18:35 AM
Hi all, we try to foster a positive atmosphere on this forum so please be courteous and respectful to other members and adhere to the rules of this forum. There is some great feedback in this thread and we are working to address all of your concerns so lets please keep things on topic and we'll get through this together! Thank you. Have a great weekend too!!! Smile
Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 12:49:42 PM
LeahG wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
LeahG wrote:
[...]

Those of you who do 'complete and perfect and finished' designs are unlikely to encounter anyone wanting an edit. Those of you who just happen to be in the right place at the right time and they're just using your 'product' as a base for 'their own design' then yes ... there will be a carve out and yes ... you woudn't have made a sale without it.


This is an assumption which isn't based in reality.

Once the program is up and running and you have representative data from before and after you can start to talk bottom line, not before.

And no your anecdote is not proof of anything. It is just an anecdote.


It is based in reality, research has been carried out and those of us who have customers contact them for edits, KNOW they wouldn't have bought the item without the edit.

And those of us who have been able to 'see' the product the customer created (minus any tweaking from ourselves) using our design can often see an end result that looks nothing at all like what we created.

I can see this myself via the review photos customers submit. Members of my group occassionally post pics (from their reviews) of how the customer has 'shredded' their design making it unrecognisable. It is always 'interesting' to see.

If you have a lot of reviews and some with photos .. have a look.

Thank you for 'your' assumption.

Next ...

You're all repeating the same false logic and are unwilling to listen to reason so I won't repeat myself further ... can lead a horse to water ...



FYI I worked in the field of custom design for customer in a 1:1 basis.

Your conclusion is still wrong since you do not take into account that your design is the initial factor for the customer to act upon. So clearly it is the other way round. The secondary content designer wouldn't have sold anything without the primary content designer.

You write yourself in your survey that close enough will result in a sale. So your survey tells you that the primary content designer is the deciding factor and with exceptions will still sell. I highly doubt your survey is conclusive enough to actually give any indication whether or whether not the bottom line afterwards will lessen the impact.

Your repetition that the royalty doesn't come out of the primary designers income is so plain wrong. Just do yourself a favor and start wording it so it is factual.

What you are talking about is the bottom line in relation to sales numbers.

But even then you would need a data pool to compare it to the scenario where customers can add secondary content and pay extra with different price models to conclusively tell anything about the bottom line and which is the making more money for the primary content designer, who in the current model is footing the bill.

As to your statement about fear and help. You are hardly helping, since the data to draw conclusions from is not yet in and won't be for months so that seasonal fluctuation don't obscure the result.

Every time somebody expresses his disagreement with zazzles solution you repeat a false statement based on an anecdote of a football and now a survey where you state and I quote:

LeahG wrote:
I have polled my brides and they have confirmed in a majority if a design is 99% what they want they will order it ... UNLESS there is a FREE edit option for the remaining 1%. A small % of brides would pay for the 1% edit.


So this tells you, they look for the best fit (99%), before even considering any edits. That is MP competition and normal. It also tells you that the primary content is the deciding factor.

I have data from a POD, where large parts of MP products are edited and people pay for every item they add. So clearly your survey is not reflecting what is actually happening out in the world.

When RoyK_is_a_She told you not everybody sells to brides, she really told you, your subset of data is insufficient for your conclusion.

And I say your conclusion is slightly off.


Again the payment comes from the primary designer. That is math, accounting and contract law. That is a fact. Your own survey confirmed, the deciding factor comes from the primary design.

EDIT:


Last but not least: labeling a response a fear response doesn't mean it is a fear response or that it causes fear.
Assuming that expressing a disagreement is causing fear that need to be addressed with spin is presumptuous.

When I call your take on the matter a spin, than it is mainly caused by your outright false statement, that the money is not coming out of the pocket of the primary content designer, which you made repeatedly.

It is a false statement and you know it, since you try to explain it away with another assumption, that the editing part is a deciding factor, when survey also concluded that it can be a distraction (this came from a pod after they changed their mp radically, my guess they actually made a representative study with scientific data and not just what? a dozen, two dozen, less or a few more brides?). Some proSeller don't offer customizing elements on all of their items because they have feedback to that effect.

EDIT II:

Too much choice

"usabilitygeek.com" wrote:
Too much choice will lead to indecision and lower sales.
In a study of jam consumers were more likely to buy
when offered 6 jams (40%) than when offered 24 jams (3%).

Consumers also reported more buying satisfaction.

Source: https://usabilitygeek.com/psychology-web-design-influence-choice/

So since the nature of zazzle is a 24 jams site, we already have a 3% situation and we are now adding choice to the inside of the create tool, which already had basic shapes and icons as well the connection to various image sources and upload options.

Your assumption that it will lead to more sales is just that, an assumption. If the jam situation translates will have to be seen. At the moment any assumption that it will lead to less because of too much choice is just that, it is an assumption.


Posted: Friday, November 1, 2019 3:08:34 PM
I polled my email history, and the consensus is that a tweak here or there wouldn't have hindered a sale among my non-brides. I sell some regional designs where it's expected that people will request a significant change, but the changes they request of me is something I need to provide for them.

vivendulies wrote:
Your conclusion is still wrong since you do not take into account that your design is the initial factor for the customer to act upon. So clearly it is the other way round. The secondary content designer wouldn't have sold anything without the primary content designer.

This seems valid.

Disclaimer: Nothing to see here.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
Print this topic
RSS Feed
Normal
Threaded