Second Content 9 pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 8:35:26 PM
Part of the reason I am very upset about this is the fact that in order to avoid being forced into this mess I have to remake 4.5 years worth of work, lose all my stats and turn off customization which also makes design transfer impossible.

Why? because Zazzle is not kind enough to make opt in the default position on new features or to enable editing of existing designs.

I can't understand why they would rather cause hard feelings than give us choices.

if it is "beta testing" well I am sorry but my license agreement says nothing about me having to be an unwilling test subject.

Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:03:24 PM
­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Part of the reason I am very upset about this is the fact that in order to avoid being forced into this mess I have to remake 4.5 years worth of work, lose all my stats and turn off customization which also makes design transfer impossible.

Why? because Zazzle is not kind enough to make opt in the default position on new features or to enable editing of existing designs.

I can't understand why they would rather cause hard feelings than give us choices.

if it is "beta testing" well I am sorry but my license agreement says nothing about me having to be an unwilling test subject.



Shelli

This is meant as a suggestion to help you decide which way you lose the least because as you stated you lose the time that you have aleady invested, the stats you have earned, and now the time it takes to remake. That all has value. So why don't you give sales two weeks or a month to see how many sales you make include second content and how much you lose in $$$ to second content. If that $$$ amount is high enough to warrant losing the previous time invested, the stats, and the time it will take to remake products then do it.
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:18:26 PM
MarBethHolidays wrote:
­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Part of the reason I am very upset about this is the fact that in order to avoid being forced into this mess I have to remake 4.5 years worth of work, lose all my stats and turn off customization which also makes design transfer impossible.

Why? because Zazzle is not kind enough to make opt in the default position on new features or to enable editing of existing designs.

I can't understand why they would rather cause hard feelings than give us choices.

if it is "beta testing" well I am sorry but my license agreement says nothing about me having to be an unwilling test subject.



Shelli

This is meant as a suggestion to help you decide which way you lose the least because as you stated you lose the time that you have aleady invested, the stats you have earned, and now the time it takes to remake. That all has value. So why don't you give sales two weeks or a month to see how many sales you make include second content and how much you lose in $$$ to second content. If that $$$ amount is high enough to warrant losing the previous time invested, the stats, and the time it will take to remake products then do it.


Thanks Marbeth, I do appreciate your suggestion. I have already been working on this for several weeks so I think if I just go at the pace I have been I will have time to see what happens and also to watch how it affects others. And hopefully see Zazzle make some changes to this program and charge the customers for it as it should be... or at least give us a better opt out option. But I seriously think if nothing changes I will not change my mind either and may have to take a loss for a while.
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:24:11 PM
­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
@ZAZZLE - Is there a procedure in place to confirm that Secondary Content is VISIBLE ON THE FINAL PRINTED PRODUCT in order for our Royalty reduction to occur?



I sure do not want to pay for invisible things... this will make gaming the system way too easy for the secondary providers.


Adding: I want to see what I am paying for.

Or better yet I don't want to pay for it. I want Zazzle to make the customer pay for it. How hard is that?


These questions need to be answered!

They needed to be answered right from the beginning but they have been ignored all this time.

We have to be able to keep records. Already our payment history is hard to keep track of with the bare bones information we have to work with.

You should have just given us the opt out and you still should.



+1
We need to be able to opt out. I was playing around, and there seems to be no way to delete a background except through clicking the undo button. How many customers will figure that one out or even care if they background is hidden by the primary original background image?

I don't want to have to redesign almost 5K products, and I want to be able to allow the customers to be able to customize to their heart's content, but not if I'm going to have to pay for them to add secondary content. I don't mind so much if the customer is adding it and can see it and like what they've added, but when they add something and it gets hidden by the primary background and can't figure out how to get rid of it or don't want to bother or even care, then I shouldn't have to pay for that.
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:29:10 PM
MarBethHolidays wrote:

Shelli

This is meant as a suggestion to help you decide which way you lose the least because as you stated you lose the time that you have aleady invested, the stats you have earned, and now the time it takes to remake. That all has value. So why don't you give sales two weeks or a month to see how many sales you make include second content and how much you lose in $$$ to second content. If that $$$ amount is high enough to warrant losing the previous time invested, the stats, and the time it will take to remake products then do it.

You forgot to include the impact of a potential loss of sales due to the lack of customization. I agree with you on testing out the waters first, before doing steps that may turn out in more harm than good. I'm not a friend of shared royalties either (it's not the designer's duty, plain and simple), but as always I suggest to never react prematurely without taking some time (and numbers) first to evaluate all pros and cons.
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:40:09 PM
Karen Coffelt wrote:

+1
We need to be able to opt out. I was playing around, and there seems to be no way to delete a background except through clicking the undo button. How many customers will figure that one out or even care if they background is hidden by the primary original background image?

I don't want to have to redesign almost 5K products, and I want to be able to allow the customers to be able to customize to their heart's content, but not if I'm going to have to pay for them to add secondary content. I don't mind so much if the customer is adding it and can see it and like what they've added, but when they add something and it gets hidden by the primary background and can't figure out how to get rid of it or don't want to bother or even care, then I shouldn't have to pay for that.

Dang. I didn't consider the issue of invisible/hidden backgrounds added by customers while playing around and which are then simply forgotten, leeching royalties for nothing. That's, indeed, a more than valid point. Like you, I mind less, if a customer sees the added secondary content, but having to share royalties for a hidden, forgotten background image, that exceeds the tolerable limits.
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:42:14 PM
PetsDreamlands wrote:
MarBethHolidays wrote:

Shelli

This is meant as a suggestion to help you decide which way you lose the least because as you stated you lose the time that you have aleady invested, the stats you have earned, and now the time it takes to remake. That all has value. So why don't you give sales two weeks or a month to see how many sales you make include second content and how much you lose in $$$ to second content. If that $$$ amount is high enough to warrant losing the previous time invested, the stats, and the time it will take to remake products then do it.

You forgot to include the impact of a potential loss of sales due to the lack of customization. I agree with you on testing out the waters first, before doing steps that may turn out in more harm than good. I'm not a friend of shared royalties either (it's not the designer's duty, plain and simple), but as always I suggest to never react prematurely without taking some time (and numbers) first to evaluate all pros and cons.


Text and image templates still work on the product page,but they canÔÇÖt access the design tool to change fonts or colors. But simple monograms and names should still sell

Another thing is since we never get to see the customized versions of our sales we have no data to compare data to other than sales fluctuations. There is no way to tell what causes sales to drop off or pick up so I am flying blind anyway.

Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:45:12 PM
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
ZingerBug wrote:
All right guys, just in case any of you are thinking that I'm evil for uploading backgrounds, I'll add my 2 cents. I have a huge library of textures, photos and backgrounds, which I released into the public domain years ago. Since they're readily available on the web, I figured if I didn't upload them here, someone else would. So if someone is going to benefit from uploading them as backgrounds, it might as well be me.

Please note that my public domain work is all over Zazzle products by other designers, and has been for years - which is totally fine - they're public domain after all, so hundreds of designers are already benefiting from my work, and I'm happy to make that gift to the artistic community. I just figured that since I'm here at Zazzle now, and since this backgrounds thing is going to happen anyway, I might as well be the one to upload them for that purpose. But you (and anyone else) are free to continue to use any of my public domain images on any and all products, just as you have always been. Just visit my public domain site and take what you want.

And in terms of royalties, I don't know how much I'm allowed to say, so I'll simply point you to the publicly available document on the subject. Note that backgrounds are considered "elements" not "images" (even if they're photos) so refer to the chart at the bottom for percentages when an element is added to an existing product. Now, remember that Zazzle rounds down... Suffice it to say, on the off chance that someone might add a background to your existing product, you really don't have much to worry about in terms of losing royalties.

I hope my little explanation helps to clarify a few things for you, including where I'm coming from in terms of participating in the program. I do sincerely wish each and every one of you a Merry Christmas (or happy mid-winter holiday of your choice), and the very best for a happy and successful new year.

You owe us nothing in the way of explanation, so it was nice that you took the time.

As for participating, everyone's gotta eat, and I get that more than I'm going to explain here - but Primary Content Designers shouldn't have to feed Secondary Content Designers, even "just a little bit" or "only 10%" or on an "off chance." That's not toward you, personally. Zazzle has made that choice for us, and there is no amount of justification that I can wrap my head around. Zazzle wanted to offer something and didn't want to pay for it themselves. There is way to much opportunity for gaming this thing which goes far beyond what a customer might do. I am sick to my stomach and angry about it all at the same time. Again, NOT toward you.

Merry Happy Mid-winter Holiday to you, as well.


I understand, as well, and I agree with RoyK that Zazzle should not be carving out these royalties from us to pay secondary content designers. I feel, as I know most of you guys do, that the customer should be charged a small upcharge fee for adding elements or images, that way everyone is happy. If not, then we should have the option to opt out of allowing the customer to add secondary elements and images to our designs.

I, myself, will be adding some secondary content in the near future, as God knows I could use the extra cash. I have literally thousands of photos that are taking up space in my computer's hard drive, and why not make some money on them? I'm pretty picky about which ones I will upload for my own designs, which leaves a lot of nice photos that others could be using.
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:46:36 PM
­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
I want you to get paid but not out of my pay.

Customers should be the ones paying you. or Zazzle... period


Exactly!
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 10:05:31 PM
JB Designs wrote:
@Roy - Oye! @Cols - Thanks for pointing this out. So upsetting


@Secondary Content Providers.

My holiday wish from you,

Please consider that many artists that utilize Z are actually starving artists. Many have turned to Z in hopes of earning a little extra to pay the bills, feed the kids, or keep the lights on. Their are many of you who have been quite successful.

Remember when you were just a beginner or pro designer? Every penny you get from another designer holds them back from advancing to the next level and being more successful. The few pennies you're paid from someone else royalty may stop someone from earning a volume bonus.

I don't for a minute believe that you had any real intention of "taking" from people who are struggling to get by, but by providing content for the secondary content program, you are.

I don't know what you knew about the program when you signed up for it, but as things have played out, Zazzle has facilitated a methodology where you earn from other designers. I ask you to check your moral compass. Do a gut check. Does this business model taste right in your mouth?

Tomorrow the forum will close for the holidays. Please take the holiday break to decide if you can really support this business model. If you find that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, then please remove your content.

We are all human here. We may have differing opinions, but we designers are what have made Zazzle such a great place. I personally support create, and I can stomach the ideas behind adding secondary content. Just not with the current business model. So I humbly ask you to step back and reconsider your involvement. Perhaps with your support, positive changes can be made to the program.

Thanks for reading.



Hmmmm... Now you have me rethinking about adding my photos for secondary content. You're right, I don't want to be robbing other designers of some of their due earnings.

ZAZZLE, THIS IS NOT RIGHT!
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 10:08:22 PM
Col's Creations┬ę wrote:
Ugh!!
Shocked Crying Sad
I just checked this out using my one & only wedding invitation which I designed with a solid color background the customer can easily change to any color they want. It isn't everyone's typical cup of tea but I worked hard on this wedding suite. And with this new selection of backgrounds from other designers to choose from - guess what happens? Once a background is chosen, down in the lower left where it says "Designer" - it changes to Designers plural with a +1 but it is the secondary designer's avatar there - me as the primary designer has been demoted to the +1 people have to bother to click to see!! Of all the issues people have with this new feature, THIS is what has pushed me over the edge to seething indignation.

And if you are in the backgrounds section and click the Info symbol over the background you choose (or any other one) - you're taken to the secondary designer's stuff - "Shop this art on x# of products" - plus "Similar Art" (which yields more by same secondary designer as well as others) so POOF - here's a customer in the design tool steps away from ordering YOUR design and just like that, Pfffftttt - there they go off to the secondary designer's other coordinated products instead of yours. From inside the design tool! It's like an ad for the other designer inside your design!

Leading a customer away from the original designer's work to another's from inside the Design Tool is just ridiculous - like competition isn't steep enough, now they're going to add this twist? But what really really gets my goat is the secondary designer taking over the designer credit panel where it is ever-visible without doing anything and the Primary Designer who put all the time & talent into the work being demoted to a "+1" people have to click to see!

I played around with numerous products by numerous designers tonight and it's always the same - Primary Designer always becomes the lowly +1.
Crying Sad


You're right! I hadn't noticed that we become a hidden +1. Shocked

Just so you know, though, if you choose a solid color background, those are not elements or images that ding your royalty. They are provided by Zazzle. Check it out and see. They are not secondary content.
Posted: Thursday, December 19, 2019 10:41:00 PM
Col's Creations┬ę wrote:
...But what really really gets my goat is the secondary designer taking over the designer credit panel where it is ever-visible without doing anything and the Primary Designer who put all the time & talent into the work being demoted to a "+1" people have to click to see!

I played around with numerous products by numerous designers tonight and it's always the same - Primary Designer always becomes the lowly +1.
Crying Sad

Thanks for the hint. Tried myself on a product of mine, and indeed, as soon as you choose a secondary background image, the secondary designer profile icon shows up on the bottom left and the primary designer is declassed to a +1. What is absolutely wrong and makes no sense at all.

@Zazzle: the designer icon/link within the designer has to depict the primary designer, not any secondary one. That is pure common sense, implied by the terms "PRIMARY" and "SECONDARY" (designer). Apart from being a matter of respect towards the one designer who put the effort into creating and publishing the product design in the first place.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:00:10 AM
"be kind" just means "be quiet"

RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this exactly what somebody was saying before about the problem with secondary content being attached to our designer name.

Somebody uploads things that are rights violations as secondary content and a customer adds it to our design then this questionable content goes out with our name on it.

And to add insult to injury, Zazzle wants us to pay for it.

This is unacceptable.

+1

The "be kind" way Zazzle could permit us to protect ourselves from having our content commingled with content which violates is an opt-out for customization on Published Products. The unkind way is for us to have to recreate/republish.

The "be kind" way to handle the cost is for Zazzle and/or the customer to pay for that content, since we did nothing to deserve Royalty reductions.

Additional point: In-progress sharing should be disabled for anything with Secondary Content on it to avoid (1) copyright violations being associated with the Primary Designer and (2) abuse via hidden elements for the purpose of "earning" Royalty.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 1:35:11 AM
Karen Coffelt wrote:
­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
@ZAZZLE - Is there a procedure in place to confirm that Secondary Content is VISIBLE ON THE FINAL PRINTED PRODUCT in order for our Royalty reduction to occur?



I sure do not want to pay for invisible things... this will make gaming the system way too easy for the secondary providers.


Adding: I want to see what I am paying for.

Or better yet I don't want to pay for it. I want Zazzle to make the customer pay for it. How hard is that?


These questions need to be answered!

They needed to be answered right from the beginning but they have been ignored all this time.

We have to be able to keep records. Already our payment history is hard to keep track of with the bare bones information we have to work with.

You should have just given us the opt out and you still should.



+1
We need to be able to opt out. I was playing around, and there seems to be no way to delete a background except through clicking the undo button. How many customers will figure that one out or even care if they background is hidden by the primary original background image?

I don't want to have to redesign almost 5K products, and I want to be able to allow the customers to be able to customize to their heart's content, but not if I'm going to have to pay for them to add secondary content. I don't mind so much if the customer is adding it and can see it and like what they've added, but when they add something and it gets hidden by the primary background and can't figure out how to get rid of it or don't want to bother or even care, then I shouldn't have to pay for that.


+1

Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:00:24 AM
Zingerbug

I am hoping that your holidays haven't been diminished.


Now, please read this carefully. I agree that Zazzle should have found a way to implement this idea without deciding the designers should pay the bill.


Designers should also not have to remake products to opt out.


The secondary designer should also be secondary and be the +1

No cutouts should be taken for hidden secondary content

However, I am not in agreement with what happened to Zingerbug. His/her name was recognized and posted. At this point, he/she is the only one. I thought we weren't supposed to call out other designers. I hope no list is being created.

I am afraid I see Zingerbug's point. He/she has shared backgrounds at no charge. So they are public domain. As I understand it apparently anybody could add Zingerbug's designs to the new tool since they are public domain and the rest of us would pay for their use. If anyone is going to get the cutout for those backgrounds, I would rather it go to Zingerbug than somebody who took advantage of Zingerbug's generosity.


Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 3:19:16 AM
I didn't have high hopes that all the new changes would be resolved because if Zazzle was really interested in increasing their bottom line then they would expand their demographic to include all possible customers. I have seen commercials for CafePress, vistaprlnt, Esty, Redbubble on TV so they aren't eliminating certain age groups in their promotions????

I immediately raised my royalty for everything to 30% despite the fact that I'd had different royalties depending on the item and its base price.


Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 3:23:11 AM
I was looking at one of my publish products. It is a 5"x7" invitation and my artwork (which is locked) is rectangle in shape and covers completely the printed area guidelines but not the entire canvas of the design tool which is a square so you can still see the grayed pattern squares of the canvas on the left and right side.

So if say a customer was just exploring and checking out the new secondary content backgrounds (not because they actually want it to be on the invitation) they could see them appear on the left side and right side of the artwork (which covers only the printed area). If the customer then accidentally buys the invitation with this secondary content background still selected or maybe they just didn't bother removing it since it would not actually appear on the printed product hence it would make no difference to the customer anyway. However, it would make a difference to the original designer of a product because design credit is still given to the secondary content designer and the original designer's royalty is cut just because a customer might have forgotten to remove a secondary content that while is on the design tool canvas, is not on the printed area.

Once again, I request for an ability to DISABLE/OPT OUT of secondary content on products we design.

It is unfortunate that this is launched right before forum hiatus as it may be forgotten with whatever surprises might come after. I hope that other designers who want a DISABLE/OPT OUT of secondary content continue to reiterate their request when the forum reopens.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 5:59:03 AM
NStudio wrote:
I was looking at one of my publish products. It is a 5"x7" invitation and my artwork (which is locked) is rectangle in shape and covers completely the printed area guidelines but not the entire canvas of the design tool which is a square so you can still see the grayed pattern squares of the canvas on the left and right side.

So if say a customer was just exploring and checking out the new secondary content backgrounds (not because they actually want it to be on the invitation) they could see them appear on the left side and right side of the artwork (which covers only the printed area). If the customer then accidentally buys the invitation with this secondary content background still selected or maybe they just didn't bother removing it since it would not actually appear on the printed product hence it would make no difference to the customer anyway. However, it would make a difference to the original designer of a product because design credit is still given to the secondary content designer and the original designer's royalty is cut just because a customer might have forgotten to remove a secondary content that while is on the design tool canvas, is not on the printed area.

Once again, I request for an ability to DISABLE/OPT OUT of secondary content on products we design.

It is unfortunate that this is launched right before forum hiatus as it may be forgotten with whatever surprises might come after. I hope that other designers who want a DISABLE/OPT OUT of secondary content continue to reiterate their request when the forum reopens.


We may be forced to send emails or maybe this would be a good reason to use the new chat...
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 6:32:30 AM
Doubtless, the chat line will light up, but remember that it's not totally private.

I'm truly disturbed by the notion of my designs being compromised and having to pay for the privilege. I don't care if it's no more than pennies on the dollar. Sometimes principles ride above all else.

I still can't imagine why they didn't stick to the plan they implied when soothing our concerns, which was for all the additional freebies to be part of Create, not the regular design surface. I was even thinking about offering up some freebies just for the fun of it. It's not a thought anymore. Principles are important, ethics are important.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 7:18:48 AM
Colorwash wrote:
Doubtless, the chat line will light up, but remember that it's not totally private.

I'm truly disturbed by the notion of my designs being compromised and having to pay for the privilege. I don't care if it's no more than pennies on the dollar. Sometimes principles ride above all else.

I still can't imagine why they didn't stick to the plan they implied when soothing our concerns, which was for all the additional freebies to be part of Create, not the regular design surface. I was even thinking about offering up some freebies just for the fun of it. It's not a thought anymore. Principles are important, ethics are important.


multiple +1's

And credit for primary designer

d
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 7:20:32 AM
JB Designs wrote:

@Secondary Content Providers.

Remember when you were just a beginner or pro designer? Every penny you get from another designer holds them back from advancing to the next level and being more successful.

Just randomly clicking through them, it would appear that most of the backgrounds have been submitted by bronze level designers. Some of them have no bro badge at all. There are a few gold and silver levels peppered in there but I mostly see bronze. So, apparently they won't need to remember back too far.

Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 7:57:29 AM
There are patterned Backgrounds which should've been set up to be properly centered and tiled which weren't. As the Primary Designer, I am unable to edit those Backgrounds or adjust positioning and neither is the customer. Only the Secondary Designer is able to do that?

It looks like the same applies for making a background larger or smaller - one size fits all; take it, leave it, or hope the secondary is available and willing to assist.

Then there's the one that was placed in the bottom left corner of the design canvas and not set to tile.

Also, there are text pairings which appear under Similar Art in the Designer pop-up (because of keywords?) which may be added as a BACKGROUND, since we are in the Background panel, and then can't be edited. You know... like monograms and names.

Doesn't seem to be very well thought out.

Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:12:11 AM
Karen Coffelt wrote:
And if you are in the backgrounds section and click the Info symbol over the background you choose (or any other one) - you're taken to the secondary designer's stuff - "Shop this art on x# of products" - plus "Similar Art" (which yields more by same secondary designer as well as others) so POOF - here's a customer in the design tool steps away from ordering YOUR design and just like that, Pfffftttt - there they go off to the secondary designer's other coordinated products instead of yours. From inside the design tool! It's like an ad for the other designer inside your design!

Leading a customer away from the original designer's work to another's from inside the Design Tool is just ridiculous - like competition isn't steep enough, now they're going to add this twist? But what really really gets my goat is the secondary designer taking over the designer credit panel where it is ever-visible without doing anything and the Primary Designer who put all the time & talent into the work being demoted to a "+1" people have to click to see!

I played around with numerous products by numerous designers tonight and it's always the same - Primary Designer always becomes the lowly +1.
Crying Sad

Also, the pop-up after clicking the "i" dot includes the Message button to contact the Secondary Designer with no indication that the Primary Designer exists. When a customer says "I need help with your blue cat design," and we wonder what the heck they are talking about, that's going to be fun.

In any event, if the Secondary Designer is willing to assist, they have the opportunity to move them to email and get the Referral too. And it's not that I begrudge them that for their extra time and effort, but as the PRIMARY Designer, why would that opportunity not be mine?

Then add to that if the customer needs assistance with a PRIMARY design element - different color, modification of text converted to a graphic, etc. - the Secondary Designer wouldn't be able to assist with that.

Seems like preventing the customer from getting into the Design Tool is the most user-friendly option. Not well thought out.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:20:54 AM
Some of the backgrounds could be easily created with shapes. And yes, the customer has no control over the BG placement.

Looking at it objectively, I see it more as a distraction to our customers. It's too much and somewhat frustrating. If a customer lands on a product page that they were initially interested in and then they get caught in the labyrinth of secondary content, they may become frustrated, forget what brought them there and X out. It's not very intuitive and certainly not necessary.

Zazzle limited the apparel line because of "too many choices" yet they justify this?

In the Create tool there are shapes with static wording that cannot be changed. Many of them are first names and surnames and titles. Those have been in there for a long time now. Has anyone even tested the functionality of this stuff?

Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:22:28 AM
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
Karen Coffelt wrote:
And if you are in the backgrounds section and click the Info symbol over the background you choose (or any other one) - you're taken to the secondary designer's stuff - "Shop this art on x# of products" - plus "Similar Art" (which yields more by same secondary designer as well as others) so POOF - here's a customer in the design tool steps away from ordering YOUR design and just like that, Pfffftttt - there they go off to the secondary designer's other coordinated products instead of yours. From inside the design tool! It's like an ad for the other designer inside your design!

Leading a customer away from the original designer's work to another's from inside the Design Tool is just ridiculous - like competition isn't steep enough, now they're going to add this twist? But what really really gets my goat is the secondary designer taking over the designer credit panel where it is ever-visible without doing anything and the Primary Designer who put all the time & talent into the work being demoted to a "+1" people have to click to see!

I played around with numerous products by numerous designers tonight and it's always the same - Primary Designer always becomes the lowly +1.
Crying Sad

Also, the pop-up after clicking the "i" dot includes the Message button to contact the Secondary Designer with no indication that the Primary Designer exists. When a customer says "I need help with your blue cat design," and we wonder what the heck they are talking about, that's going to be fun.

In any event, if the Secondary Designer is willing to assist, they have the opportunity to move them to email and get the Referral too. And it's not that I begrudge them that for their extra time and effort, but as the PRIMARY Designer, why would that opportunity not be mine?

Then add to that if the customer needs assistance with a PRIMARY design element - different color, modification of text converted to a graphic, etc. - the Secondary Designer wouldn't be able to assist with that.

Seems like preventing the customer from getting into the Design Tool is the most user-friendly option. Not well thought out.


I hope it is just not well thought out... otherwise it turns into a deliberate unfair advantage to the secondary content designer.

I want to give Z the benefit of the doubt... but doing this now when they can go weeks without answers and nothing we can do about it...

That part does seem well thought out.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:38:44 AM
Karen Coffelt wrote:
[quote=RoyK_is_a_She][quote=ZingerBug]
I, myself, will be adding some secondary content in the near future, as God knows I could use the extra cash. I have literally thousands of photos that are taking up space in my computer's hard drive, and why not make some money on them? I'm pretty picky about which ones I will upload for my own designs, which leaves a lot of nice photos that others could be using.

I'd love to do it, too. But I just don't know how. I also have a million photos and textures. And this would be at least a small compensation for future losses.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 9:08:34 AM
Funcards wrote:
Veronika2V wrote:
Karen Coffelt wrote:
[quote=RoyK_is_a_She][quote=ZingerBug]
I, myself, will be adding some secondary content in the near future, as God knows I could use the extra cash. I have literally thousands of photos that are taking up space in my computer's hard drive, and why not make some money on them? I'm pretty picky about which ones I will upload for my own designs, which leaves a lot of nice photos that others could be using.

I'd love to do it, too. But I just don't know how. I also have a million photos and textures. And this would be at least a small compensation for future losses.

You would be participating in really bad businesspractice though and the only reason Zazzle can do this to designers is because people are giving their images to them.


Yes, and it's sad. But it's also sad that there's been a debate here for two months on the topic, and Zazzle has't done anything to protect our sales.
This Innovation broke all the foundations of normal sales.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 9:17:24 AM
MarBethBoutique wrote:

I am afraid I see Zingerbug's point. He/she has shared backgrounds at no charge. So they are public domain. As I understand it apparently anybody could add Zingerbug's designs to the new tool since they are public domain and the rest of us would pay for their use. If anyone is going to get the cutout for those backgrounds, I would rather it go to Zingerbug than somebody who took advantage of Zingerbug's generosity.


I'm afraid I do not see it this way..... He/she made a decision at some point in time to make all of those images public domain - that decision apparently was not undertaken without some consideration on their part about the business implications.

They can most certainly use their own images here to make money - by selling a designed product with that image on it, but I agree with Roy K. that those images - and any public domain images - should be kept out of the backgrounds because of the way Zazzle has implemented the pay schedule, even if it is very small, it amounts to charging a licensing fee for something that has been declared to be 'free'. If the up charge were to the customers, it would be legal (at least right now..... this could change as there is still a court case pending over the issue), but in essence it's very much like Getty allowing you to 'buy' rights to a public domain image from their website, you're welcome to do it even if it's foolish, but when a second party designer is charged for the use it's just not right - they did not go there and knowingly purchase anything, much less a license to use something that is already free.

Even with images that are not CC0 or public domain this is messy..... Zazzle is basically setting up a micro stock library here. It should never be the designer who is paying the 'licensing' fee, unless they are the ones who've chose to use the image on their product - and this is impossible - if I add third party content to one of my items I can no longer sell it. When it is the customer doing this choosing they should definitely be the ones who are paying for it, not the heedless designer who never asked to have someone else's work combined with theirs.

Again this is a situation where Zazzle appears to have not considered all of the details and implications before rolling it out as a feature.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 9:33:05 AM
Invincible Penguin wrote:
MarBethBoutique wrote:

I am afraid I see Zingerbug's point. He/she has shared backgrounds at no charge. So they are public domain. As I understand it apparently anybody could add Zingerbug's designs to the new tool since they are public domain and the rest of us would pay for their use. If anyone is going to get the cutout for those backgrounds, I would rather it go to Zingerbug than somebody who took advantage of Zingerbug's generosity.


I'm afraid I do not see it this way..... He/she made a decision at some point in time to make all of those images public domain - that decision apparently was not undertaken without some consideration on their part about the business implications.

They can most certainly use their own images here to make money - by selling a designed product with that image on it, but I agree with Roy K. that those images - and any public domain images - should be kept out of the backgrounds because of the way Zazzle has implemented the pay schedule, even if it is very small, it amounts to charging a licensing fee for something that has been declared to be 'free'. If the up charge were to the customers, it would be legal (at least right now..... this could change as there is still a court case pending over the issue), but in essence it's very much like Getty allowing you to 'buy' rights to a public domain image from their website, you're welcome to do it even if it's foolish, but when a second party designer is charged for the use it's just not right - they did not go there and knowingly purchase anything, much less a license to use something that is already free.

Even with images that are not CC0 or public domain this is messy..... Zazzle is basically setting up a micro stock library here. It should not necessarily be the designer who is paying the 'licensing' fee, unless they are the ones who've chose to use the image on their product - and this is impossible - if I add third party content to one of my items I can no longer sell it. When it is the customer doing this choosing they should definitely be the ones who are paying for it, not the heedless designer who never asked to have someone else's work combined with theirs.

Again this is a situation where Zazzle appears to have not considered all of the details and implications before rolling it out as a feature.



My opinion is that Zingerbug should not have had to worry about their images being uploaded to Zazzle's mistake/toy/tool by someone else. The items available should be original content. So Zingerbug should not be the one under attack. Zazzle is responsible.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 9:36:57 AM
MarBethBoutique wrote:
Invincible Penguin wrote:
MarBethBoutique wrote:

I am afraid I see Zingerbug's point. He/she has shared backgrounds at no charge. So they are public domain. As I understand it apparently anybody could add Zingerbug's designs to the new tool since they are public domain and the rest of us would pay for their use. If anyone is going to get the cutout for those backgrounds, I would rather it go to Zingerbug than somebody who took advantage of Zingerbug's generosity.


I'm afraid I do not see it this way..... He/she made a decision at some point in time to make all of those images public domain - that decision apparently was not undertaken without some consideration on their part about the business implications.

They can most certainly use their own images here to make money - by selling a designed product with that image on it, but I agree with Roy K. that those images - and any public domain images - should be kept out of the backgrounds because of the way Zazzle has implemented the pay schedule, even if it is very small, it amounts to charging a licensing fee for something that has been declared to be 'free'. If the up charge were to the customers, it would be legal (at least right now..... this could change as there is still a court case pending over the issue), but in essence it's very much like Getty allowing you to 'buy' rights to a public domain image from their website, you're welcome to do it even if it's foolish, but when a second party designer is charged for the use it's just not right - they did not go there and knowingly purchase anything, much less a license to use something that is already free.

Even with images that are not CC0 or public domain this is messy..... Zazzle is basically setting up a micro stock library here. It should not necessarily be the designer who is paying the 'licensing' fee, unless they are the ones who've chose to use the image on their product - and this is impossible - if I add third party content to one of my items I can no longer sell it. When it is the customer doing this choosing they should definitely be the ones who are paying for it, not the heedless designer who never asked to have someone else's work combined with theirs.

Again this is a situation where Zazzle appears to have not considered all of the details and implications before rolling it out as a feature.



My opinion is that Zingerbug should not have had to worry about their images being uploaded to Zazzle's mistake/toy/tool by someone else. The items available should be original content. So Zingerbug should not be the one under attack. Zazzle is responsible.


Zingerbug uploaded their own original content into the tool here. Content that she added onto her own site as free public domain. The point being made here is that no primary designer should then pay for someone else putting that content to use here.

Zingerbug, please do not feel I am attacking you. I am not. If you feel attacked by me I do apologize.
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