Second Content 9 pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 9:43:26 AM
I am amused to hear about the poor alignment, unchangeable text, etc. I probably shouldn't admit it because it shows my wicked side and Zazzle won't like it. However, I expected that the designs would be original work by the best Zazzle designers and would be juried by Zazzle. What a way to damage their reputation. If this is what they are allowing, I wouldn't tout it if I was them.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 9:47:11 AM
MarBethBoutique wrote:
I am amused to hear about the poor alignment, unchangeable text, etc. I probably shouldn't admit it because it shows my wicked side and Zazzle won't like it. However, I expected that the designs would be original work by the best Zazzle designers and would be juried by Zazzle. What a way to damage their reputation. If this is what they are allowing, I wouldn't tout it if I was them.


I can't help but wonder if content providers are aware of how their content is appearing when placed. Do they just submit their work and leave everything else up to Zazzle or do they control placement, etc, before Zazzle adds it to the content?
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 10:10:35 AM
MarBethBoutique wrote:
I am amused to hear about the poor alignment, unchangeable text, etc.


This doesn't come as a big surprise.... the 'background' tool has been available for a while now... I was really wondering why in the world it was implemented, because it seemed rather useless. You cannot tile in it, you cannot change the size the elements, etc.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 10:11:55 AM
Gina ┬ęgleem wrote:
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.


I agree that no primary designer should pay for secondary content.

What I am saying is that Zazzle should not be allowing public domain art to be uploaded as secondary content, period. Since Zazzle is allowing it, then I would rather see the original artist get the money rather than some lazy, uncreative person, who is running around grabbing and loading public domain images.

Somebody posted Zingerbug's name and it caused a mild lynching. Zingerbug shoud never had to worry that someone else woul do it. It didn't sit well with me.

I don't understand the point of having designers apply, if you are not going to see that the images are original, exclusive, and well done but if you remember that is one of the things I got in trouble for early on. Stating that I thought all the art on Zazzle should be completely original. Now Zazzle creates this new feature makes designers apply and then allows them to upload public domain images. I am just saying if I end up paying for it at least Zingerbug is the original artist.

Makes me remember that before we came here, we were on FAA. There were artists in the forum making comments about designers taking photographs applying graphic effects and calling it art. We decided that we weren't good enough for FAA. The whole designer application process made me think that Zazzle was looking for the top designers. Guess not.




Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 10:22:53 AM
MarBethBoutique wrote:

I agree that no primary designer should pay for secondary content.

What I am saying is that Zazzle should not be allowing public domain art to be uploaded as secondary content, period. Since Zazzle is allowing it, then I would rather see the original artist get the money rather than some lazy, uncreative person, who is running around grabbing and loading public domain images.

Somebody posted Zingerbug's name and it caused a mild lynching. Zingerbug shoud never had to worry that someone else woul do it. It didn't sit well with me.

I don't understand the point of having designers apply, if you are not going to see that the images are original, exclusive, and well done but if you remember that is one of the things I got in trouble for early on. Stating that I thought all the art on Zazzle should be completely original. Now Zazzle creates this new feature makes designers apply and then allows them to upload public domain images. I am just saying if I end up paying for it at least Zingerbug is the original artist.


I also thought Zazzle was looking for original content and would not allow any public domain content (uploaded by original artist), public domain (uploaded by anyone that downloaded it), etc. I am sorry to see that Zingerbug was singled out. I do not know if Zingerbug and any other Pro Seller (including Gold level) are/were aware that by uploading content which could be used by customers would come at the expense of other designers. If it was/is known, then I am disappointed. If it wasn't/isn't, I wonder if those providers would still provide once finding out. I am just glad I do not allow customization. And I hope & pray that my choice to not allow it will never be overridden by TPTB at Zazzle.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 10:38:04 AM
I guess I must have missed where @Zingerbug was called out. I saw where s/he posted here in this thread and that's what responded to. But there are dozens of Designers who've been uploading in Create for weeks. Most identities are not a secret.

Regardless, for myself, I am NOT saying anything @Zingerbug did is "wrong." Not at all. We all have a right to make money from our work.

I am not even saying public domain shouldn't be in Backgrounds or Create. Not my decision to make. If a Pixabay or Unsplash artist wants to upload their stuff, that, again, is their right.

I am not even saying I don't want that stuff on my Designs. As long as it isn't inflammatory, racist, violent, infringement, etc. (in line with the Terms). If a customer loves what I consider ugly, have at it!

What I object to is being forced to pay for it out of my earnings and the potential for MY Stores/brands/name to be associated with copyrighted material via in-progress sharing. The fact that I see it as hugely frustrating to customers based on the factors I mentioned above combined with lack of availability of assistance to fix problems is just icing.

Honestly, I am just flabbergasted that Zazzle doesn't see the potential to let Primary Designers select those items and AGREE to sharing earnings. Secondary uploads Background, selects their own Royalty Rate, and Primary decides if they want to add it. Publish. Customer gets it free. THIS is a win/win/win/win business model.

Instead, they do things I'd like to say but the Forum won't let me. It's just ridiculous.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 10:45:45 AM
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:


What I object to is being forced to pay for it out of my earnings and the potential for MY Stores/brands/name to be associated with copyrighted material via in-progress sharing. The fact that I see it as hugely frustrating to customers based on the factors I mentioned above combined with lack of availability of assistance to fix problems is just icing.


This^^ and add to that the huge potential to game it and the hijacking of attribution.

At best it is a bad idea that wasn't well thought out and shows how little designers are regarded here at Zazzle.

Adding: or how little Zazzle understands the designer community.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 10:53:31 AM
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:


What I object to is being forced to pay for it out of my earnings and the potential for MY Stores/brands/name to be associated with copyrighted material via in-progress sharing.


This! That is why I did what I did in my stores and now only add products that can't be customized. I have stated many times that my designs aren't elaborate, etc, but they are my designs and I don't want them messed with, especially at my expense!
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:16:42 AM
you know, the whole NDA thing was a red flag for me right from the start...

if Z didn't anticipate that this would not be well received then why all the secrecy?

and why no answers about how the payment reports will work etc...

it seems to me like we primary designers should be considered "need to know" but they treat us like they think it is none of our business.

so frustrating and irritating. and then ask us to be positive... ?
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:22:57 AM
­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:

Adding: or how little Zazzle understands the designer community.

That is the most disappointing aspect of the whole thing imho.

I honestly doubt that it will negatively effect most designers here directly. I honestly see no use for the backgrounds on published products. It seems more intended for customers to use for a from scratch product. But indirectly, it will. I think that it is going to have a huge negative effect on the platform as a whole.

Zazzle is pretty good about adjusting mistakes, or rescinding failed experiments. The more I look at it, the more it looks like a failed experiment. Hopefully Zazzle will use the experience to adapt this prototype into something that actually would be intuitive, fair and beneficial to the entire platform.

My biggest worry though, if this is going to be a permanent part of the platform, is that we will never know how our royalties are being "shared" and with who unless we have the statistics in our earnings. At this point we are going to need an aggregated summation of every single sale to understand what is happening to our royalties. It also seems that we need to now how this secondary content is being used on our published products for our own practices. If I am "sharing" my royalty I would like to know exactly to whom I am sharing them with and why.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:30:03 AM
Jerry, I loved your vision of turning this untoward idea into something that would be wonderful, not just for the designers, but also for customers. The same setup, but with only those backgrounds we've designed specifically for a product, giving customers a choice. It would work beautifully with grouping. Fun for us, fun for the customer, and without the sense that we've "been had."
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:30:36 AM
Jerry wrote:

My biggest worry though, if this is going to be a permanent part of the platform, is that we will never know how our royalties are being "shared" and with who unless we have the statistics in our earnings. At this point we are going to need an aggregated summation of every single sale to understand what is happening to our royalties. It also seems that we need to now how this secondary content is being used on our published products for our own practices. If I am "sharing" my royalty I would like to know exactly to whom I am sharing them with and why.


Yes! I totally agree with that. I want to see what I am paying for and who I paid for it.

forcing me to buy something, very much goes against my American mindset and is not sitting well with me at all.

I want itemized reports for my records

Adding: before somebody says " no one is forcing me to buy something"

Yes, yes Zazzle is... they are trying to force me to buy the extra content from the secondary designer so the customer can have it for free. Plain and simple. call it a royalty share...call whatever you want but it doesn't change what it is.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:47:19 AM
Colorwash wrote:
Jerry, I loved your vision of turning this untoward idea into something that would be wonderful, not just for the designers, but also for customers. The same setup, but with only those backgrounds we've designed specifically for a product, giving customers a choice. It would work beautifully with grouping. Fun for us, fun for the customer, and without the sense that we've "been had."

I think initially they might have been onto good idea and at some point it went off the rails, perhaps because lack of communication between departments and designers, and it became something else. They might be trying to do too much at once and it isn't being woven together properly.

I think that, for now anyway, they need to isolate all of the secondary content to the Create tool and leave them out of the design tool and abandon the royalty "sharing" idea. They need to better implement the Create tool for what it is intended, customers, and leave the design tool and customization options to the designer of the respective published products.

­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:

I want itemized reports for my records

Considering the royalty "sharing" situation, we need them.

Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 11:53:09 AM
So I misspoke in one of my comments earlier where I wrote of the elements that are in the element design tab in Create.

I was looking through the various tabs in Create, assuming that at some point they will be available in the design tool and found that almost all the new lines and shapes there are designed by Z and are royalty free. I hope that these get moved over soon and that we designers are allowed to use them. A welcome addition in my book.
---
@Jerry - When you look through many of the text parings and templates you will see more silver and gold level participants.
---
I do find it interesting that the highest level designers apparently looked at this idea and passed. Many thanks to them.

I too think that there are ways that this could end up being really cool. It is the business model that needs to change. Great idea, poor implementation, IMHO.

Dear Z, We support you and want to see success, for you and for us. Hoping to see some positive changes come the New Year.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:15:58 PM
JB Designs wrote:

I was looking through the various tabs in Create, assuming that at some point they will be available in the design tool and found that almost all the new lines and shapes there are designed by Z and are royalty free. I hope that these get moved over soon and that we designers are allowed to use them. A welcome addition in my book.

@Jerry - When you look through many of the text parings and templates you will see more silver and gold level participants.

I was referring to the design tool with the secondary content from designers. So far, all I see is the backgrounds and the icons in the design tool. I suppose that the backgrounds are considered secondary designer content. Again, I personally think all of that stuff should be exclusive to the Create tool.

I have experimented with some of the shapes in the design tool. The square and line comes in handy but without transparency options, they are limited in use. As for the Create tool, I have my own stars and hearts and ribbons and arrows etc. in my design inventory. The state shapes are cool but they have a static surname on them that can't be changed or removed. Unless your target demo is the Richards family, there is no use for those.

The way I see it is that the Create tool is for customers that want to feel like designers and the design tool is for actual designers who want to publish their design on products in the Zazzle marketplace. They are two separate tools for two different types of user and they should be treated as such, imho. .
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:36:20 PM
Funcards wrote:
To zazzle it doesn't matter what customers buy and from whom, or if it's fair to the original product creater, as long as they buy something.

So they probably have data of some customers leaving the customization tool without making a purchase, so this is a free solution for them which will probably lead to more sales for them.

For instance a customer is in the design tool, maybe has a hard time customizing, gets distracted by all these backgrouds that they can just put on a product and be done with it, so instead of leaving the tool without buying anything, they buy something with one of the background images.

So if this will give them more sales they will go ahead with it,no matter how we feel about it, IMO.

Have you been in the Design Tool? ;) I've left it without making a purchase, and it's not because I couldn't find a pattern I liked! It's frustrating.

I agree with what you're saying, but also the default is Customize ON > an indicator that it's Z's preference > meaning the data would point to that preference. I am not looking forward to re-creating everything and starting over, but I am planning on doing it, even if slowly, in addition to the 1500+ Products I've hidden already. That may reduce my sales figures but it reduces Zazzle's sales too. It's not a small number (to me anyway lol).

I noted elsewhere that Design Transfer accounts for 4% of my sales, and I hate to lose that, but if the estimate of 10% of sales being affected by Secondary is remotely accurate (and I don't have any evidence it is; I think it will be more), I'll take the loss of Design Transfer.

I expect there will be more people speaking up when they can't figure out why their Royalty is lower than expected. Right now, I fear we are still looked down upon as "the vocal few," despite that all we are trying to do is protect our earnings and rights to our works.

Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 1:00:21 PM
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:

Have you been in the Design Tool? ;) I've left it without making a purchase, and it's not because I couldn't find a pattern I liked! It's frustrating.


Haha, I know, that's what I mean! For some customers it can be frustrating and they will leave. But now... they might see the background images and start looking at that. And see all the products that can be created with them and might buy that instead of leaving withouth making a purchase.

It's just an example and ofcourse I don't know Zazzle's reasoning, but this is a scenario I can envision happening.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 1:18:52 PM
I could not figure out how to remove one of those backgrounds I accidentally put on a product while designing. I'm glad I finally figured it out. Wow! Don't like!
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 1:26:44 PM
camcguire wrote:
I could not figure out how to remove one of those backgrounds I accidentally put on a product while designing. I'm glad I finally figured it out. Wow! Don't like!

Yes, if it isn't immediately obvious to us, it sure isn't going to be obvious to the customer, and the customer won't even care if the background is being hidden by a layer above that fills the entire surface. Result? The designer will pay the background contributor for a background that can't be seen.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 1:44:18 PM
Colorwash wrote:
camcguire wrote:
I could not figure out how to remove one of those backgrounds I accidentally put on a product while designing. I'm glad I finally figured it out. Wow! Don't like!

Yes, if it isn't immediately obvious to us, it sure isn't going to be obvious to the customer, and the customer won't even care if the background is being hidden by a layer above that fills the entire surface. Result? The designer will pay the background contributor for a background that can't be seen.


This is unacceptable.

Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 1:47:34 PM
Colorwash wrote:
camcguire wrote:
I could not figure out how to remove one of those backgrounds I accidentally put on a product while designing. I'm glad I finally figured it out. Wow! Don't like!

Yes, if it isn't immediately obvious to us, it sure isn't going to be obvious to the customer, and the customer won't even care if the background is being hidden by a layer above that fills the entire surface. Result? The designer will pay the background contributor for a background that can't be seen.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. We might end up paying a designer for their background that isn't even visible in the design.

I just went and tested this. I opened a business card of mine that already has a background image. I added a background from the Bkground tab and nothing visibly changed at all. My instinct was then to click Done, taking me back to the product page.

So, if a customer gets curious and starts playing around in the design tool, we might end up paying other designers for nothing.

In light of this, we will also need data on any type of layer or element removal by the customer when we get hit with a royalty "share". We will need to know if our own backgrounds were actually removed.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 1:56:25 PM
Jerry wrote:
I think initially they might have been onto good idea and at some point it went off the rails, perhaps because lack of communication between departments and designers, and it became something else. They might be trying to do too much at once and it isn't being woven together properly.

I think that, for now anyway, they need to isolate all of the secondary content to the Create tool and leave them out of the design tool and abandon the royalty "sharing" idea. They need to better implement the Create tool for what it is intended, customers, and leave the design tool and customization options to the designer of the respective published products.

Amen

Dear Zazzle,

Before we close down for two weeks, I really wish you would rethink this. I don't like it. On so many levels. The biggest one may be the pitting of two groups of designers, the Primary Content people vs. the Secondary Content people, against each other. That's just cruel.

I don't like the forced royalty share for the addition of what may indeed be Free images, eventually Free font pairings I reckon, and possible downright stolen content. I don't like how easy it is to add a new Secondary Content background that may not even be visible to the customer because it slides in behind an existing background. Even if the customer is aware and wants to do the right thing, it's tough to figure out how to remove the dang Secondary Content background. I don't like how the Primary Content person becomes a footnote once the Secondary Content is added, and then they share the "Designed By" or "This product contains artwork by" attribution.

There's a lot that makes me uneasy about all of it. I am SO glad I did not apply to be a Create Tool Designer which would have in turn made me a now Secondary Content provider in the Marketplace Design Tool, shaving pennies off my fellow designer's products, with them not having the ability to say yes or no to it, if their posted product allows customization. All of mine do. Zazzle encouraged us to post products for sale that way, because customers love going in and tweaking. But now it's backfiring.

Dear Zazzle, you guys know how much I adore you. Please take the holiday break to ponder this. I just... I think it's not a good business model based on your history of supporting and uplifting your artists and designers. Now you have created, pardon the pun, two classes in the designer community. Those who take a share of the profit of others and those who don't. It makes me quite sad.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all and to all, a good night.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:09:09 PM
Funcards wrote:
+1 to all TheArtOfVikki said. Very well expressed, that's my feelings too.


Ditto That!
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:18:08 PM
­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:


Technically, true public domain images can be used for anything because there is no copyright.

Pixabay images however do have some restrictions in the license that says you must alter them in some way.

There must not be a vetting of the secondary content submissions...

and actually the text pairings were always using the same free Zazzle fonts that we have always had in the design tool, which I never liked the idea of having to pay for that either.


I understand what you are saying.

But these images are not in the public domain. No Zazzle shop owner should give them away for free.

Edit: yes, there must not be a vetting of these submissions.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:31:47 PM
TheArtOfVikki wrote:


Dear Zazzle,

Before we close down for two weeks, I really wish you would rethink this. I don't like it. On so many levels. The biggest one may be the pitting of two groups of designers, the Primary Content people vs. the Secondary Content people, against each other. That's just cruel.

I don't like the forced royalty share for the addition of what may indeed be Free images, eventually Free font pairings I reckon, and possible downright stolen content. I don't like how easy it is to add a new Secondary Content background that may not even be visible to the customer because it slides in behind an existing background. Even if the customer is aware and wants to do the right thing, it's tough to figure out how to remove the dang Secondary Content background. I don't like how the Primary Content person becomes a footnote once the Secondary Content is added, and then they share the "Designed By" or "This product contains artwork by" attribution.

There's a lot that makes me uneasy about all of it. I am SO glad I did not apply to be a Create Tool Designer which would have in turn made me a now Secondary Content provider in the Marketplace Design Tool, shaving pennies off my fellow designer's products, with them not having the ability to say yes or no to it, if their posted product allows customization. All of mine do. Zazzle encouraged us to post products for sale that way, because customers love going in and tweaking. But now it's backfiring.

Dear Zazzle, you guys know how much I adore you. Please take the holiday break to ponder this. I just... I think it's not a good business model based on your history of supporting and uplifting your artists and designers. Now you have created, pardon the pun, two classes in the designer community. Those who take a share of the profit of others and those who don't. It makes me quite sad.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all and to all, a good night.


Thank you +1

Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:35:24 PM
red_dress wrote:
I understand what you are saying.

But these images are not in the public domain. No Zazzle shop owner should give them away for free.

Edit: yes, there must not be a vetting of these submissions.

Depending on where the assets were purchased and the license in place at the time of purchase, it's entirely possible that the licensing allows for a digital download of a flat derivative work - including a pattern using the assets.

I'm not saying that is the case. I don't know whether it is. I'm saying it's a possibility because I've purchased assets which allow for this.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:36:40 PM
TheArtOfVikki wrote:
Dear Zazzle,

Before we close down for two weeks, I really wish you would rethink this. I don't like it. On so many levels. The biggest one may be the pitting of two groups of designers, the Primary Content people vs. the Secondary Content people, against each other. That's just cruel.

I don't like the forced royalty share for the addition of what may indeed be Free images, eventually Free font pairings I reckon, and possible downright stolen content. I don't like how easy it is to add a new Secondary Content background that may not even be visible to the customer because it slides in behind an existing background. Even if the customer is aware and wants to do the right thing, it's tough to figure out how to remove the dang Secondary Content background. I don't like how the Primary Content person becomes a footnote once the Secondary Content is added, and then they share the "Designed By" or "This product contains artwork by" attribution.

There's a lot that makes me uneasy about all of it. I am SO glad I did not apply to be a Create Tool Designer which would have in turn made me a now Secondary Content provider in the Marketplace Design Tool, shaving pennies off my fellow designer's products, with them not having the ability to say yes or no to it, if their posted product allows customization. All of mine do. Zazzle encouraged us to post products for sale that way, because customers love going in and tweaking. But now it's backfiring.

Dear Zazzle, you guys know how much I adore you. Please take the holiday break to ponder this. I just... I think it's not a good business model based on your history of supporting and uplifting your artists and designers. Now you have created, pardon the pun, two classes in the designer community. Those who take a share of the profit of others and those who don't. It makes me quite sad.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all and to all, a good night.

+1
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:39:28 PM
red_dress wrote:
­čî╝Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:


Technically, true public domain images can be used for anything because there is no copyright.

Pixabay images however do have some restrictions in the license that says you must alter them in some way.

There must not be a vetting of the secondary content submissions...

and actually the text pairings were always using the same free Zazzle fonts that we have always had in the design tool, which I never liked the idea of having to pay for that either.


I understand what you are saying.

But these images are not in the public domain. No Zazzle shop owner should give them away for free.

Edit: yes, there must not be a vetting of these submissions.


I don't know what type of licenses go with these images so I cannot comment on them but I can say that I do not want any images that are in violation of their rights attached to my designs or my name.

So I have no choice if this isn't changed and I want to stay but to convert over to non customizable products where the customer can't access the design tool.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:39:34 PM
Jerry wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. We might end up paying a designer for their background that isn't even visible in the design.

I just went and tested this. I opened a business card of mine that already has a background image. I added a background from the Bkground tab and nothing visibly changed at all. My instinct was then to click Done, taking me back to the product page.

So, if a customer gets curious and starts playing around in the design tool, we might end up paying other designers for nothing.

In light of this, we will also need data on any type of layer or element removal by the customer when we get hit with a royalty "share". We will need to know if our own backgrounds were actually removed.

This is how MANY Marketplace Products are set up. We used a "bottom layer" as a "background" covering the entire design space because the "Background" button/feature didn't exist. Every single Product created in this way is now subject to an errant addition for which we will lose earnings.

Public Domain images, font pairings (coming for sure), Elements (i.e. "shapes" also coming, no doubt) - all things people can get for free. Unless you're a Primary Designer.
Posted: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:52:34 PM
TheArtOfVikki wrote:


Before we close down for two weeks, I really wish you would rethink this. I don't like it. On so many levels. The biggest one may be the pitting of two groups of designers, the Primary Content people vs. the Secondary Content people, against each other. That's just cruel.

I don't like the forced royalty share for the addition of what may indeed be Free images, eventually Free font pairings I reckon, and possible downright stolen content. I don't like how easy it is to add a new Secondary Content background that may not even be visible to the customer because it slides in behind an existing background. Even if the customer is aware and wants to do the right thing, it's tough to figure out how to remove the dang Secondary Content background. I don't like how the Primary Content person becomes a footnote once the Secondary Content is added, and then they share the "Designed By" or "This product contains artwork by" attribution.

There's a lot that makes me uneasy about all of it. I am SO glad I did not apply to be a Create Tool Designer which would have in turn made me a now Secondary Content provider in the Marketplace Design Tool, shaving pennies off my fellow designer's products, with them not having the ability to say yes or no to it, if their posted product allows customization. All of mine do. Zazzle encouraged us to post products for sale that way, because customers love going in and tweaking. But now it's backfiring.

Dear Zazzle, you guys know how much I adore you. Please take the holiday break to ponder this. I just... I think it's not a good business model based on your history of supporting and uplifting your artists and designers. Now you have created, pardon the pun, two classes in the designer community. Those who take a share of the profit of others and those who don't. It makes me quite sad.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all and to all, a good night.


+ 1
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