Second Content 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
Posted: Sunday, January 5, 2020 12:52:08 PM
Col's Creations© wrote:

That's the mark I use on the back of my cards/postcards. Now what happens when/if Secondary Content is added? It doesn't matter how big/small ugly/beautiful that content may be, IT'S NOT MINE. Yes, customers always had the ability to add their own image, that's Zazzle's whole thing, but what they didn't have was the ability to add content from another competing designer, without the permission or even knowledge of the original designer; they didn't have the ability to create an involuntary collaboration that results in the original designer being both financially penalized AND demoted to a +1; they didn't have the ability to bring ads for another designer into the design tool used for customizing the original designers work.

What happens if the secondary content added is public domain work? What if it is purchased art? What if it's an image the SD lifted from somewhere without caring about the rules for its use? And now it's going out on something with my name on it?? This invites the possibility, however small, of becoming involved in a licensing/copyright dispute. All of my designs are my own unique creations stemming from photographs I took or graphics I made from scratch. I state that on my shop and on my own webpage. I don't want another designer's work, or public domain images, or licensed art, mingling with my own brand.

I agree with all of the issues people are laying out re this whole deal and can only hope that Zazzle has seen/heard/read enough feedback and taken it under serious consideration so that this becomes just a short-lived beta test. Meanwhile, I think they should add a succinct notice for customers inside the design tool that using the new secondary content images will result in penalties to the original primary artist. If its a good & ethical business model there should be no problem in being transparent about it with customers.


+1 all that, and not just customers - other Designers need to be made fully aware of who's paying for their graphics. It's become clear to me that many don't, for whatever reason.

I also have branded items where the brand can't be removed. Icons didn't thrill me, but at least are licensed by Z (and after eventual vetting, at least not offensive). This is next level troubling. I see violations in the MP all the time, so, no, I don't trust that all Secondary content is appropriately licensed, and the potential in-progress sharing with Secondary is very troubling. This could put any of us in the center of takedowns (which is what Vivendulies* was saying all along because of the strict copyright laws in Germany).

Plus, the way Content Management deletes our stuff without explanation, if someone reports our Published Product because a copyright holder saw it with violating Secondary... that's going to be fun. Oh, and we get to pay for that privilege if someone buys it.

It's been since October 23 with basically zero response from Zazzle. The silence is deafening, still.

*Speaking of Viv, has anyone heard from her? She's noticeably absent, and I hope she's okay. Love




Posted: Sunday, January 5, 2020 1:10:58 PM
*Speaking of Viv, has anyone heard from her? She's noticeably absent, and I hope she's okay.

Can anyone find Viv and several of the topics from prior to the shutdown. It looks to me as if a lot of purging may have happened over the shutdown????? Maybe I'm missing something?????

Posted: Sunday, January 5, 2020 2:18:06 PM
I hope Viv is alright too. Love

And this is exactly what she was trying to say.

The risk is real and charging us for it is wrong.
Posted: Sunday, January 5, 2020 2:26:15 PM
I remember reading that Viv's accounts were terminated, around December 10th. I saw a post by her recently in the POD talk FB group about this, but I have not seen any posts from her since then.
Posted: Sunday, January 5, 2020 5:44:23 PM
I checked one of Viv's posts during the hiatus. 'Not found' when I clicked her name, same again for checking a post that still had Vivendulies. Grease is not always what you get for being the squeaky wheel.

d
Posted: Monday, January 6, 2020 3:58:27 AM
That was sad news. I'm sorry to hear that Vivendulies' account was terminated!
Posted: Monday, January 6, 2020 12:55:52 PM
reflections06 wrote:
I'd sure love to see zazzle's reasoning/explanation for implementing this feature where the original designer takes the hit financially, for the customer choosing someone else's content.

Come on zazzle... you know folks are ticked about this. Do us all the common courtesy of explaining why this feature was rolled out this way, and/or at least do us all the courtesy of opting out of this mess.


+1
Posted: Sunday, January 12, 2020 8:35:56 PM
It's going on 3 months now that we'be been asking questions and leaving "feedback." Will we be getting any answers ever, or is "We're collecting feedback" the new "We'll pass it along"?
Posted: Sunday, January 12, 2020 10:10:54 PM
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
It's going on 3 months now that we'be been asking questions and leaving "feedback." Will we be getting any answers ever, or is "We're collecting feedback" the new "We'll pass it along"?


+1 Idea
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:13:09 AM
I bet $5 no answers will be given.
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:54:23 AM
Zazzle - "Ignore them long enough and they'll forget about it."
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 7:28:47 AM
RMorgan_Snapshots wrote:
Zazzle - "Ignore them long enough and they'll forget about it."


My thoughts exactly.

I considered leaving Zazzle, I considered hiding all my products, and did so briefly but hey....holiday selling season, I've decided to just stop making new products till they clarify things while testing out other places.

d


Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 11:57:56 AM
Funcards wrote:
They are charging us for second content but are not willing to answer any of our questions. Maybe this is normal in the US, but not in my country, here we have rights. And since Zazzle also has an official site in my country, I wil be filing an official complaint about them here. Their siteinfo about earning money on Zazzle is completely false and misleading.


Once you start to take legal action they may remove you. Just an FYI.

(just an opinion, not a fact)
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 2:26:23 PM
Not certain if I posted in this thread before, or what's been locked to streamline things, etc... but wanted to add to this longish-standing thread ;) that it does concern me that we as designers are set up to be charged a fee when someone adds one of those backgrounds to our designs. Moreso when they are (no offense to the content generators who may have created original stuff) - but most are pretty generic and/or the same as pixabay images as already mentioned - which anyone can grab and upload anyway, without me paying a penalty.


Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 3:22:39 PM
I've mentioned this before (and I wish Z would provide some stats either way) but I believe that sales will be made due to the ability to add secondary content that would otherwise not have been made. And that far outweighs the reverse situation, where you would have made a sale anyway.

It's for this reason that there's a royalty share going on.

In my opinion, people's concerns are similar to what we used to see a few years ago when people learned that affiliates were selling their products and taking a 15% commission. Initially they didn't understand that that without the affiliates, they wouldn't have made the sales in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that Zazzle has stats that would shed light on this as regards secondary content, but whether they'd be willing to share....

Just my 2 cents' worth
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 3:47:01 PM
HightonRidley wrote:
I've mentioned this before (and I wish Z would provide some stats either way) but I believe that sales will be made due to the ability to add secondary content that would otherwise not have been made. And that far outweighs the reverse situation, where you would have made a sale anyway.

It's for this reason that there's a royalty share going on.



There was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for Zazzle to penalize the original designer. The original design would be the reason that someone clicked in the first place, even if they do ultimately add secondary content. I don't believe for a nanosecond that a sale would not have otherwise been made but for the secondary content. I guess we'll never know.

Anything additional should be a la carte, and charged additionally to the customer. Designers should be able to control their designs. I don't want secondary content added, especially the backgrounds which I consider to be inferior to my own designs. (Another designer said that they even got a negative review with one of the changed backgrounds!)

I would however like the ability to give my own customers some access to my own text pairings, svgs, design elements and backgrounds. That would be interesting and might provide additional revenue.

This was badly done on Zazzle's part. They hurried the thing through, never answered legitimate questions and their complete silence speaks volumes. Again, badly done.
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 3:50:24 PM
HightonRidley wrote:
I've mentioned this before (and I wish Z would provide some stats either way) but I believe that sales will be made due to the ability to add secondary content that would otherwise not have been made. And that far outweighs the reverse situation, where you would have made a sale anyway.

It's for this reason that there's a royalty share going on.

In my opinion, people's concerns are similar to what we used to see a few years ago when people learned that affiliates were selling their products and taking a 15% commission. Initially they didn't understand that that without the affiliates, they wouldn't have made the sales in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that Zazzle has stats that would shed light on this as regards secondary content, but whether they'd be willing to share....

Just my 2 cents' worth


okay for the sake of argument let's say your theory is right...

That still doesn't outweigh the issues concerning branding and the potential for being involved in copyright disputes or having our designs removed by content review.

It doesn't outweigh the issue of the primary designer becoming a footnote on their own work.

It doesn't outweigh the fact that we are being asked to pay for some content that is free to the rest of the world.

Sorry but it is not worth it to me. and on top of that, respectfully, I do not believe your theory is correct.

Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:30:22 PM
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
HightonRidley wrote:
I've mentioned this before (and I wish Z would provide some stats either way) but I believe that sales will be made due to the ability to add secondary content that would otherwise not have been made. And that far outweighs the reverse situation, where you would have made a sale anyway.

It's for this reason that there's a royalty share going on.

In my opinion, people's concerns are similar to what we used to see a few years ago when people learned that affiliates were selling their products and taking a 15% commission. Initially they didn't understand that that without the affiliates, they wouldn't have made the sales in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that Zazzle has stats that would shed light on this as regards secondary content, but whether they'd be willing to share....

Just my 2 cents' worth


okay for the sake of argument let's say your theory is right...

That still doesn't outweigh the issues concerning branding and the potential for being involved in copyright disputes or having our designs removed by content review.

It doesn't outweigh the issue of the primary designer becoming a footnote on their own work.

It doesn't outweigh the fact that we are being asked to pay for some content that is free to the rest of the world.

Sorry but it is not worth it to me. and on top of that, respectfully, I do not believe your theory is correct.


I think you're making valid points concerning copyright etc

Unless and until Zazzle provide stats, we're all left up in the air.
Sad
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:32:56 PM
HightonRidley wrote:
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
HightonRidley wrote:
I've mentioned this before (and I wish Z would provide some stats either way) but I believe that sales will be made due to the ability to add secondary content that would otherwise not have been made. And that far outweighs the reverse situation, where you would have made a sale anyway.

It's for this reason that there's a royalty share going on.

In my opinion, people's concerns are similar to what we used to see a few years ago when people learned that affiliates were selling their products and taking a 15% commission. Initially they didn't understand that that without the affiliates, they wouldn't have made the sales in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that Zazzle has stats that would shed light on this as regards secondary content, but whether they'd be willing to share....

Just my 2 cents' worth


okay for the sake of argument let's say your theory is right...

That still doesn't outweigh the issues concerning branding and the potential for being involved in copyright disputes or having our designs removed by content review.

It doesn't outweigh the issue of the primary designer becoming a footnote on their own work.

It doesn't outweigh the fact that we are being asked to pay for some content that is free to the rest of the world.

Sorry but it is not worth it to me. and on top of that, respectfully, I do not believe your theory is correct.


I think you're making valid points concerning copyright etc

Unless and until Zazzle provide stats, we're all left up in the air.
Sad


Yes, I would be thrilled to hear something from Zazzle on this issue also. Something besides the usual silence or brush off.
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:36:37 PM
HightonRidley wrote:
I believe that sales will be made due to the ability to add secondary content that would otherwise not have been made.


To me, it's obvious that a sale of secondary content wouldn't have happened if the customer didn't click Customize the primary content (Marketplace product). So who owes whom?
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:57:15 PM
HightonRidley wrote:
In my opinion, people's concerns are similar to what we used to see a few years ago when people learned that affiliates were selling their products and taking a 15% commission. Initially they didn't understand that that without the affiliates, they wouldn't have made the sales in the first place.

Affiliates bring people to our products - that's why true affiliates get paid. In my opinion, Secondary Content just sits there waiting for an interested customer to show up and then it latches onto the Primary Designer's earnings. I don't really see a comparison. That said, if Zazzle would like to pay them, I don't have a problem with that - they deserve to be paid. But I don't deserve to have my value diminished by being paid less.

By looking at the "Joined" dates of the people posting in this thread, they aren't newbs who don't understand how things work in POD sales or, specifically, Zazzle sales. My Roy store name is among the newest, and I've been here since 2007. With respect, saying they may not understand seems dismissive to me. I think they understand full well.
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 5:24:19 PM
WittyBetty wrote:
HightonRidley wrote:
I believe that sales will be made due to the ability to add secondary content that would otherwise not have been made.


To me, it's obvious that a sale of secondary content wouldn't have happened if the customer didn't click Customize the primary content (Marketplace product). So who owes whom?


I wholeheartedly agree that it is secondary that would have no way to make a sale without primary design. For lack of a better term secondary is a parasitic position. I don't mean that to be derogatory, maybe a nicer way of saying it would be piggybacking... but it is backwards logic to think that they are in any way bringing a sale that wouldn't happen without them.

Unlike an affiliate, these secondary designs are piggybacking on the primary designer's work in more ways than one. It is the primary that does the SEO and the promoting and the secondary just latches on and takes a cut then Zazzle gives them top billing... ??

ETA:
And we have had zero indication of how the earnings reports on this feature are going to look so that we are able to keep track of what they are forcing us to pay for.
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:39:46 AM
HightonRidley wrote:
I've mentioned this before (and I wish Z would provide some stats either way) but I believe that sales will be made due to the ability to add secondary content that would otherwise not have been made. And that far outweighs the reverse situation, where you would have made a sale anyway.

It's for this reason that there's a royalty share going on.

In my opinion, people's concerns are similar to what we used to see a few years ago when people learned that affiliates were selling their products and taking a 15% commission. Initially they didn't understand that that without the affiliates, they wouldn't have made the sales in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that Zazzle has stats that would shed light on this as regards secondary content, but whether they'd be willing to share....

Just my 2 cents' worth


This is the first time I have disagreed 1000% with anything you've posted. This is about so much more then a royalty share. I guess I look at this way different then some others do. I liken this to going to the grocery store and someone puts an item in my cart than walking up and taking it after I've checked out. It could be argued that the store wouldn't have made my sale without the sale of that item any other way??????

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:48:51 AM
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
HightonRidley wrote:
In my opinion, people's concerns are similar to what we used to see a few years ago when people learned that affiliates were selling their products and taking a 15% commission. Initially they didn't understand that that without the affiliates, they wouldn't have made the sales in the first place.

Affiliates bring people to our products - that's why true affiliates get paid. In my opinion, Secondary Content just sits there waiting for an interested customer to show up and then it latches onto the Primary Designer's earnings. I don't really see a comparison. That said, if Zazzle would like to pay them, I don't have a problem with that - they deserve to be paid. But I don't deserve to have my value diminished by being paid less.

By looking at the "Joined" dates of the people posting in this thread, they aren't newbs who don't understand how things work in POD sales or, specifically, Zazzle sales. My Roy store name is among the newest, and I've been here since 2007. With respect, saying they may not understand seems dismissive to me. I think they understand full well.

I'm often wrong and don't mind admitting it Smile
But let me explain my thinking as maybe I didn't make myself clear.

1) I know that products get views without sales, so there is a certain percentage of views-to-sales for each product in an artist's store. I think my average is around 30 to 45 views per sale. I know of some other artists who do much better, with an average around 10 or 15 views per sale across their good sellers.

2) Received wisdom from website optimization research is that the longer someone stays on a page, the likelier they are to buy and this is a cause-effect sort of thing. Website owners do their best to keep people engaged to improve this visit-to-buy ratio.

Extending 2) to Zazzle, the longer someone stays on a product page, investing time on doing things with the design (filling in template fields, adding secondary content, adding stickers etc) then the more likely they are to buy.

So having the secondary content facility will increase the likelihood of a sale, all else being equal.

So what I'm suggesting is that Zazzle has the stats that would show if, since the introduction of the secondary content facility, artists' views-to-sales ratios are improving.

Assuming that they are, it's right that these additional sales that wouldn't otherwise have sold are paid for by a royalty share.
Assuming that they're not, the royalty share wrongly takes money away from an artist.

BUT without the stats to show one way or the other, we're left with people's subjective assessment of the effects - and it's human nature, when change happens, to think the worst. When it comes down to someone's livelihood, the strength of feeling expressed in this thread is completely understandable.

To address this, I think Zazzle should give us some summary stats of the movement of our views-to-sales ratio over time, either in our store's back ends or as a high-level summary here in the forum.
If they don't, we'll just be left with subjective 'feelings' continuing to cause deep-seated unrest and mistrust.

Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:52:06 AM
Highton,

There is not any difference in this extra content and any other extra content and the royalty share is not justified.

I gave this analogy before but maybe it bears repeating.

The way I see it the royalty share is the equivalent of me going to a restaurant and ordering a side dish and but making the chef pay for it.

That doesn't happen and shouldn't and neither should this.

Add to that analogy the public domain factor and now we have me at the same restaurant taking a free mint and charging the chef for that.

Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:10:18 AM
HightonRidley wrote:



To address this, I think Zazzle should give us some summary stats of the movement of our views-to-sales ratio over time, either in our store's back ends or as a high-level summary here in the forum.
If they don't, we'll just be left with subjective 'feelings' continuing to cause deep-seated unrest and mistrust.



How much time has passed without Zazzle addressing any of our concerns? This has become what they made it. There has been plenty of time to do damage control and yet... silence.
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:35:32 AM
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Highton,

There is not any difference in this extra content and any other extra content and the royalty share is not justified.

I gave this analogy before but maybe it bears repeating.

The way I see it the royalty share is the equivalent of me going to a restaurant and ordering a side dish and but making the chef pay for it.

That doesn't happen and shouldn't and neither should this.

Add to that analogy the public domain factor and now we have me at the same restaurant taking a free mint and charging the chef for that.


That's not quite the same thing because you had already decided to have a meal - the 'sale' was already made.

A better comparison would be: You pause and look in the restaurant window - and the chef rushes out and says, if you buy a meal I'll give you a side dish that I'll pay for.
In that case, the side dish made the sale. That's the difference.
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:55:20 AM
HightonRidley wrote:
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Highton,

There is not any difference in this extra content and any other extra content and the royalty share is not justified.

I gave this analogy before but maybe it bears repeating.

The way I see it the royalty share is the equivalent of me going to a restaurant and ordering a side dish and but making the chef pay for it.

That doesn't happen and shouldn't and neither should this.

Add to that analogy the public domain factor and now we have me at the same restaurant taking a free mint and charging the chef for that.


That's not quite the same thing because you had already decided to have a meal - the 'sale' was already made.

A better comparison would be: You pause and look in the restaurant window - and the chef rushes out and says, if you buy a meal I'll give you a side dish that I'll pay for.
In that case, the side dish made the sale. That's the difference.


Or a third scenario...

You order a dish because you are already here in the restaurant and then decide you don’t want the capers on top so you go into the kitchen and see all of the other ingredients there and start adding a little of this and that and the chef has to pay for every new ingredient you add.

I really don’t liken this to referrals at all. JMO

I’m mostly trying to keep my head down, but I see the concerns here. I just feel like I don’t have the kind off traffic/sales to my products or the kind of designs people will do this with.
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 8:57:41 AM
HightonRidley wrote:
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Highton,

There is not any difference in this extra content and any other extra content and the royalty share is not justified.

I gave this analogy before but maybe it bears repeating.

The way I see it the royalty share is the equivalent of me going to a restaurant and ordering a side dish and but making the chef pay for it.

That doesn't happen and shouldn't and neither should this.

Add to that analogy the public domain factor and now we have me at the same restaurant taking a free mint and charging the chef for that.


That's not quite the same thing because you had already decided to have a meal - the 'sale' was already made.

A better comparison would be: You pause and look in the restaurant window - and the chef rushes out and says, if you buy a meal I'll give you a side dish that I'll pay for.
In that case, the side dish made the sale. That's the difference.


Once I have entered the design tool that is like I went in and sat down and am now ordering my meal.

Just like at a restaurant I don't see the side dishes until I open the menu, the buyer doesn't see or know about the secondary content until they enter the design tool.

By the time they have made it that far they have shown more than a momentary window shopping interest in my design.

Also in my scenario the chef is likened to the primary designer who has to pay.

Primary designers have no choice so we are not rushing out to offer to pay for the extras... it does not compare.


Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 9:16:29 AM
In regards to the restaurant comparison---

If I ask to swap the potatoes for French fries, there is typically no charge but if I want to add bacon to the potato, there is a charge.

So, Grin


I akin it to asking for avocado. They always charge extra but they tell you before you but. People are accustom to this type of interaction. Extra mean more $.
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