Second Content 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 10:28:20 AM
Royalty should work the same for every artist---so fees for the specially designed backgrounds contributed by other artists should be passed on to the customer and not taken out of the primary designers pocket. That is not acceptable.

When a customer selects one of these designed backgrounds, they should get a warning they'll be paying extra for it. They should understand these are not free.

I, as primary artist, when I design something I wish to have a customizable color background on, for example, the the inside of cards, I should have the option to check or uncheck whether I wish to allow customers to choose either "color palette only" or "other background options only" or "any background option."

I will most likely going forward stop designing anything new open to background editing and may review what is currently published in my store.
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:02:07 PM
B.Nickerson wrote:
Royalty should work the same for every artist---so fees for the specially designed backgrounds contributed by other artists should be passed on to the customer and not taken out of the primary designers pocket. That is not acceptable.

When a customer selects one of these designed backgrounds, they should get a warning they'll be paying extra for it. They should understand these are not free.

I, as primary artist, when I design something I wish to have a customizable color background on, for example, the the inside of cards, I should have the option to check or uncheck whether I wish to allow customers to choose either "color palette only" or "other background options only" or "any background option."

I will most likely going forward stop designing anything new open to background editing and may review what is currently published in my store.

I totally agree!
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:30:12 PM
ZBug wrote:
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 $.


Yes makes perfect sense. Smile
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:21:45 PM
Uggh... I got behind on this so catching up made my brain hurt...

Also, I'm not REALLY hungry and have a sudden craving for capers and avocados...

Hmmmm...Love
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:38:46 PM
ZBug wrote
Quote:
I think this is an example. The only reason I can think of for the strange royalty figures in the second sale is that there has been an adjustment for secondary content. My actual royalty is set at 14.9% for both cards. Note that the 'User Option' royalty has also been decreased:
(the picture of your royalty wouldn't copy)

and then you showed your sale that decreased your royalty from 14.9 to 14.4%

I just had this happen to me yesterday on one of my sales BUT the bizarre thing to my sale is I am NOT Seeing anywhere USER OPTION? SO why am I being reduced .6%


the weird stuff always happens to me?
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 5:12:09 PM
HightonRidley wrote:
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.

I understand the concept, Mark. I've built a website or two, so, really, I do. And I still disagree that people are going all the way into the Design Tool on a design they don't like enough to buy as-is with high hopes of finding something so shiny it's going to change their mind into liking it. If they like it, they're there considering buying it. A picture of rocks they can add as a background or a badly aligned gingham pattern isn't going to change their mind, and snarkiness aside, I don't think a good background will change their mind either. They liked it enough to come in from Google or Bing or the MP, and I believe they are there to tweak it and not change it. IMO. If they want to create something, there are CYOs and now Create for that.

If Zazzle wants to keep people on our Product Pages, they could remove "Other Designs You may Like" and a direct link to "Create Your Own" and hot-linked tags, for starters. But what they are looking to do is keep people on the site - not my product and not yours; anyone's will do because they make money no matter what sells.

HightonRidley wrote:
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.

If I'm being truly honest, there aren't any stats they could show me right now that I would believe. My trust factor is hanging by a thread. The one factor I'd like to see is how many people stayed inside the Design Tool so long, got their choice paralysis worked up, and hopped off without making a purchase, since the inception of this gem.

HightonRidley wrote:
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.

And herein lies the problem for me. I don't think any additional sales justify reducing my Royalty. I made a thing. I set a Royalty under "Set Your Own Royalty" (or however they tout it), and when I make a sale, I expect it to be at that Royalty and not "Set Your Own Royalty Minus These 26 Carve Outs and, Oh, BTW, We're Taking Some of Your Set Royalty Rate and Paying Another Designer with it."

Respectfully, my subjective feelings remain fully intact, as do my ojbective feelings. ;)
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 5:19:34 PM
Ohhhhilovethat wrote:
ZBug wrote
Quote:
I think this is an example. The only reason I can think of for the strange royalty figures in the second sale is that there has been an adjustment for secondary content. My actual royalty is set at 14.9% for both cards. Note that the 'User Option' royalty has also been decreased:
(the picture of your royalty wouldn't copy)

and then you showed your sale that decreased your royalty from 14.9 to 14.4%

I just had this happen to me yesterday on one of my sales BUT the bizarre thing to my sale is I am NOT Seeing anywhere USER OPTION? SO why am I being reduced .6%


the weird stuff always happens to me?


Yes, if royalty share for secondary content is the reason, a reduction with no indication of why is not helpful for record keeping.
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 5:31:02 PM
HightonRidley wrote:
[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.

I don't mean to beat you up - just a difference of opinion here. ;)

Neither the Secondary Content nor the Secondary Content Designer is running out to the front of the shop offering their wares.

I would liken "window shopping" more to browsing the MP and not being inside the Design Tool. But let's go a step further and say that person is on the Product Page and let's call that "window shopping." Nothing is coming out to flag them down or entice them into that side dish. Not the Secondary content itself; not the Primary Designer; not the Secondary Designer. The customer doesn't even know side dishes are available while they're window shopping. Again, the Secondary Content is just sitting there waiting to get picked, and not even with an eagerly raised hand and an "ooh, ooh, pick me!"

Someone who is inside the Design Tool has made some bit of mental commitment to that Design and Product already - they can see themselves owning this thing. They are seated at the table already. They've chosen their meal. Then after they've decided on the avocados and capers, here comes the list of side dishes. And the chef is stuck with bill, without the chef's knowledge or willing participation. The chef had agreed to earn X per meal, and now his check is reduced – unless he deletes everything and recreates every item from scratch. And the icing on the capers is that the chef doesn't even know what the customer ordered or how the bill was calculated.

When a customer is inside the Design Tool, there is already forward motion toward a purchase. Secondary Content is the rack of candy at the checkout – which the customer knows s/he doesn't really need, and then buys it anyway. The difference here is that it doesn't increase revenues on that Product and the only one paying for it is the Primary Designer.

As for statistics, every Designer here can make a chart and a graph right now to show you whatever you want. But James C. gave some numbers already – "let's say" this and that. If there were solid numbers to support this mess, I believe we'd have seen actual words by now. And whether there is data or not, there is zero justification that the Primary Designer pay. Period. (And especially not for graphics the whole entire rest of the world gets FREE.)
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 5:42:01 PM
Quote:
When a customer is inside the Design Tool, there is already forward motion toward a purchase. Secondary Content is the rack of candy at the checkout – which the customer knows s/he doesn't really need, and then buys it anyway. The difference here is that it doesn't increase revenues on that Product and the only one paying for it is the Primary Designer.


Great analogy.
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 6:36:21 PM
HightonRidley wrote:

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.


It's the restaurant manager who rushes out and says if you buy a meal, I'll give you a side dish that the chef will pay for.

The chef benefits from the sale that wouldn't have happened otherwise, but is left wondering why the side dish came out of their paycheck instead of the restaurant's budget.
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:01:08 PM
Quote:
When a customer is inside the Design Tool, there is already forward motion toward a purchase. Secondary Content is the rack of candy at the checkout – which the customer knows s/he doesn't really need, and then buys it anyway. The difference here is that it doesn't increase revenues on that Product and the only one paying for it is the Primary Designer.


I've been trying to come up with a way to work the whole candy by the cash register analogy into this conversation and you just put it perfectly.
Posted: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:12:54 PM
wollastonite wrote:
HightonRidley wrote:

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.


It's the restaurant manager who rushes out and says if you buy a meal, I'll give you a side dish that the chef will pay for.

The chef benefits from the sale that wouldn't have happened otherwise, but is left wondering why the side dish came out of their paycheck instead of the restaurant's budget.


I'll go you one better....

It's more like the restaurant manager rushes out and tells you he'll put avocado or bacon or cheese on top of the chef's dish and he'll do it for free if you buy a meal - the chef gets quite put out because they've carefully designed that dish and think that avocado or bacon or cheese will ruin the finely tuned flavor, but they don't have any control over it because the toppings are out in the dining room, on a buffet table to be added to the dish at will, by the customers and to add insult to injury not only does the cost of those toppings comes out of their paycheck, but they have to read the Yelp reviews that talk about how avocado ruined the dish.....
Posted: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:09:27 AM
Quote:
It's more like the restaurant manager rushes out and tells you he'll put avocado or bacon or cheese on top of the chef's dish and he'll do it for free if you buy a meal - the chef gets quite put out because they've carefully designed that dish and think that avocado or bacon or cheese will ruin the finely tuned flavor, but they don't have any control over it because the toppings are out in the dining room, on a buffet table to be added to the dish at will, by the customers and to add insult to injury not only does the cost of those toppings comes out of their paycheck, but they have to read the Yelp reviews that talk about how avocado ruined the dish.....


To add to this whole "food" analogy -

If the restaurant has dishes I don't like, I will not purchase them even if it has "free bacon or cheese" or whatever. I do not like Italian food. No amount of free whatever would make me want to sit down at an Italian restaurant, no matter what gimmicks or free stuff they offer.

If I see a design that I do not like, then I will not click on it, I definitely won't sit on it long enough to even open the design tool. Why would a customer waste their time trying to "make pretty" a design that they don't even like? Why would I go to an Italian restaurant when I dislike Italian Food, hoping that they will have some "side dish" that I do like? No, because I won't go to the Italian restaurant anyway. I would not purchase a design that I do not like just because I can change the background.

I like the candy at checkout analogy best. It is a impulse buy, one that is usually not needed, and is grabbed after you already filled your cart with stuff you need. I went to the grocery store for bread, milk, and eggs; the candy bar was not on my list but I saw it at the checkout and wanted it. It was the bread, milk and eggs that brought me to the grocery store, not the candy bar. I would have purchased the stuff in my cart even if they did not have the candy bar.

It is the original design that attracted the customer to the product in the first place. Almost no customer even knows about the new backgrounds or "elements" in the design tool, so that is not what brought them to Zazzle. They saw my design in Google search, on Zazzle search, on Pinterest, or through an affiliate's website, and clicked on it because they liked the design. That was the bread that brought them to the grocery store.
Posted: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:58:23 AM
lioncrusher wrote:
Quote:
It's more like the restaurant manager rushes out and tells you he'll put avocado or bacon or cheese on top of the chef's dish and he'll do it for free if you buy a meal - the chef gets quite put out because they've carefully designed that dish and think that avocado or bacon or cheese will ruin the finely tuned flavor, but they don't have any control over it because the toppings are out in the dining room, on a buffet table to be added to the dish at will, by the customers and to add insult to injury not only does the cost of those toppings comes out of their paycheck, but they have to read the Yelp reviews that talk about how avocado ruined the dish.....


To add to this whole "food" analogy -

If the restaurant has dishes I don't like, I will not purchase them even if it has "free bacon or cheese" or whatever. I do not like Italian food. No amount of free whatever would make me want to sit down at an Italian restaurant, no matter what gimmicks or free stuff they offer.

If I see a design that I do not like, then I will not click on it, I definitely won't sit on it long enough to even open the design tool. Why would a customer waste their time trying to "make pretty" a design that they don't even like? Why would I go to an Italian restaurant when I dislike Italian Food, hoping that they will have some "side dish" that I do like? No, because I won't go to the Italian restaurant anyway. I would not purchase a design that I do not like just because I can change the background.

I like the candy at checkout analogy best. It is a impulse buy, one that is usually not needed, and is grabbed after you already filled your cart with stuff you need. I went to the grocery store for bread, milk, and eggs; the candy bar was not on my list but I saw it at the checkout and wanted it. It was the bread, milk and eggs that brought me to the grocery store, not the candy bar. I would have purchased the stuff in my cart even if they did not have the candy bar.

It is the original design that attracted the customer to the product in the first place. Almost no customer even knows about the new backgrounds or "elements" in the design tool, so that is not what brought them to Zazzle. They saw my design in Google search, on Zazzle search, on Pinterest, or through an affiliate's website, and clicked on it because they liked the design. That was the bread that brought them to the grocery store.


+1 exactly right

And let me just add... you, the shopper, are the one who had to pay for the candy bar not the person in line in front of you, not the cashier, not the store manager.

This is common sense and common practice... you want extras? that is fine, you pay for them. Manager wants to offer freebies? let manager pay for them.
Posted: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 9:09:13 AM
Quote:

And let me just add... you, the shopper, are the one who had to pay for the candy bar not the person in line in front of you, not the cashier, not the store manager.

This is common sense and common practice... you want extras? that is fine, you pay for them. Manager wants to offer freebies? let manager pay for them.


Yes, exactly. If I want that candy bar, I pay for it. Businesses that do offer "free stuff" actually have two ways of compensating for it. One is to temporarily increase their prices to compensate. And the other is the corporation pays for it, and usually writes it off as a business expense.

Businesses that give you free stuff like pens, magnets, calendars and the such always write those off as business expenses, and they get a tax break for it. The companies that make those items still get paid, though. Even though Company XYZ is giving away magnets, the magnet company still gets paid 100% by Company XYZ; the magnet manufacturer will not give their magnets away for free.

In addition, restaurants that offer "free" stuff are not really giving you that for free. It is all accounted for in the price of the meal, it's just you don't get an itemized breakdown of your meal (usually). And if it really is for free (kids under 7 eat free on Wednesdays), again, company write-off, or higher prices to compensate.

But in general, if a customer is purchasing something, they have to pay for it.
Posted: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 3:41:30 PM
Lioncrusher I completely agree with you! The customer should be paying for the entire add-on! Sadly the customers are clueless what is going on and have not a clue that they are being used. They have no idea just because they add something to a product ZAZZ will then take more of our profit.

But I had to add to this....the "giveaways" as we called them in the marketing world we would give to our customers who gave us business as a thank you.......or were called leave behinds so they would remember us to call us when they needed xyz in the future.....at marketing shows we would hand out free stuff to those hoping to get future business later in the future....etc etc....

We had to pay for these giveaways or free stuff and just eat the costs as part of our marketing expenses. I think if this is the example of secondary designs then what does that make us? Our design is not only the giveaway in sorts but we are also partially paying for it?

What is clearly happening here is ZAZZ is pushing onto us their some of their marketing expenses and not really asking us to help pay..... The question seems to be why are they really doing this and feeling they need to take another percentage of our royalty? It this not like double dipping? They are already taking their share then just because it is called secondary they came with up with an idea to be able to take more?

I think too it is completely unacceptable and disrespectful to us designers that when we make a sale - if it is secondary, it should clearly be marked as such. To just reduce our royalty by .6% as they did to me on one of my sales this week seems just rude. THere is no code no marking - I DO NOT EVEN KNOW if THIS IS REALLY TRUE? So I hate to be skeptical and not trusting but computers make mistakes all the time - customers put things on a design then change their mind! Maybe it was there then they erased it. How do I know my design became secondary? It seems extremely underhanded when I can't even see or be told what was added to my design it is like being treated like a child - because I said so....I do not have to see private information to see what was added to the design to confirm if it was truly secondary.
Posted: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:41:23 PM
Ohhhhilovethat wrote:
Lioncrusher I completely agree with you! The customer should be paying for the entire add-on! Sadly the customers are clueless what is going on and have not a clue that they are being used. They have no idea just because they add something to a product ZAZZ will then take more of our profit.

But I had to add to this....the "giveaways" as we called them in the marketing world we would give to our customers who gave us business as a thank you.......or were called leave behinds so they would remember us to call us when they needed xyz in the future.....at marketing shows we would hand out free stuff to those hoping to get future business later in the future....etc etc....

We had to pay for these giveaways or free stuff and just eat the costs as part of our marketing expenses. I think if this is the example of secondary designs then what does that make us? Our design is not only the giveaway in sorts but we are also partially paying for it?

What is clearly happening here is ZAZZ is pushing onto us their some of their marketing expenses and not really asking us to help pay..... The question seems to be why are they really doing this and feeling they need to take another percentage of our royalty? It this not like double dipping? They are already taking their share then just because it is called secondary they came with up with an idea to be able to take more?

I think too it is completely unacceptable and disrespectful to us designers that when we make a sale - if it is secondary, it should clearly be marked as such. To just reduce our royalty by .6% as they did to me on one of my sales this week seems just rude. THere is no code no marking - I DO NOT EVEN KNOW if THIS IS REALLY TRUE? So I hate to be skeptical and not trusting but computers make mistakes all the time - customers put things on a design then change their mind! Maybe it was there then they erased it. How do I know my design became secondary? It seems extremely underhanded when I can't even see or be told what was added to my design it is like being treated like a child - because I said so....I do not have to see private information to see what was added to the design to confirm if it was truly secondary.


and since nobody has addressed this:

what happens if the customer returns the product (unhappy with order and following Z's return policy)

????

Are we going to be deducted the royalty on the product and the cost of the secondary content? What about the fee that was paid to the other designer?? are they going to be deducted their fee / commission whatever you want to call it? And how will we be notified by this action?????
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 5:54:03 AM
igiftcenter wrote:
Ohhhhilovethat wrote:
Lioncrusher I completely agree with you! The customer should be paying for the entire add-on! Sadly the customers are clueless what is going on and have not a clue that they are being used. They have no idea just because they add something to a product ZAZZ will then take more of our profit.

But I had to add to this....the "giveaways" as we called them in the marketing world we would give to our customers who gave us business as a thank you.......or were called leave behinds so they would remember us to call us when they needed xyz in the future.....at marketing shows we would hand out free stuff to those hoping to get future business later in the future....etc etc....

We had to pay for these giveaways or free stuff and just eat the costs as part of our marketing expenses. I think if this is the example of secondary designs then what does that make us? Our design is not only the giveaway in sorts but we are also partially paying for it?

What is clearly happening here is ZAZZ is pushing onto us their some of their marketing expenses and not really asking us to help pay..... The question seems to be why are they really doing this and feeling they need to take another percentage of our royalty? It this not like double dipping? They are already taking their share then just because it is called secondary they came with up with an idea to be able to take more?

I think too it is completely unacceptable and disrespectful to us designers that when we make a sale - if it is secondary, it should clearly be marked as such. To just reduce our royalty by .6% as they did to me on one of my sales this week seems just rude. THere is no code no marking - I DO NOT EVEN KNOW if THIS IS REALLY TRUE? So I hate to be skeptical and not trusting but computers make mistakes all the time - customers put things on a design then change their mind! Maybe it was there then they erased it. How do I know my design became secondary? It seems extremely underhanded when I can't even see or be told what was added to my design it is like being treated like a child - because I said so....I do not have to see private information to see what was added to the design to confirm if it was truly secondary.


and since nobody has addressed this:

what happens if the customer returns the product (unhappy with order and following Z's return policy)

????

Are we going to be deducted the royalty on the product and the cost of the secondary content? What about the fee that was paid to the other designer?? are they going to be deducted their fee / commission whatever you want to call it? And how will we be notified by this action?????


When a standard order is returned and not reordered/replaced, it appears in the Royalty transaction list in pink/red and the amount of royalty and/or referral you earned is deducted from your pending or current balance. Because there would have been a line-item for both primary and secondary content royalty, it SHOULD automatically do the same for both the primary and secondary content designer.
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 7:17:29 AM
PaperGrape wrote:


When a standard order is returned and not reordered/replaced, it appears in the Royalty transaction list in pink/red and the amount of royalty and/or referral you earned is deducted from your pending or current balance. Because there would have been a line-item for both primary and secondary content royalty, it SHOULD automatically do the same for both the primary and secondary content designer.


Have you seen any line items indicating that a secondary content royalty share has happened?

I haven't yet but I do have one sale that should have been a 14.9% royalty but shows it to have been 12.9% instead.

However there are no other indicators as to why the royalty is different from what I set it to be, so I can't tell if it was a case of secondary content or not.
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 8:17:12 AM
I think it is obvious by now Zazzle is not going to change its mind about this decision. But, I still would like to know the reasoning behind it so as to understand why they thought we would be happy about it and just quietly accept it?
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 8:25:21 AM
randysgrandma wrote:
I think it is obvious by now Zazzle is not going to change its mind about this decision. But, I still would like to know the reasoning behind it so as to understand why they thought we would be happy about it and just quietly accept it?


The reasoning seems to be that they just don't care what we like or don't like. At least that is what the lack of communication says to me.

Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 8:29:08 AM
randysgrandma wrote:
I think it is obvious by now Zazzle is not going to change its mind about this decision. But, I still would like to know the reasoning behind it so as to understand why they thought we would be happy about it and just quietly accept it?

This is the reason why I haven't weighed in on this...there are no changes coming...they're just waiting for the protests to subside and then carry on like its all normal...or that we'll all say something...Oh hey, its not that bad...that's the way they've always responded...or it's like, if you don't like it then leave!
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 8:54:30 AM
Quote:
Have you seen any line items indicating that a secondary content royalty share has happened?

I haven't yet but I do have one sale that should have been a 14.9% royalty but shows it to have been 12.9% instead.


Shelli

Me too exactly no notification - no secondary sell marking nothing....I just happened to look at my sales and catch a glimpse at one of the line items - the rate was reduced by .6%

You bet I will be looking EVERY day now at those sale royalties to see if they are being changed.
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 9:38:50 AM
Ohhhhilovethat wrote:
Quote:
Have you seen any line items indicating that a secondary content royalty share has happened?

I haven't yet but I do have one sale that should have been a 14.9% royalty but shows it to have been 12.9% instead.


Shelli

Me too exactly no notification - no secondary sell marking nothing....I just happened to look at my sales and catch a glimpse at one of the line items - the rate was reduced by .6%

You bet I will be looking EVERY day now at those sale royalties to see if they are being changed.


Since we have indicators for customized, design transfer, and user options I was expecting at the very least a small symbol like a b for background, tp for text pairing or something like that. Not just reduced numbers... that is not sufficient for our records... not to mention we have no way of verifying that the secondary content was actually added and purchased or added and then hidden behind something else... and forgotten.

sigh.


ETA: I am still busy remaking products with the customization turned off but for my stuff that has already sold I have really been holding out hope that Zazzle would have some compassion and give us a way to opt out without losing all of our hard work promoting and sales stats. This is the most disappointing part of all for me... the heartless way Zazzle is treating the primary designers.
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 9:55:30 AM
Jules wrote:
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Has anyone seen what this looks like in the sales and earnings reports yet?

Why we haven't had at least that question answered yet is troubling.


I think this is an example. The only reason I can think of for the strange royalty figures in the second sale is that there has been an adjustment for secondary content. My actual royalty is set at 14.9% for both cards. Note that the 'User Option' royalty has also been decreased:



It would be normal for both cards to have a 'c' for customization: I expect buyers to use the template feature to add their choice of name. There is no other indication of edits/additions by the buyer.

Zazzle - Can you confirm if what I see here is the charge for secondary content, made by adjusting the royalty percentages?


ZAZZLE - Please could I have an answer to my question from 3rd January. It is quite straight forward. Either "Yes, this is a secondary content adjustment" or "No, it's something else".
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 11:20:14 AM
This gem is a quote from Zazzle's official news regarding the User Agreement:

Quote:
We're growing and evolving and, as such, our policies are evolving (and) as an ongoing commitment to your satisfaction with all things Zazzle we're making you aware...


a) So far our questions about royalties regarding secondary content are NOT being answered to "our satisfaction."

b) This quote actually promises to let us know about updates related to Zazles growth & evolution. Shocked So, about this secondary content, hmmm?
Posted: Thursday, January 16, 2020 11:39:54 AM
B.Nickerson wrote:
This gem is a quote from Zazzle's official news regarding the User Agreement:

Quote:
We're growing and evolving and, as such, our policies are evolving (and) as an ongoing commitment to your satisfaction with all things Zazzle we're making you aware...


a) So far our questions about royalties regarding secondary content are NOT being answered to "our satisfaction."

b) This quote actually promises to let us know about updates related to Zazles growth & evolution. Shocked So, about this secondary content, hmmm?

And therein lies the disconnect...meaning that the "growing and evolving" are not congruent with "commitment to your satisfaction"...they are not connected either in meaning or circumstance...hence all the disillusionment and discontent...in the end this TOS is just that...words...without tangible meaning.
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:53:02 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"?

10/23/19 to 1/23/20 - 92 days(?) without answers. Still collecting feedback, @Zazzle?

WittyBetty wrote:
I bet $5 no answers will be given.

Where do I send my $5?

RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
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.

I do hate to repeat myself, but this is exactly what I want to say again. I shouldn't be punished because a customer wants my Design and something a Secondary Designer and Zazzle want to give away for free. To the entire Internet.
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:21:32 AM
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
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"?

10/23/19 to 1/23/20 - 92 days(?) without answers. Still collecting feedback, @Zazzle?

WittyBetty wrote:
I bet $5 no answers will be given.

Where do I send my $5?

RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
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.

I do hate to repeat myself, but this is exactly what I want to say again. I shouldn't be punished because a customer wants my Design and something a Secondary Designer and Zazzle want to give away for free. To the entire Internet.


If today goes by without response it will be 93 days... plus the weekend.
Posted: Saturday, January 25, 2020 10:39:42 AM
Zazzle isn't replying, because, if I'm reading this correctly, a royalty sharing by the primary designer with the designer of secondary content is part of our Collaboration agreement that became automatic in November.

Here's the royalty info link from the Collaboration agreement:
Quote:
https://help.zazzle.com/hc/en-us/articles/360037785973-Zazzle-Royalty-and-Referral-Percentages
You can read this to make sure I've spoken correctly. (You can find it in the news area from the forum in your store Home page.)

Really, Zazzle could've just respectfully referred us to this above link right away.










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