Search

Results
Topic: Second Content
RoyK_is_a_She 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.)
Topic: Second Content
RoyK_is_a_She 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.)
Topic: Second Content
RoyK_is_a_She 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. ;)
Topic: Second Content
RoyK_is_a_She 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. ;)
Topic: Second Content
RoyK_is_a_She 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.