Nearly Every Sale Now is Listed as a Third-Party

[Jadendreamer13]

It used to be that some of my sales were third-party sales. Now nearly every sale I make is listed as a third-party sale.

For example, on Saturday I sold 50 pens for a total of $249.00. I have set my royalty at 10% (I always have and it’s a reasonable amount). So, instead of earning $24.00, I earned $13.00.

Now that third-party sales seem to be attributed to nearly all of my sales, I am earning about 5% in royalties.

When I set my royalty at 10%, I mean 10%, not 5%. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of setting my royalty?

If Zazzle allows third-party sales (especially to this extent), then the third-party sellers’ and affiliate sellers’ 5% royalty needs to come out of Zazzle’s profit, not mine.

When I set my royalty at 10%, I mean 10%—not 5% or some other random number.

[ChromaMaven]

Since April 1st, every sale I have is third party. In March, I had a mix of third party, none, and self.  There is a conversation about this in the Pro Basic (private) forum. Title starts with “Catch-All…”

[Jadendreamer13]

Thank you. I’ll go check it out.

[Jadendreamer13]

Let’s just breakdown how unfair a 5% cut-out of my royalties for affiliates is:

• I research my niche to determine what to sell.
• I create the design (which is often hand-drawn or done by heavily manipulating clip art to fit my need).
• I write the title, descriptions, and SEO tags.
• I create professional-quality cover photos.
• I create targeted collections.
• I post my products on Zazzle, Pinterest, and Instagram.

Now, let’s look at the work an affiliate does:

• They post a link to my product.

And for one push of a button, they get paid half of my royalty.

How is that fair? They did about 1% of the work that I did. So, how should they be rewarded? With one percent of my royalty? OK, then allow me to raise my royalty to 11% with no cut-outs so I still make my 10%.

This has always been an unfair deal for creators. Now, it’s even worse.

[CrazyMermaid]

Boy that isn't how affiliate marketing works. Before I was a Zazzler, I was a professional affiliate marketer for 20 years. I maintained 50 or more websites at any one time that I used to market niches to particular types of customers. I worked with hundreds of companies and had to know the particular details of affiliate agreements I had with all them. They all had different rules. They all changed the rules all of the time. My commissions changed with the wind and they closed affiliate programs at will. I spent thousands of dollars promoting my websites and individual products. 

I had to understand SEO, website design and marketing principles. (I have a degree in marketing and economics) and used 4 or 5 very expensive keyword tools. I attended 2 international conferences a year in Las Vegas and NYC to maintain the relationships I had with affiliate managers and networks. And that was just the start. 

So while you might promote with just one click, many don't.

[Jadendreamer13]

Why do affiliates get to piggyback off of my hard work and then take a cut of my royalties? If I had the ability to turn off affiliate sellers from accessing my work, I’d do it.

[CrazyMermaid]

Because that is what you agree to when you sign up with Zazzle. 

[Jadendreamer13]

Try not to burst my bubble, will ya? 😉

[Connie]

Is that 5% cut-out being taken from our royalties in addition to the Marketing Fee? I thought that Marketing fee was supposed to cover all that?

[Cat]

I think she meant 50% (referring to the marketing fee.)

[Marcia]

I think Jill means that's the excess royalty fee for any royalty rate higher than 10%. But it really doesn't amount to much at all. It's the marketing fee that's the big issue.

[klstock]

Affiliates often do far more than simply push a button. 

They do the work to grow some type of online presence where they can get your link seen, for starters. They bring a customer and sale to you that you would not have otherwise gotten. 

I don't have any problem with a legitimate affiliate getting their cut on a sale they brought to me. What I have a huge problem with is what is happening now where a sale is wrongly designated a 3rd party sale (and thereby a cut is wrongly taken) when there is provably NO 3rd party involved on the sale.

[Connie]

Yes, something is definitely wrong with their cookies, whether as a glitch or by design. I've noticed a lot more 3rd party sales since the changes.

[Cat]

I don't have a problem with Zazzle covering their costs in terms of marketing, but IMHO this is a really bad faith way to go about it. They've created a situation where they're pitting "creators" against "ambassadors," all the while they (Zazzle) are the ones who are collecting the extra fees. 

If it was up to me (and it obviously isn't) I would have taken the fees off the top and then calculated the creator royalty on the remainder. So on a $100 sale, $15 would go to the referrer, and your 10% royalty would be calculated on the remaining $85 making it $8.50. That would be a fair system because it leaves the creator percentage intact.

If that wasn't enough to cover their costs, they should have just upped their base price instead of monkeying with our percentage. It would have been much more straightforward and wouldn't have created the ill will that this system is fostering.

[JerryLambert]

When I get a sale like this one, I do a happy dance... 

[Marcia]

Yeah, these days! Yesterday, all my sales were 3rd party. Today, so far, I've gotten 1 "none" & I did do a happy dance!

[klstock]

Can those of you reading/posting here also visit this thread and help perform some testing and share your results? 

<link to private forum removed by admin>

Well, I guess I can't post the link here? Why is that admin? If the designer has Bronze level or beyond they can access that. 

[jophb]

Out of the past 100 royalties (all after the April 1 change), I have gotten only TWO with 'none', those odds are absolutely insane.

[DancingPelican]

I just checked my last 100 royalties (all after April 1st). My results were: 22 with 'none'; 75 with '3rd party' and 3 with 'self'. I have several more pages of April results with mostly '3rd party'. It seems the 'none' royalties have improved slightly in the past couple of days. Maybe a coincidence, but I am keeping a watch on the results for what it's worth.

[jophb]

Interesting! What's weird is I have more self than 'none' right now. So maybe it is all just random or a coincidence.

[Cat]

Just had a random thought. I think in the new TOS they extended the length that referrals stay in the system. I'm still not sure if that's determined by a cookie in the browser or a flag in the customer's account, or some combination thereof, but wherever the info lives, the FAQ implies that the time period has been extended.

Q: How long does a Referral last after someone clicks my Referral link?
A: Referrals are tracked using cookies and other technologies lasting 45 days. If someone
purchases within 45 days after clicking your Link (and has not clicked another Referral Link since
then), you earn the Referral Commission. With the launch of the Ambassador Program, we've
extended the referral window to two weeks, meaning you'll receive credit for any qualifying sales that
happen within 14 days of someone clicking your Referral Link. This is a meaningful improvement: the
majority of Zazzle shoppers make a purchase within this extended timeframe, so your efforts are
protected for longer. After two weeks, if a customer clicks another referral link, that new link
becomes the active referral, and commission credit will be reassigned accordingly.

I can't remember what it was before, but I'm wondering if this is part of the reason that virtually all of the sales are flagged as 3rd party now. The FAQ says this is a "meaningful improvement." I guess "improvement" is in the eye of the beholder! Assuming that the vast majority of those referrals are actually Zazzle and not a genuine 3rd party (I think that's what we're all assuming here, I know I am) it's certainly not an improvement for us!

I guess we'll see if and how Zazzle responds to our requests for transparency, but it's sorta looking like the new reality is that with rare exceptions we get paid half of whatever royalty rate we set.