Requesting Flexible Advertising Options for Designers

[Susang6]

I am concerned about the current advertisement fees that range from 35 to 50% of royalties.  I feel that these fees significantly impact earnings and from what I have read I know that many designers would agree.

 I’d like to propose a more flexible advertising model that could benefit both Zazzle and the designers.  Please consider the tiered advertisement packages.  The 3-ad packages would allow designers the ability to choose an option that aligns with their budgets and goals.

Here’s an outline of how this advertisement option would work:

Basic Level: Free or low-cost option with minimal promotion, catering to designers with lower earnings/budgets or those who prefer organic reach.

Mid-Level: A moderately priced package offering targeted advertising

Premium Level: A higher investment option providing widespread exposure through channels like featured listings and social media ads, tailored for designers seeking maximum visibility.

The advertisement packages would allow designers to make decisions based on their individual needs.  Designers would choose the package that would be best for them while also allowing Zazzle to recoup advertising costs.   There would be a fee for each advertisement package with premium level being the highest cost. 

Please consider this proposal.

[NigelSutherland]

Not sure about this. We're already doing a lot of hard work creating designs to earn Zazzle their revenue. Please don't give them any more ideas on new ways to fleece us!

[Susang6]

So you would prefer to be charged 35 to 50 percent royalty fees across the board rather than having a say in how you advertise your products?  I would think the Basic Level: Free or low-cost option with minimal promotion, catering to designers with lower earnings/budgets or those who prefer organic reach would be a better option.  Free or low cost being the keywords.   

My proposal is better overall for the designers.  It gives designers some say on advertisement needs and fees.    But if you prefer the current 35 to 50% ad fees then that is your business. 

I personally would prefer a Mid level ad package with premium during holidays.  But I would like Zazzle to be more transparent and show me where they are advertising my products.   ( my proposal was intended to replace the current 35 to 50% fees on royalties). Not give Zazzle ideas on how to "fleece" the designers and I am sorry that you thought that. 

The ad proposal would make it more of a partnership. Zazzle and Designers would benefit under my  Flexible Advertising Options for Designers proposal.  

[tiffjamaica]

I think Zazzle has shown us with these new terms that they do not consider us a partner at all.  I agree with you that transparency would be great - I think there's many of us who feel like our products are not the ones being advertised... But Col is right - "One's visibility should be tied to how closely relevant they are to what the potential customer is searching for".   Ad packages are pay to play in that people that have the means to pay for the top tier ads will, eventually, get ahead regardless if their designs are the most relevant.  Which is similar to the existing frustration of those accounts now favored by Z with all the editor picks and always featured in front. It's really hard to out perform them because they have a huge lead. Paid ad tiers would result in the same. You'll have to have money to make money.

[ColsCreations]

I would be a hard NO on something like this as it's a pay-to-play scheme. The old-time Designers who have already been successful and thus are already "favored" with EP's and being featured and at tops of search results & landing pages etc... they'd have no need to pay for a Mid or Premium package, they could continue along at a free Basic package. Meanwhile, newer and/or less successful-so-far designers already fighting to be seen in the face of above would have to pay to up their odds of being seen? Just no. Something like this would just further strangle up-and-comers who would have to pay to play to compete with those who came before them.

One's visibility should be tied to how closely relevant they are to what the potential customer is searching for, and how well they match whatever theme Z is promoting at the moment. It should not be tied to how much money you paid Z to give you special consideration.

Also, there's already enough "spam" in the MP, do we really want to let them up their games by paying to get even more ahead of legit designs?

[Susang6]

I don’t agree with you about the ad packages being a “pay-for-play scheme” my proposal is intended to help the designers.  The flexible advertising packages give designers more control and choice over how their work is promoted. Currently, designers pay a 35% to 50% advertisement fee on royalties without knowing where or how their products are being advertised. The ad-packages aim to provide transparency and ensure that designers receive tangible benefits for their investment.

The advantages of the flexible ad packages would be that designers can choose a package that fits their needs with their earnings and goals, avoiding a one-size-fits-all model that we currently have.

I think transparency is important and each Ad package would clearly outline what the designer is paying for, whether it’s targeted ads or broader exposure. This builds trust and helps designers see the value in their investment. Then there is the optional participation where designers who do not want to invest in advertisement package they will have the option for basic package.  The basic package  is when the designer promotes their own products to boost their organic traffic / sales. This would  ensure that no one feels pressured to pay for promotion.

My goal was to empower designers, not disadvantage them.  I think my proposal represents a sense of collaboration and fairness, while giving Zazzle an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to supporting the designers.

This is merely an idea I came up with,  nothing more.  

[KeegansCreation]

I agree with Col. The problem isn't transparency on the terms. The problem is that the designers who would need the highest package would be the ones currently seen the least- new designers. It would be an entrance fee to new designers with the extremely rare exception of those who had a customer base before they even came to Zazzle. Meanwhile, the people who could get by with the free package would be the ones already established on first pages.

[Susang6]

I think designers need to know where their products are being advertised. because transparency builds trust and helps designers understand how their royalties are being spent. Knowing the platforms, audiences, or methods used for promotion could give designers valuable insights into how their work is being marketed and the potential impact on sales.

Designers play an important role in Zazzle's success by creating the artwork that transforms blank products into sellable items. Without designers, Zazzle wouldn't have the variety or appeal that drives sales.  I believe strongly that designers contribute the creative value, and I think Zazzle should take on the responsibility for the advertisement costs. By doing that it would strengthen the partnership between Zazzle and the designer.  (my opinion) 

Since Zazzle doesn't agree withe my opinion they have come up with the the excessive advertisement fees.  There is no balance because there are no flexible advertising options except the one- size-fits all (35 to 50%) advertisement fee model on specific categories.   A win for Zazzle a loose for designers.  Because the Ambassador program is not as profitable as one would think, most sales are 3rd parties.

Someone mentioned the rich keep getting richer.  I don’t believe that’s true.  All those top designers are getting hit with fees.  Yes, Zazzle charges a Marketing Royalty Fee  when customers find products through the Zazzle marketplace. (help Zazzle.com)   Most of the top designers have their royalty set at 10 to 14.9 so their earnings have plummeted.  

Now I came up with an idea, because I want to help the designers. Clearly you don’t agree so I welcome you to discuss your ideas .

[LMGildersleeve]

I applaud your attitude though not so sure on your suggestion @Susang6 . We need voices with solutions though I doubt Zazzle will change anything now. Folks have to realize just because you made the suggestion doesn't mean Z will act on it.

I liked @Jadendreamer13 's idea from her thread "This is getting old" where we live in a world of having our royalty percentages left alone and un-molested by these changes. If we want to earn 10% from our products (our designs that brings in traffic to Z) that's what we should earn.

Personally I'm sick of getting taxed more from Z than the government & state combined.

[idraw]

I agree with you colscreations, A HARD NOPE, absolutely positively no.

[SJoy]

I agree with @ColsCreations .  The thing is nobody wanted this so called "Marketing Fee" in the first place that is leeching off of our royalties. Rolling it over to a tiered pay-to-play advertising scheme would just give it a new name and everyone would still be missing chunks of their royalties.

[JLynnW]

I believe, despite how Z is presenting it, the new "Marketing Fees" are to cover all rising costs, such as shipping, operating expenses, etc, and not simply advertising.

[CrazyMermaid]

I think this is very impractical. There is no way to limit an ad campaign to a specific group of Zazzlers. Even with specific targeting, customers can just click away to other products. That is why I never got into the Promoter 2.0 program and just went with the basic get a smaller commission on everything - and why I support sticky tracking that can't be undone by simply clearing cookies in your browser. 

Everyone starts at zero in the market place and works their way up. Even once you get to the top, you have to work hard to stay there. Since I started in 2017, the top Zazzlers have changed several times. Those that once dominated the listings have faded. Even EPs are no guarantee of sales, if customers don't like the designs.