OK, got it.
Your listing is locked to only a set of 4 so I had to create a test set at your 12% royalty with the option to buy just one glass enabled to math-it-out for sure. Bottom line is as I suspected - the cost to upgrade to a set is treated as a User Option and with an expensive upgrade + deep enough discount (this customer got 30% off) that can result in a negative royalty.
So here's how it shakes out:
According to your screenshot, the customer paid a total of $50.37. (52.90 - 2.53).
If you look at the product blank, the cost to upgrade from a single glass to a set of 4 is $52.90.
That entire 52.90 is treated as a User Option at only 5% as shown on the report. The remaining balance is what your 12% royalty is applied to but since the customer only paid a total of 50.37 thanks to 30% off total order, that leaves a negative remaining balance of (-2.53) and as shown on your report, that's what the 12% gets applied to.
You can look at my thread here for a detailed explanation of how this all works (and a link to download my free spreadsheet seen here) but basically the green is how the math actually works out, the purple is what earnings would have been had the customer not added the User Option, and the gray on the right is how one would expect it to be calculated. So you made $0.88 less per order here because of the convoluted way User Options are handled.
Are you talking about the printed glasses or etched glasses? I'm not aware of royalty restrictions on either. A look at both in the MP and prices vary so Designers are obviously setting their own different royalties on them. And I just published a test whiskey glass of each type at 25% and that's how much they showed up as on the product page before I deleted them.
WIthout being able to see your listing and a screenshot of the line from your Royalty Report (customer info blurred out) one can only guess as to the situation. I have a suspicion but would need a link & screenshot to test it out.
I was about to close for the night, be my guest 🙂
Thanks,
Link to the listing? I can already see from the screenshot though that it confirms my suspicion.
ETA - screenshot doesn't show if sale was referred or not?
OK, got it.
Your listing is locked to only a set of 4 so I had to create a test set at your 12% royalty with the option to buy just one glass enabled to math-it-out for sure. Bottom line is as I suspected - the cost to upgrade to a set is treated as a User Option and with an expensive upgrade + deep enough discount (this customer got 30% off) that can result in a negative royalty.
So here's how it shakes out:
According to your screenshot, the customer paid a total of $50.37. (52.90 - 2.53).
If you look at the product blank, the cost to upgrade from a single glass to a set of 4 is $52.90.
That entire 52.90 is treated as a User Option at only 5% as shown on the report. The remaining balance is what your 12% royalty is applied to but since the customer only paid a total of 50.37 thanks to 30% off total order, that leaves a negative remaining balance of (-2.53) and as shown on your report, that's what the 12% gets applied to.
You can look at my thread here for a detailed explanation of how this all works (and a link to download my free spreadsheet seen here) but basically the green is how the math actually works out, the purple is what earnings would have been had the customer not added the User Option, and the gray on the right is how one would expect it to be calculated. So you made $0.88 less per order here because of the convoluted way User Options are handled.
"User Options" are things that cost extra, like say an upgraded paper type or frames on a print. Usually if you see options on the product page with a +$xx in the drop-down, that's treated as a User Option but not always. For example, accent pillows. The extra cost for the zippered version or outdoor fabric is calculated as a User Option; choosing the more expensive 20x20 size instead of the 16x16 size is not. At one time the extra pennies for an envelope or to remove the Zazzle/Designer credit were treated as User Options, don't know if they still are or not. If you see the 5% line on your Royalty Report, you can usually figure out what the User Option was by looking at the options on the product page.
Scratch frames from the above.
https://community.zazzle.com/t5/creator-news/royalty-adjustments-framed-prints/ba-p/104430
Frames are defined as “Accessories” in our Creator License Agreement, but were accidentally characterized as “Upcharges” in our system during the refresh. Since Upcharges receive a 5% royalty, while Accessories are not eligible for royalties,.
I had forgotten about that little bit. So frames are not a User Option (Upcharge).
2. Is there anyway we can sell products like this to prevent the bulk of the sale only getting 5%?
If you look at the product blank which is equal to setting the minimum 5% royalty, (one's own numbers will of course vary depending on the royalty % you chose), a customer is only saving $0.05 by choosing 1 set of 4 instead of 4 singles and the price-per-glass remains the same whether one gets 1 or 500.
Since there is no User Option charge being applied to the singles, your chosen royalty should be applied to the total sale as normal if the customer chooses four singles, instead of having 52.90 of the total paid calculated at only 5% as a User Option if they select the set of four instead.
$52.90 x 5% is $2.65.
$52.90 x 14.9% (a commonly used rate) is $7.88
That's a significant difference. So financially, the best option is to design for one glass and lock the listing to "this set quantity only" so that people have to buy multiples of one instead of switching to a "set" that incurs the User Option.
Designing a set of 4 is fun, obviously means you can do four different coordinated designs in one listing which the customer can see and order together, but you could publish them as singles in a Collection and hope the customer finds the ones meant to go together. So it's personal choice really. Sets that don't pay off much more than singles the way currently calculated but probably attractive to shoppers, or singles that would pay significantly better but would be harder to market together.
(*It's possible that Z's algorithm automatically applies the User Option set charge to orders of 2 or 4 singles, but I doubt that since that's not the way it's presented on the product page.)
I've been able to confirm, thanks to another designer checking their sales history, that sets (of 2 or 4) are only being treated as a User Option for the old-style printed glasses. The new etched style glasses (available only as singles or sets of 2) are being calculated normally without the 5% User Option being applied. So this is really bizarre and I honestly think it's an oversight on Z's end. Like maybe one time the printed sets had an optional display case and THAT was what the User Option was for. Or maybe like the frames for prints, these were mistakenly mis-classfied.
