Wrong Final Amount for Sale

[HeatherMarie]

I just had a sale that was *not* referred but it still ended up with the percentage as if it had been referred by 3rd party. The final earnings were cut nearly in half as if it was 3rd party referred and not "None" like it was. Anyone else see this issue today? This was on an 80 invitation order.

[SheaPrints]

Yes, I noticed this. I received a $3.33 royalty for a $60.58 sale. (10% rate, no referral). Then it happened with two more identical $4.30 sales, each paid $0.24 (10% rate, no referral). I assumed the buyers had a special discount!

[ColsCreations]

@SheaPrints 

Zazzle's entire payment & fee structure changed on April 1st 2025. Looks like your sales in question were for products in the 45% bracket (Office & School or Sports, Toys & Games). 

[SheaPrints]

Yes, that's right, they are all in the 'Office & School' category. So I should have received $6.06 and $0.43 as they are all referrer 'None'. I thought a special buyer discount had been applied, but now I'm not sure!

[HeatherMarie]

Yes, I am aware of the change. But, this was not a 3rd party referred sale. No marketing percentage should have been taken. So, I should have gotten my full default percentage amount, which I didn't.

[Cat]

Maybe you could post a screenshot of the sale from your royalty report?

OK, hold the phone. I just went through my royalty report and found a few from the past day or two that are "none" but the royalty is cut in half. They're not transfers so I'm at a loss. Hmmmm... (and Grrrrr...)

[ColsCreations]

This is not good but I am guessing that these were all actually Referred sales, but since they are doing stuff behind the scenes to update our "reports", they are incorrectly showing as None right now? In this recent thread re the referral % no longer showing on the referral report, James said 

We’ve made a recent change to help support upcoming improvements to your Earnings experience. We understand this may be a bit disruptive in the short term, but we believe it will lead to a better experience moving forward. Thanks for bearing with us as we work towards enhancing this section.

So maybe they are re-classifying things to be more descriptive than just None, Self or 3rdP and this is just some temp confusion?

[Cat]

That would make sense, but it is a bit disconcerting. There have been a few other "nones" in the same time period that were credited correctly (ie full royalty, no marketing fee deducted) so there's clearly some sort of anomaly. Maybe someone from Z will weigh in to clarify.