Are 5% Commissions The Future Of The Print-on-demand Industry?

That's a very precise market analysis, Sean.

I love the "set your own price" business model, and boycott commission sites by not uploading to any of them.

Together, we the artists, would be strong, and we could have a lot of influence on the Print-On-Demand price structure. But we are and act like an un-organized bunch of people, so I'm afraid the 5%-commissions-road will prevail in the long run when it comes to Print-On-Demand.

Nice article Sean. Thanks for writing and posting, and of course, for supporting our setting our own prices.

i'm very limited to what i can send things too. a cross between lack of pay pal and have so many images it would take months to send something. it would have to be worth while. as cafepress does what it does, it actually drives people to other pods. and while the others are watching cafe spiral, they are trying to get the lowest percentage to compete with. zazzle is finding all kinds of bizarre products to compete with, bubble is letting everyone change their percents all at once, so far i think that one is staying put. maybe it's just that the pod market is so "easy" to do, like it's almost a kit people can buy to run their own. that's what it seems like right now. with so many to choose from, yet they all look the same. many good artists won't accept 5%, i know i'm worth more. smaller people will accept it, but buyers won't go to places that have junk artists, so those companies would lose out anyway.

in the short run they make money, in the long run, they won't have a company that will last that long.

---Mike Savad

Excellent article and points that are spot on. Good Stern promo too.

Well, I certainly don't have time to read every word in the article, but the sentence that reads: "At FAA, our bestselling artists earn $10,000+ per month. Yes - really!"

I firmly believe in my work and I believe that I, too, can earn an equal amount of money over time.

There are a lot of perfumes in the world, but do you see Chanel getting scared? Are they cutting prices?

Your artwork is your artwork and if you don't believe in yourself, who will?

Is your work like no other? Then charge what you think it is worth, then go create more original work.

That is my philosophy, at any rate.

thank you Sean - that was a very well presented information for all of us.

Nice article.

Didnt know that CP had done that.

The problem is, that if thats the way its going to go, its going to be hard to stop it, as what has happened in the Microstock area.

Of course the great Artists will still sell their work, but it will be harder for others to sell artwork, as there just seems more and more and more on the market every day. It gets harder and harder to be seen, therefor these lower price models will be accepted more I think.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantasy Art Web Site

Thanks Sean for keeping a level head and not follow those corporate losers. I think we as artists and photographers also have a responsibility to keep our prices competitive and not sell out to those "other" pod gougers. POD's are popping up left and right, some have already gone belly up after a year, and who knows what is in their terms in regards to what they can and cannot do with your images after they go belly up? Trust is something you build, those "other" pod sites have yet to earn my trust, and for them to take advantage of the artist and photographers out there by gouging us will not help their cause. FAA has earned my trust and in turn both FAA and I have earned a few dollars too. We may have a few squabbles here and there, but overall they are minute compared to those "other" POD sites who're going to pay pennies on the dollar! We as artists and photographers are as strong and as relevant as we make ourselves, those "other" pod sites don't stand a chance if we don't cave in to their hogwash! W

I appreciate your insight into this subject Sean. A big issue that I see right off the bat here is that many artists on these sites are passing through and this is just a hobby for them. The amount of commission being paid to them is just gravy... and they are willing to take anything because this is not "the source" of their income. It is just pocket change and some are just happy to be included in the on-line club.

Separating those interested in making a living from those who are just here for social or hobby reasons would be an interesting venture. Many people involved here don't think about bottom-lines or profits. That is usually a practice that is attended to by others. They just want to share their photos, paintings, sculptures, digital renditions, etc and if something sells along the way.... great! That leaves the bulk of things to be done by those who are truly trying to make an honest buck because it will add a bit more to the possible vacation for that year.

The "set your own price" model is only as good as the demand for the talent. When the talent pool is watered down with those who are not on the same talent level it drags down the ability to ask for a better commission/profit per sale. When the talent pool is high... but the talent doesn't really mind making less money because it's just another trickle for their income, they just don't have the same concern. I see lots of "something is better than nothing" commentary going on

As for acting like an un-organized bunch, that's pretty much exactly what we are. Especially since anyone is pretty much okay to join in. Lined paper art or canvas masterpieces. Family vacation photos, or waiting for three days for the "right moment" photos. Being organized takes a standard that everyone is willing to adhere to.

Well, interrupted. Gotta go.

Sean, your article makes me think I should close my S6 account. I don't sell anything there either so it I guess it doesn't make a difference. I'm glad I never joined Cafe Press though. I think with Zazzle I'm seeing a lot of artists give up on it lately and not add new designs, although I don't think they will go so far as to close their shops. I gave up on Microstock a long time ago but my accounts are still open. All I can say is that I wish I was making money here, even a few hundred a month would be a big incentive to keep working at it, but that just isn't happening for me. I don't mind encouraging other artists to join FAA and try though.

I love the article and your philosophy Sean! That's why I only sell my work here. I played around with a couple other sites before finding FAA, and once I did the rest of the POD sites seemed like a waste of time.

I always try to bring other artists to FAA. I've brought in two photographers since I've joined, and just last weekend I was encouraging a young graphic designer to set up a profile here. You're absolutely right, we all need to stick together and avoid a race to the bottom.

Great article!

A lot of what you say is exactly what I have been preaching: Top Of The Mind Awareness.

What is the first company that comes to the top of your mind when someone says hamburgers or books or any product. That is the guy that is the leader in market share, more then likely and there for he is the guy that is setting the trend for that space.

That an other points that you bring up about squeezing the sellers commissions, advertising and others, are exactly why I have made the most unpopular suggestion ever made in FAA: Raise the fee to $30 a month so you have the an alternate revenue stream that would help protect the current commission rate. It will also give you the funds to blast the name FineArtAmerica from here to high heave and make it THE household name in the marketplace.

The way I see it is that my $30 a month would be the same as investing in stock if you were a publicly traded company. I will get my dividends or returns through additional sales.
I can feel the pins being inserted into all of those Floyd Voo-doo dolls as I speak! lol

Thank you, Sean! I quit my other sites after 3 months on FAA & I have never regretted it for one minute...for all the reasons you stated here in your article!! I'm looking forward to seeing what new changes/additions you will be bringing in in the coming days!

Thank you Sean for the article, very interesting.

I am on Society6, but I use them only for printing the pillow case/iPad case/clock/shower curtain what I have on sell on my Etsy site.
This way I can set the price of my own.

Good article. I think part of the 5% mentality is we still as a society don't think of art as an "essential" element in our lives which is ridiculous, but drives the 5% commission philosophy as much as the bloated business model does. It really enrages me when they take "art" out of the school curriculum because it's a "non-essential" when the funds get tight. They are neglecting one entire side of the brain when they do that.

Imagine what all our furniture, cars, buildings, clothing, etc. would look like if there were no designers in any of those industries? Pretty ugly and bland.

It's really time people appreciate the arts and artists as an essential part of a healthy society, and pay us what we're worth.

CP hasn't been doing all that great the last couple of years I understand and what they are doing reminds me of what some major (very major) microstock companies did lately and it is a desperate move. As indicated in Sean's article, iIt might not mean the beginning of the micro commissions, but the beginning of the end for those who are desperate. They will become low earners and serious contributors will close their accounts and they will end up with second and third tier work done by those who will sell anything for a buck Just like what happened in the Mature business of stock (Elderly really). Only the ones that are consistent in their offerings, prices, quality, and customer service will prevail. (being nice to contributors helps too lol)

Sean, I appreciate your attitude and unwavering commitment to your business mission, keep on fighting the good fight.

Floyd, not all of us, who are more specialist in our art (not everyone buys erotica - it's too personal) can afford $30 a month though i would be happy paying more than $30 a year because i think FAA provides fantastic services to artists. but don't suggest pricing us out please.

I'd close up shop first before I accepted a 5% commission on my work. That's a slap in the face.

FAA is my main site and will continue to be so. I do upload to Zazzle but do NOT offer prints, canvas, etc. I use it mostly for cards and calendars and odd items.

Thank you for taking the time to research and leave us with an informative presentation.

I'd like to see more emphasis on why people should buy from FAA rather then why artists should sell on FAA.

That type of strategy will not hold up for the long haul. They are only looking at short term. I think the result will be sites like FAA for a POD site and sites like Etsy (not a POD) will continue to thrive and be present in the future. Eventually all the good stuff / sellers will wise up and leave.

edit: ditto on Edwards comment

It never made a lot of sense for me to sell on more places than FAA although I know a lot of folks here do or did. I never understood why I could go market my work here on social media and elsewhere and then market the same work from somewhere else. Although, that is what brand names do all the name in the grocery store/department store model. (Not that that is what we're in.) The only way it made sense was if I wanted to sell calendars or t-shirts, etc. or coffee mugs. (And I do actually want to sell calendars.) So I have looked at other sites, but something about CafePress turned me off as soon as I joined. I'm not sure I even got as far as their commissions. Zazzle didn't seem like a good fit before I signed up, so I stuck with FAA as the only place I sell my stuff. It was a good decision and I have not regretted it yet.

Edward and Melissa,

I think one of the points Sean is trying to make is that if everybody sells their stuff on multiple sites, then there is no good reason to buy it from FAA. (Well, there is, but....) Anyway, if something can only be had in one place, then if someone wants to buy it, they have to buy it from that place. :-)

That's true Loree, but as a seller, you want as many clients as possible. If, heaven forbid, something happens that Sean can't continue the site (please Sean, look both ways when you cross the street ;-), at least if I have stuff somewhere else, I don't have to start from scratch.

That said, I send everyone HERE, and I don't participate on the other sites except to have a store open. This is my "home".

Great article Sean.

Robert! Again you amaze me with your ignorance! You jump right in head first without thinking!

"I will save you the trouble of looking it up. It means to attack the man, not the argument."

YOU my friend are the one that said I was the problem. I never ever heard of you before that attack was made!

And why in the world would you make accusations based on ignorant assumptions with NO WAY of knowing the facts? Oh I know, it was an attempt at discrediting me. Is that not another an ad hominem attack? Oh, wait! Yes it is!!

You need to worry about your own sales Robert. Looking down your nose at me and other photographers and the other LEGITIMATE members of FAA is NOT going to increase your sales.

I do just fine. In fact I do better then just fine with both my own images and the images of dead people. Kind of torques your jaws does it? lol

My own images out sell all those dead artist on a percentage bases so I guess that would make me a better artist then all of the dead guys, huh? lol

What is the matter with you? You come out of no where and start a fight with me. Why? Because I sell dead artist's images? Gee... do you think you are the first art snob to bring that up?

Are you going to pick a fight with the other 15,000 stock and gallery owners that are members here also? And what about all of the fine art from "artists" that is for sale here that is based on or an alteration of some of old masters and other public domain images? All of these people are doing you an injustice of some sort or is it just me?

There are what, probably 20 million? 50 million? images of dead artist and public domain images for sale here and here I am with my 2400. But I am the problem!

Come on Robert. You are obviously an intelligent and well educated person. This is the best you have to offer? An attack on me, a guy that you pretty much think is insignificant?

Do you have any idea how insignificant that makes you? lol

Get off you high-horse and contribute something other then an attack based on what? You never have said what has you so upset to call me out in the first place. I know, you don't like my dead artists. But there has to be more then that considering that those 2400 images are probably what? Less than 1% of the dead artist, vacation photos and public domain images. That is just too shallow. A man of your great stature can't possible be that shallow. Can you? Come on Robert tell us what you rally think! :-)

Oh, and don't forget to display some more of that arrogance, please feel free to make the necessary spelling and grammar correction. The one thing I like to do is keep you spelling cops in business.

"Sean, I presume, doesn't care what sells so long as it does. "

That I totally agree with you on and I have been saying that for 6 months or longer.

Again, this whole discussion started with people whining about that very thing. Too much competition in the search form the stock and gallery members and others members that are thought of as undesirables.

My question was, why should he care? Just because a bunch of artist what to have their own site with out all the lessor beings?

Sorry, that is not good enough. That is not going to happen until you give him reason to make it happen. The only reason I see why anyone would do that is for the right monetary incentives. No one is going to do it for artists and the sake of art. Those days are gone for even and have been for years.

@Floyd

I believe the term is "shoot yourself in the foot" vis a vis selling images by what are essentially your competitors, albeit dead ones.

I checked your artist's website, I even searched your gallery and company names online. I did not find any reference, anywhere, regarding your photographs. Hence I did not see them.

Frankly this isn't about you and me. There is a glut of images available to people. There is a convention in place that it is acceptable to purchase prints (reproductions) of dead masters but not of current artists' work. I didn't create the convention. I would most certainly like to change it.

In the art world at large, photographs are rarely taken to be art. That is not me attacking you. Even here on FAA there is a distinction made in that regard. As for me, I offer both, visual art and photographs, a not unusual combination.

The question at the top of this thread was whether FAA was going to follow other PoDs and start obliging image uploaders to accept a maximum of 5% commission or continue with the current practice of allowing us to set our own markup. I sincerely hope the latter is the case.

An ancillary question is whether FAA's marketing (advertising) is having any real effect on sales. For me it hasn't. For others perhaps it has. But in general terms the whole "art" collector shtick doesn't cut it. YOU EVEN AGREED WITH THAT. Better to say art users and move towards getting people thinking simply this: If an image moves you in some way then you should spend time with it. That's why they buy music.

I also think when FAA started there was an attempt to give artists a hand up by creating a site that offered and promoted their work. Now, from what some of the others here have said, those same artists are suggesting FAA fade into the background, provide the printing, handling of payments, and shipping and let artists/photographers drive buyers to their respective sites.

And the owner of FAA is wanting to both stay in business and prosper. Fortunately for us he seems inclined to stay in the print on demand business.

(Oh yes, one last thing: On your artist's website you use the term "fugitive" art. I think you mean figurative art. I have never heard of the former.)

"Frankly this isn't about you and me.'

No,I fully agree, it is not about you and me. YOU made it about you and me when you said I was the problem.

As I said in the very first response to the very first post I have ever seen by you, I basically agree with everything you said. You answered that with your "you are part of problem" statement. Heck, I would hate to see how you respond to people that disagree with you! lol

And I agree with the last post you made also. But if this is not about you and me, whey do you keep bringing me into it?

I have had this conversation a couple dozen times about which images are mine in my gallery. You will be the first one that has failed to figure it out. Here, I will give you a hint. I have been married for 41 years. I figured out very early in that marriage that some arguments are not worth winning. Here's another hit. Think of a Johnny Cash song with a funny title.

Beyond that, let's just agree to disagree (even don't really disagree) and move on.

@Floyd

Only if you correct the typo on your website: fugitive > figurative. :)

Floyd - I don't get why you're so bent out of shape by the suggestions of others. If it's not a good idea, Sean won't act on it. So what have you to worry about?

"Only if you correct the typo on your website: fugitive > figurative. :)"

I can do that. lol We found more that we agree on! See, we can all just get along!

Roseann, I am not all bent out of shape about suggestions. But when they are suggestions that can't work, then I say why and try to give some sort of reason. That is what debate and discourse of this nature is all about.

If you feel it is an exercise in futility, then you don't have to participate. But when you jump into a discussion of ideas, you have to be ready to have your ideas tested or challenged. If that is not to ones liking, then simple do not participate.

And for the record and for the umpteen time, I know Sean is not going to act. This whole discussion is an exercise of ideas that hopefully some one can learn something from.

Like what Philip and others were talking about on how to use the AW. That was a good exchange of ideas that came for this discussion.

Learning and seeing that I am not the only one that thinks Sean is going full steam into adding more "lessor quality" images is something every one should heed and start tying to figure out how to step up their marketing and advertising. That is another good that has come out of this discussion.

Some one left this thread and stated another on how to improve FAA over all. Some really great ideas have been posted there.

That is why exercises of this nature are of value even if some of the ideas will never happen. It get people talking and thinking. That is always a good thing.

Floyd,

In the start of this discussion. Sean asked us to spread the word about FAA. This is something I've been doing since I started here. Of the people I've spoken to that are professional artists, and by that I mean the ones that make a living from their art, the reasons why they wouldn't join were what I noted above. As a business owner, you would not be interested in why some people may not wish to do business with you? That doesn't mean you have to change anything for them, but to have the knowledge of why is a benefit. It's something to consider.

At what point in time did I say anything about an exercise in futility? You do make a great deal in the way of assumptions. That's funny you say that about ideas considering the way you treated the photog who was posting about crowdfunding for his project. You went out of your way to destroy his ideas and then post something nasty on his page. So your statement about not participating is a bit hypocritical.

Rosanne, the topic is the future of FAA. Not the guy that was running the scam to get a free vacation. But thank you pointing that out and allowing me to tell you that I was right on that one. The website that was handling the donations made him take the plea down, deemed non-worthy of what they were trying to: help people with real needs.

You remind me of the politicians that debate for months about the size and shape of the room and table before they actually get down to actually address the problem at hand.

"That doesn't mean you have to change anything for them, but to have the knowledge of why is a benefit. It's something to consider."

Then you should talk about what you think is of benefit, but you have to be ready to be challenged. That is how good ideas become better of bad ones for that matter. Not by talking about the guy with the idea or about something totally non-related.

"At what point in time did I say anything about an exercise in futility?"

At every point where you said that Sean is not going do anything anyway.

Floyd - Then they shouldn't have let the project be put up in the first place. Sounds like they need a better system in place. It was gone before I could actually see what he was proposing. I've seen a number of successful crowdfunding projects along similar lines.

There are plenty of things you remind me of. Since it's against forum rules to name and shame, I'll pass.

IMHO, sharing ideas, information, suggestions is not a bad idea, or futile. Just like constructive criticism. You hear the thoughts of others, what they see and what they know and you decide what is of value to you and what is not.

Sean asked us to send the word to other artists to come join FAA. I have been doing that for a long time now. I shared with him one main reason why they won't join and my suggestions that might make them reconsider. If you feel passing that information on is futile, that's fine. I really don't care. He asked, I answered.

Gezzus Ropsann, get over it! Move on!

Floyd - the same could be said of you.

Here's the problem that I was trying to address, going back six months ago. Sean's article reinforced that I was right on the money.

Six months ago I noticed that several very large institutions or what seem to be institutions, they are certainly not individual artists, were loading images 50 or more a day, day after day. They are still doing it even today as we speak. One of them loaded over 50 images today alone. That is just one!

I stated watching them through my activity link.

These institutional members, some of them with over 100,000 images, are adding images at 10X? 20x? who know how much faster then the average individual artist. It does not take much of a math wizard to see where the individual artists are going to be lost in the say of stock and public domain images. In other words the balance is going to be tilted, if it hasn't been already, away from "fine art". Quality of that fine art is really not the issue here.

I believe the strength of FAA for both the galleries, of which I am one, and the individual artist, of which I am also one, is in the balance of the two products. If either overwhelms the other the site loses its appeal to the buyers that are looking for one other but may buy either one once they find the site.

My challenge was to try to find a middle ground to where all parties can coexists that brings about a level playing field, or as close to it as possible.

However the consensus was, to get rid of the stock and public domain gallery members. That is not a realistic solution because I didn't think Sean was ever going to do that. That was over 6 months ago and now Sean posted the article above and outright admits that he is not only not going to dump the stock the and public domain contributors but is aggressive going to add more and as many as he can.

With this being the case, how is the individual artist planning on address this issue? What can they do to keep from being lost in a sea of "non-fine art images? Or do you even see it as an issue?

Okay, Roseann, I will give you my permission to flame and shame me. Call me anything you want. To say anything about me, my artwork, my family, my dog and anything under God's blue sky you what to attack me for or say about me. No holds barred. Just get it all out of you system. Fee shots on goal. Ten pages if you must. You really need to get this out of your system, so go for it.

And I will not respond in anyway. I will never respond to another post you make. (I may print it out and put in my scrap book however. lol)

You get the last word... deal?

Good thing the two of you aren't neighbors!

ROFLAMO!

Murray, I don't pay much attention to my neighbors. So it really wouldn't matter.

lol

Maybe we new a new reality show! Any volunteers to star in: Artists- Some desire fame while others crave fortune!

Sean has connections to television. Maybe a cameo on "Hell's Kitchen!" With some FAA artwork appropriately displayed with a quick 15 second shout out!

Gordon- "Ladies and Gentlemen (in his finest British accent) we have the pleasure of serving the CEO of Fine Art America and Pixels tonight! Let's not disappoint."

"Fame or Fortune" would be a fun idea for a new thread. Trying to read through this one is making me dizzy... so long, and so much bickering. Glad the battles have died down, or so it seems.

Craig!

I like the idea of a TV show.... how about FAA artist go wild... we can have the artist flashing their nude paintings and photographs! .... okay, wait, that may not be such a good idea.

How about a show where two people bicker about anything and everything in the art world... we can call it Art Life With the Bikersons. We can have different FAA "family' members stop in, different people ever show, and they can all bicker about what is and what is not art and where it should be hung and where it should be stuffed...

Hey, you know, with all the crazy reality programming out there this just may be a big hit!!

My vote would be to have Roger and his Old Coots open every show and introduce the players for the day.

Sorry, I hate reality TV, so I'll pass.

See, we do agree on some things. I can't believe they can find advertisers to support those programs. Boggle the mind.

Floyd suggests.."how about FAA artist go wild..."

And Floyd requests..."My vote would be to have Roger and his Old Coots open every show."



And I oblige:



I might not be opening this show...A good chance I'll be closing it.


A note to the FAA Blues...I was just following orders

I will not even attempt to follow that other then to say!! Love those Feral Coots!

Over and out.