The Cafe Press Blunder
May 2, 2009 | Vetting explained
It may not be as big a name as Ebay or Amazon, but Cafe Press is certainly no small fry, either. Cafe Press is what is known as a POD--a print on demand site that specializes in allowing users to design, order, and sell custom t-shirts, coffee mugs, and other items, providing them with an online shop and digital previews to showcase their wares with little or no initial investment and no need for inventory. For years, they've been top dog in the POD world, looming over smaller sites like Zazzle.com and printfection, but that may be all about to change in the light of recent policy changes on the part of Cafe Press.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a site like Cafe Press depends upon its designers to provide quality work that people will want to buy. Without designers, Cafe Press wouldn't exist, and nor would any other POD, because the site depends almost completely on the contributions of its users to provide a large, quality marketplace that customers will be drawn to again and again. Knowing this, it would seem like a no-brainer that they'd want to keep their designers happy, and that means paying them what they're worth. Cafe Press had this well in order at first--they were one of the few POD's that allowed contributors to set their own markups or royalties, something that Zazzle and others didn't do. Along with volume bonuses to reward especially productive contributors, Cafe Press had no trouble in gathering a large, faithful following of talented, dedicated contributors that tirelessly submitted design after design to the public Market Place and earned a substantial profit not only for themsleves but for Cafe Press as well.
So why then has Cafe Press gone so awry? Recently, Cafe Press announced some changes to their system that had many of its users livid. Where in the past, a contributor had the power to set their own markup, Cafe Press has decided that effective June 1st, markups will apply ONLY to sales made directly from the contributor's shop. If a customer finds your item in the marketplace instead, you receive only 10% of the purchase price.
For contributors that were selling their work for 30%, 40%, or even 50% or more, this comes as a terrible blow. For these designers, Cafe Press was not some weekend hobby, but a career, as much a full time job as any 9-5 profession, but now they were being told that if their profits would be reduced to a mere fraction of what they were, leaving them with a mere pittance of what they had become accustomed to.
The policy change would also force Cafe Press designers to compete with themselves, because who is going to buy a t-shirt from their shops for $30 when they can get the exact same design through the Cafe Press marketplace for $20? Professional, quality designers would have no choice but to completely remove their products from the marketplace and focus on promoting their merchandise themselves rather than doing what they came to Cafe Press to do--design.
As if this were not abuse enough, Cafe Press has one more sneaky trick up its sleeve. Though it made no secret of the fact it is planning to reduce all contributor royalties in the marketplace to 10%, the announcement convieniently leaves out one very important detail--if a customer is linked directly to your shop and orders one of your designs, but then goes to the CP marketplace and purchases something from there as well, YOUR sale will be counted as a Marketplace sale as well, and you will still receive only a 10% markup. Cafe Press designers who have begun to investigate the source of their sales in light of the recent policy changes have found that even sales they KNEW to be directly from their shop were classified as Marketplace sales, and the explanation from Cafe Press was because they were in the same basket at the checkout, all of the sales were counted as Marketplace sales.
Cafe Press seems to have forgotten that the very brick and mortar that makes its business work is its contributors. Users that have contacted the site to express their outrage have been brushed off, and have been told that they don't think "the people leaving are going to make much of a difference". Posts on the forums that express discontent are promptly deleted, and any mention of competitors like Zazzle are automatically censored as if they were some obscene word. With the loss of their rightful royalties, the removal of the Volume Bonus, and the Nazi-like censorship of their conversations and forums, it's no wonder so many Cafe Press users are jumping ship.
CP doesn't think losing a few designers is a big deal, but the designers its losing are the best and the brightest--the ones that made a living off of Cafe Press and hope to continue doing so, even if it's someplace else. So where are they going? To the little guys like Printfection, Ninjazoo, and Zazzle. Zazzle especially has seen significant growth since the new policies were announced on Cafe Press. Former CPer's who make the transition are stunned by the welcoming atmosphere, the ease of use, and the designer-friendly policies of their new home. They've found a POD where they have the power to design as much as they want and earn what they're worth, and not have to face censorship and unfriendly staff.
And Cafe Press, in its arrogance, has lost them forever.
- Tags:
- ireport_for_cnn,
- zazzle,
- pod,
- cafe_press,
- press,
- cafe
- Posted in Assignment:
- iReport for CNN
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.
What is iReport?
-
Share
Tell a story, offer an opinion, say what's important to you.
-
Discuss
Join the conversation on the day's big issues.
-
Be heard
The best iReports get vetted and used on CNN platforms.
The label “Not vetted by CNN” lets you know that this story hasn’t been both checked and cleared by a CNN editor.
iReport stories that have a red "CNN iReport" stamp in the corner have been vetted and
cleared. That means they've been selected and approved by a CNN producer to use on CNN,
on air, or on any of CNN's platforms.







Comments