Quote from Linda_132742 on Feb 12^th, 2009, 7:32am:

 
Still working on it.  Perhaps we can have it resolved and shared with Mike's 4Q08 earnings summary post.  Any changes would only impact future earnings, not retroactive.

Please see here for an update:
http://www.greetingcarduniverse.com/forum/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1234896681/0

Quote from Linda_134118 on Feb 25^th, 2009, 2:16pm:

 
Well it's about time someone who really has been "HIT" by this obscenity spoke up.  Like I said a few months back, the commission schedule penalizes the Artist for the very thing GCU says they are trying so hard to encourage ... bulk sales.  It simply isn't worth it for the Artist with reduced bulk rate card prices COMPOUNDED by a schedule of diminishing commission rates.  The more you sell the less you make.  It's that simple.
 
And simply unfair.
 
At least Linda's big order was all her cards.
 
Think about how much less happier you'd be if your's was only one card in that big order.
 
 
 
 

Just offered for consideration,
 
Well Shaun ... maybe the card pricing IS the problem ... not the Artist's Commission "rate".
 
GCU raised the base price to $2.79 and says that's where most of the sales are.  I assume GCU means sales in terms of volume of cards/dollars ... not just individual sales.  And then GCU is worried about taking a loss on the bottom end of the price structure?  Something's wrong there.  To make matters worse GCU pushing bulk sales.
 
I've read that "around a dollar a card" to print number before.  I assume this is some fixed rate GCU has negotiated with the "printing partner(s)" and frankly it doesn't really mean anything.  But then the discussion gets vague about GCU'S own costs and overhead.  Has anyone at GCU ever sat down and really figured out what the "real", "bottom line", "loaded" cost for producing a card is.  Even with changes in sales performance and projected changs in operating costs factored in, that is a real easy number to calculate, especially now that there is some good sales data history to work with.  And that is the ONLY number that means anything.  From there the decision needs to be made on just how much those bulk sales are worth in increasing overall sales/exposure and what that means in terms of tightening the profit margin.
 
Maybe GCU simply can't afford to sell cards at $1.49.  No other POD I know of is at that point on large quantities.  Is $1.64 a card really that much worse a deal for the buyer than $1.49?  OK yes it would be another $79.50 to the buyer on Linda's order.  When you have already decided to spend $790 on getting cards printed, $79.5 isn't all that much.  Many states are trying to get sales tax up to that point.  Besides who ordered 530 of Linda's cards?  It's either someone with money to spare or a business, in which case it is a business expense.  I'm sorry, Shaun I really think Linda got screwed here ... and for no reason at all.  Or maybe just for the fact that your pricing structure is still missing the mark.
 
I'll suggest another thing about the way GCU deals with numbers.  GCU is stuck on talking about price
per card when GCU mostly should be talking in percentages.  For starters it makes the calcualtions a heck of a lot simpler.  Even on volume discounts.  Just drop the price a few percentage points for every "x number of cards" increment.  Say the price is 2.79 and "you get a whopping 40% off if you buy 500".  Let the buyer worry about the math of how much it costs per card.  I'll bet they don't even care at those quantities.  As long as the total is something they can stomach they will buy.  BTW 40% off 2.79 would get the artist commission back up to 20% on that sale and put a little more money in GCU"S pocket ... and 40% is still a really significant discount to the buyer don't you think???      
 
In all the discussions, everywhere in the forum, about pricing and costs, one thing seems to be consistently overlooked, the huge contribution the Artists have made when it comes to overhead and operating costs.  The Artists here have covered/absorbed the "labor cost" to create GCU's near 150,000 card inventory.  That is what they have "invested".  That is a huge chunk of time and creative effort.  Like it or not it's worth money.  If GCU had to pay for it, there wouldn't be a GCU.  GCU offers Artist's an oportunity, but the money GCU makes is in a large part due to the Artists efforts.  OK if GCU wasn't here what would they do????  They would be someplace else and establishing their own commission rates at many of those places.
 
The point is, this IS a two way street and GCU is placing very little value ... at least on the basis of the reducing commission scale ... on the "investment" the Artist's have made in GCU's business.  Contrary to popular opinion this not some Big Happy Family or a Team ... this is trade, commerce, buying and selling ... this is first and foremost a business.  The Artists here are, more or less, limited and mostly silent partners/investors.  As such they should be able to expect a fair return on their "investment".  GCU changed the return on that investment unilaterally for those who were here prior to June of 2008.  
 
Most "investors" in the conventional sense would pull out of a business like that.  But there is something differnent here.  The Artists themselves ... their dreams, hopes, desires and yes maybe even egos.  Many have this attitude that, well something is better than nothing or, like Tom, it will get better.  I think GCU has taken unfair advantage of that.  
 
Who did the banks cover first when they got thier bail-out money ... their investors.  
 
An illustration:  at another site I need an order of 260 cards to earn $100.00 at their "bulk sale rates".
 
Linda made$78 on a sale of 530 cards.
 
My biggest order at the other site was AFTER I raised my commision rate to 20% and that order is still twice the qunatity of my largest order at GCU.  I've sold more cards total on the other site in the same period of time and they don't even push  greeting cards.  I even have more cards on my GCU card store.    
 
Hi Tom ... is that 25% per month growth in sales just you or are you talking about GCU as a whole?  And is that growth in actual sales or number of cards sold.  I haven't seen growth like that at all personally.
 
But that isn't the point.  The point is no one here should have to take it on the chin for the "team" with the promise of "better times to come" ... that's pretty silly when you are a "business parner" with no say at all in how that business is run.  And I don't believe anyone necessarilly has to.  Linda's efforts resulted in a very nice sale for GCU ... she should have been compensated for that sale fairly ... I don't believe she was and most importantly neither does she.  GCU has total control of pricing AND commission rates.  If they are doing it unrealistically I think they should reconsider.

My brain hurts after reading this  

We are also disappointed that this sale did not prompt the happy dance at Linda's home as it would have for many of our artists.
 
Card price & artists' fee changes were made back in July '08, so there should be no surprises here.  These were necessary changes primarily along two lines 1) stop GCU from taking a loss on sales and 2) capture missed opportunities in large sales.  
 
Please see here for all the details:
http://www.greetingcarduniverse.com/forum/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1213990255
 
To say business shoppers are price insensitive is not an accurate statement and in today's economy could not be further from the truth.  Business shoppers are price sensitive, do price compare especially on the web and will quickly take their business elsewhere if a better deal is to be had.  Let's face it, although each GCU card is a work of art, greeting cards for the most part are commodities.
 
Linda's order was a business shopper, an Irish portal website to be exact.  By ordering 530 cards they hit the $1.49 per card price by 30 cards vs $1.79.  This is likely a deliberate order size decision they made in order to reach the lower price point (30 cents less per card).  Additionally the shopper took advantage of our free shipping promotion saving them $75.90 - an expense that GCU absorbs.  Price matters.
 
As for Whisper's analysis being correct in structure many assumptions are made in exact numbers and is not completely accurate.  GCU is not getting rich on large sales at the expense of artists' earnings.
 
The bottom line is that our sights are not set on selling 500, 1,000 or even 10,000 cards.  To make this really interesting for any of us we look to sell hundreds of thousands to millions of cards.  We appreciate and value our artist community and think it is quite obvious that we have open ears and minds.  But ultimately business decisions do reside with GCU.  Our collective best interests are always considered and we do not make decisions that better matters for GCU at the expense of our artists.  We'd like to think it's quite a symbiotic relationship.  We are sorry if you don't feel this way.  If our model and practices frustrate you to no end then perhaps GCU is not the site for you.  

Quote from Jeff_135713 on Feb 26^th, 2009, 5:15pm:

 
Understood and appreciated that you were plugging in numbers for example's sake.  I just wanted to make sure others did not assume those numbers were facts and did not intend to discredit you.
 
Thank you for your support and I hope your wild happy dance comes soon!