Doreen, I DO understand that... so why not promote more of a partnership between artists and staffers?  Isn't the whole idea of creating a greeting card the incorporation of art?  When we go to the card store, don't you have access to a wide variety of images and verses from which to choose from?  
 
I'm not being a snit here - just really in a pickle trying to wrap my head around what is marketable vs MY ART.  If my work isn't marketable by their desires, then tell me!!!  I'll either choose to leave or find a way to make my art fit in... this is something I have no feedback on.  I've even asked for people to look at my store and offer me advice to see if I'm on track.  I HOPE I'm on the right track.
 
I don't mind tough if it means me producing something better.  After all, I'm hoping for some money in the end too.  And YES I have a choice here... I'd rather stay - but that means better communication on what GCU wants.  Are only certain styles going to be allowed to sell here?  If so, then I NEED to know if I fit in or not...
 
If all of this is coming down to returns, WHY are cards being returned?  Can't we share this information with us in the essence of improvement of products produced?  When I was working as a lab technician, we had weekly meetings to discuss successes and areas that needed work... it came from the top people and filtered down - all to keep us on the same page as a similar goal needed to be reached.

Thanks Donna - You had my hissy fit for me.  
 
I did go to art school & my degree is in illustration - BUT absolutely ALL your points are valid concerns.
Being a "trained" or "papered" artist is completely irrelevant to whether or not one's art is beautiful or meaningful to you or others. No one should need a pedigree to paint a picture or express themselves.
 
BTW - I've had my share of being on the receiving end of snobbery - as Illustration majors we were routinely scorned by the Fine Art majors as being "whores." Yup, they felt the only true "Art" was the stuff that came purely from themselves - not ever being told what to do. Of course we all (Illust. majors) laughed and knew better.  
 
ANyway, my point is that I wasn't aware that this was going to become a "by invitation or jury" site, with some sort of elite criteria. I am disappointed that when the reviewing process is as slow & (apparently) as complicated as it is, that there would be thoughts about making it more cumbersome for not just the artists, but for the reviewers as well.

Carol, I do hope Mindy will engage us in further discussion on all these issues that have been raised.  Granted, GCU has a right to refuse to use our work but if there's anything I can't stand is not having answers as to why.  It's no different than going up to a piece of art and saying "well, this sucks" and walking away leaving someone in a lurch - and when asked why, there is no providing of any additional information to explain such a response.  It's not about growing a thick skin or going some place else, it's finding out what to do to meet with the requirements the company wishes their products to represent.  Sending back a card asking to change this or that without explanation as to why, it muddies the waters.  Why was a part of an image considered distracting?  Why was a particular colored blanket where a dog was photographed laying on considered distracting?  These answers provide a great deal of information to help us less experienced artists to up our own bars.  I've looked at other work to get a feel for it... but it doesn't help me as I want my work to stand apart from those I've glanced at.  So, is researching what sells really going to help me?  If I look at my own work, I've sold cards that vary in composition - some are straight photos and others are compilations of digital art with photographs or completely unique renders from drawings.  How do I judge what sells when there is diversity in my own store and I like it that way?
 
I know I am a million questions and I hope I will be humored in continuing to ask, but since I tried to help Petra and her card was not accepted after we thought we fixed the offending issues, I feel a bit of this reflects on my own work - so I am very curious as to why her card continues to be rejected - it's a learning curve, most definitely.  
 
I REALLY think if we get some insight on the number of returns and the reasons for those returns, we all could benefit from the information shared.  If it's a matter of confidentiality and not having such information publicly available, then create a thread that only admin and the artists can participate on.  I think this continued discussion would serve everyone well.

This discussion is good.  
 
99.9% of the cards submitted to GCU have no image issues, but you can imagine how easy it is for someone, even a 4-year old, to scan and upload an image that meets all of the objective rules (spelling, and so forth).
 
That doesn't obligate GCU to accept it "as-is" or even "ever," per the Terms and Conditions.  
 
Shoppers really expect all GCU cards to be as good as those in retail stores, so the bar is set higher than at sites like Zazzle.  I'm thankful for that!  
 
Here is one image example that meets all the objective rules.  If cards like these were accepted "as-is," and were all over the site, then it would very likely drive away regular shoppers, which is not good for GCU or artists long-term (plus we'd instead be complaining about cards like this getting through!)
 

 
I hope we can support GCU in their efforts to maintain a reasonable minimum level of "professional" image quality even though the judgments in this area will be subjective, difficult, controversial, and many times "debated" like in "e's" card's case that started this discussion.  
 
I think I'll upload the card above to see what happens.  
 
TOM

Donna i was reviewing my note when you posted yours,l i have been writing it off and on since 6 when hubby got up and off to work... some of our thoughts are the same  
 
Tom, this is like my least favorite commercials in the world.  the ones that take perfectly capable people and make them look like they can't do a simple task.  you know the ones for such and such vacuum that works like a dream unlike the one the other person is trying to use.  they show the other person in an exaggerated act of incompetence to make their point.  
 
yes it is a good discussion,  you are right there.  but we know what you illustrated is not the problem, and not what i was getting at with my "meets all the objective rules" statement.
 
did i cast too wide a net, depends...  was the reviewer critiquing an artistic element..yes, according to what Ernestine wanted the card to say with her photo.  
 
the addition of notes to the reviewers gave us an option to say i purposefully added this element or allowed this element, it is not a mistake.  but should we have to explain every bit of artistic license we take?    
 
there are reasonable limitations on both ends of this spectrum.  i agree GCU is not a typical POD site, but, when most of us joined it was promoted as bringing artists and card buyers together....that denotes art and artistic license when it comes to what we want to put on the card front.  
 
now with this latest incarnation and new business statement of "every card imaginable", perhaps that vision has shifted more to the standard business model, but it is still driven by the artists and artistic spirit in our designs.  the corporate may have shifted gears but we are grinding ours trying to meet the criteria and some of the "grease" has been left out of the gear box.
 
if there are expected image requirements such as are present in the stock agencies then that needs to be laid out more distinctly and it calls for a different mindset in designing the cards.  those of us, and there are a few here, who submit to stock agencies - we know they expect images that fit the criteria of what you might see in a magazine, on a billboard, in a brochure or print advertisement. it is a completely different way of looking at an image, you have to totally shift your "eye" on what to look for when creating an image.  it has to fit a little box or we get that dreaded " this image does not have any commercial value" message.
 
if this is the direction that GCU is to go then it means the "artists" have to redefine what they are producing in their cards.  it has always had the undercurrent of create what sells, but, the box has changed dimensions i believe.  
 
we do have a great venue here for our work and i am grateful for the platform and not having to pay a fee.  but, is the artist / card designer line becoming blurry at this point?  i think it is.  maybe this applies mostly to us "old-timers" here.. but when i recruit someone to come i tell them it is a site where artists created cards are what make us unique and different from the others.  it seems that has gradually changed and artist friends are not getting the same feel.  
 
if i were to come in today versus the almost 5 years ago when i did come in, its different.  change is not a bad thing, we have grown and sales are better but the "vibe" is different now.  someone else can probably word it better than i have.  i feel i have taken off my artists beret and put on a graphic designer persona.  that is harder to do sometimes than one might think even with my background in the stock agency submissions.  i wanted my cards to be the other side of the coin from my stock work.  the artistic outlet versus my strict designer eye,  that made it fun and enjoyable to create cards and let my creative side fully breathe.  it does change how i think about what i submit.
 

Just to clarify ... in prep for an upcoming video I'm doing on making marketable cards, GCU has shared with me some card images they are forced to look at and make decisions on.  
 
1.  Home photos way out of focus, poor lighting, and crooked (not by design).
2.  Art that is crinkled and/or folded, and right from a scanner with no centering, sizing, or cropping.
3.  Hand written front text right on the art in ball point pen or marker.
4.  Visible tape used to hold art or text to a background, scanned, and uploaded.
 
They many times expect GCU to take these images and "fix" them for them.  
 
I think we can agree these type of images should not just be stamped "APPROVED."  They should at least be returned for edits.

yup... those things should be no-brainers!!!  
 
Still would love to hear about WHY cards are being returned... I am most interested in getting an overview on the issues GCU is facing so we can all do our part.  
 
It's too bad discussion can't be continued on this subject WITH Admin so we all stay on the same page.  I might be new but I've dealt enough with Corporate America to know that everyone plays a part in the success of the company - I've prided myself on being a team player but I still stand by my art being my art.  Would love to know if overall company focus has changed gears.  I'll start researching being an illustrator/designer vs being an ARTIST which is why I came here...