Quote from Steppeland_231500 on Aug 30^th, 2013, 2:36am:

 
Hi Steppeland,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and yes, that is exactly what I meant.  
 
You've shared that you see the benefits of the detailed review feedback and are using it constructively to improve the cards in question and your future submissions.  That's exactly our intent, great job and thank you!    Unfortunately not all artists operate this way.    
 
I'll take it that you vote for the "Unsuitable" term vs "Unprofessional" as Sherry's suggested.
 
Thank you again for your feedback, it is very helpful.    ... and your appreciation, it is valued.  

Yes, I don't think unprofessional should ever be implied here, ever. Professional is in the eye of the beholder.

Interesting.... the concept that "professional" is in the eye of the beholder. Here's the dictionary's meaning of the word-
 
".... having or showing the skill appropriate to a professional person; competent or skillful."
 
"... worthy of or appropriate to a professional person."
 
I remember being told by a creative director years ago that he hated my ad layout ( before it went to production ). "What's wrong with it?" I had asked him. He just looked at me and said,"Go figure it out." I did a lot of figuring out in those days and went on to win awards in advertising. There were standards to meet. I have never had a job where there weren't professional standards to meet. If you want to create art, and then want to sell it, you have to be ready to take criticism. It comes with the territory of being a creator. It's a business where a thick skin, perseverance and a willingness to learn and research is truly needed.
 
 
Mindy, I think just stating "Not right for GCU" may make artists feel not so "rejected" and that they then can just go upload the image to the myriad of other POD sites that are out there. Art is subjective indeed, and the internet has allowed people to showcase their creations on a myriad of sites. GCU is not the only one, so they can go put that image anywhere else they choose. It won't be viewed so much as a total loss.
 
 
One more thought .... there is another card store site that I'm on where you have to submit your portfolio. Many artists don't get accepted. But after about a year, this site weeded through their ACCEPTED artists and closed many artists' shops because they claimed their direction had changed. So while GCU has weeded through many stores, they offer Wikkis, this great forum, and the critique; the artists here still have the option to keep their stores open. Going through the forum of the other card site I'm on and seeing those little blank boxes from posts of previous store owners who were once there, is sad indeed. But it's all just part of the business.
 
 Also, ego is a good thing, but not when it gets in the way of learning.  
 
 
Hugs and much success to you all! And OMG! It's 3am. I truly am a vampire!!!
 

[quote author=Mindy link=1377201928/30#35 date=1378422264]Quote from Laura_142481 on Sep 5^th, 2013, 3:01am:

 
 
 
 
 
I think Mindy, where the problem lies overall, is after allowing so many cards on GCU for so long that were truly not "professional" looking, then changing the game rules so to speak, probably made many artists feel that their work was fine before, so why isn't it not now? And when those particular cards sold, and then were deleted from their stores, that's when their feelings were hurt.
 
You have a basic concept here on GCU where everything and anything is allowed so to speak yielding a wide range of cards on a variety of subjects. An artist with a professional attitude, no matter what their skill level is, will go farther in a creative business because of their willingness to learn and improve their craft. They've learned that ego must take a back seat in order for that to happen. I feel that cards that have a true issue should be looked at with more than two eyes, then given a short comment as to why it was declined. Or simply, as I said before- "Not suited for GCU" since you're not a school, but a business, you really don't need to give a reason, in my opinion, but I know I'll get flack for that statement. The question is- is everyone here because they're enjoying a "hobby" rather than seeing it as a "professional" undertaking that's adding stress to their process? Hmmmmm.... I think there is a bit of both mentalities here and if you demand something professional, I think many artists truly don't understand what that means and rely on their instincts creatively as to what they deem "professional." I think inherently understanding a guideline is one thing, but the application isn't always achievable for many, especially coming from a place without some sort of class in photography, graphics, etc. Seriously, here's how I honestly see it- There are no standards in general on Zazzle, Cafe Press and other POD sites and it shows. You have the absolute crap ( my opnion but others will agree ) to the most amazing creations ( with a few copyright infringers thrown in for good measure ). And if you sell enough they reward you, as Zazzle does, with a Pro Seller badge. You either make it or you don't. Go figure it out. Their forum is full of tips and not so friendly artists. But there is no "rejection" or demands for "professionalism" so you can truly do your thing.
 
So. Here we are on GCU, and you have guidelines. OK. I'm fine with that. And if I'm not, I have the choice to put my card design elsewhere. You have the right to enforce the guidelines because it's your site.
 
It seems fairly simple to me. Artists should try and do the best work they can and deal with a few rejections here and there and view it as a learning process and not take it personally, or upload work to the other sites that won't cause rejection stress of having to go through a review process.  
Life is too short to feel bad about one's creation and get depressed or pissed off about it. Or maybe pick another creative outlet. I sure wouldn't want to feel bad every day creating my art.
 
Here's a valuable tip for artists- when a card gets rejected, DON'T ask your family what they think is wrong. Take it to a group of people ( at church, your child's play group, etc. ) and ask everyone what they think of your design and ask for an HONEST opinion and mean it. Ask them if they would buy it, and BE READY for criticism. Don't take it personally ( that's the hard part, but truly try and separate yourself from the art ) and ask for CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, meaning.... ask for the reason why it's not liked and take note. And above all, be GRACIOUS in your response to their constructive criticism. You're on your way to becoming a pro. Look to improve your art, not hang onto concepts that may not be working for you and then get defensive about it.

You are so right!  Those truly are words of wisdom.  I sell on Zazzle too, but I like it here, because only the best is sold here.  If I sold some of my card designs here that I sell on Zazzle, they probably would be rejected.  So displaying my craft here, feels like it is my best and I strive for it.  More rejections may come, but as you said it is a way to improve your craft.  One day this maybe a very successful endeavor for many of us, if we keep on learning and growing as artists.  I plan to stay here for quite sometime!  Mindy you put up with alot from us artists.  Thank you!

Quote from Mindy on Aug 29^th, 2013, 3:03pm:

 
Please see here for an update on terminology:
http://www.greetingcarduniverse.com/forum/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1380821980/0

While supporting myself primarily as a professional advertising writer for 30+ years, I've also licensed ideas for greeting cards, t-shirts and calendars to various companies. And in the process I've been turned down a lot more times than I've succeeded. That said, I do bristle at the term "unprofessional" and find "unsuitable" preferable. I also think "decline" is a better word than "reject". So kudos to GCU on that change. Still my main problem is not with what words are chosen by GCU to decline certain cards and accept others; it's what seems to be a glaring inconsistency in standards. NobleWorks is a big contributor to GCU. I'm not a fan of much of their cruder stuff, but a lot of their cards are hilarious. I am a fan of Ron Kanfi, the company's owner and in fact NobleWorks used to distribute my Jewish FunnyBone line of cards. I'm also a big fan of parody. And I know that Ron is, too, as evidenced by several of his cards here that parody the Seven Dwarfs (of Fatherhood, Motherhood, Old Age). Now I had a card illustrated wonderfully by Mark Brewer in which Jonah and Pinocchio end up inside of the same whale. Here Jonah had broken Pinocchio apart and started a fire with him. The cover line: "Wet and cold inside the belly of the whale, Jonah kindles a new friendship." The inside line: "May you always enjoy the warmth of good friends. Happy Birthday." Now Disney has several trademarks on Pinocchio. But Mark Brewer’s illustration looked in no way like the Disney character. What's more, the story of Pinocchio is much older than Disney itself. And yet my concept was declined -- allegedly because of Disney's intellectual property rights. OK, so GCU likes to play it safe. I can accept that. But the problem is, they're missing out on a whole lot of sales opportunities by not recognizing parody as a long-established and profitable art form in every creative medium. Regarding Ron’s/NobleWorks parodies (which I love, by the way), Disney also owns numerous trademarks on the "Seven Dwarfs". So, how, I wonder, is it acceptable to allow parodies of the Seven Dwarfs, using the words “Seven Dwarfs”, but not okay to do a parody involving Pinocchio, with no mention of Pinocchio by name? I find this VERY confusing and VERY inconsistent. Furthermore, NobleWorks has other cards that push the limits. For example, one card makes fun of Tourette’s syndrome with a concept called the “Tourette’s Restaurant.” On the cover, a waiter is saying to a customer, “And what kind of crappity smackING dressing would you like on you GODdarn COCKSUCKING salad?” The inside line: “Have a goddarn happy crappity smacking birthday! Mothercrappity smacker!” Huh?
 
[This forum apparently bans, and rightfully so, the use of certain language. What you're seeing here I guess is the result of the forum's spellcheck sanitizing the real words. Here’s the line with blanks, which I’m sure you can fill in: “And what kind of F--KING dressing would you like on your GOD---N COCKSUCKING salad?” The inside line: “Have a godd--n happy f--king birthday! Motherf--ker!”  Now, is it just me? Or is it strange this language is okay on the retail website, but not in this forum? Isn’t the retail website even more public?]  
 
Now I love black humor. And, forgive me, I laughed at this card, although I happen to have a very dear friend whose son suffers from Tourette’s. In addition to his vocal tics, he used to fall down a lot, too. So if he was in situations where he had to stand for a long time (a synagogue service, for example), he had to wear a football helmet. Be that as it may, GCU found nothing offensive about this card. So I figured that whatever I do ought to be pretty safe by comparison. Wrong. I submitted a card from my Jewish FunnyBone collection, which had a photo on the cover of a very cute, young Chinese boy in China. He is standing in the back of a wagon in a marketplace. He looks happy. The concept was the never-before-seen-flipside of the old “clean your plate kids are starving in China” joke, especially popular around Jewish dinner tables where the consumption of food is so important. The cover line was: “His hunger suddenly gone, Kim Sung had no idea it was because little Marvie Stein of Brooklyn had just cleaned his plate.” Inside: “Finish your cake. There are kids starving in China. Happy Birthday!” This card was by far our best seller when NobleWorks was our distributor and it continues to be today. What’s more, since we started selling it in 2007 we have not received a SINGLE complaint. And yet the card was rejected by GCU. Here’s why: “MARKETABILITY - No Thank You - We're sorry, but we feel that the 'humor' you portray on this card doesn't just 'push the boundaries', but crosses the line and that is not a 'line' we as a company wish to cross.” So, in other words, a card that playfully makes fun of a tame old joke (which in fact makes fun of the person saying it) is not okay. But a card that makes fun of painful and humiliating disease is? BIZARRE is the only word I can think of to describe what your reviewers deem “crossing the line” and what they feel remains within it.  

"Kim Sung" is not a Chinese name. "Kim" is Korean, and "Sung" is Chinese, but the spelling would more commonly be Song or Soong ("Sung" is from an outdated romanization system). And Chinese names usually have three syllables. Using made-up Asian names is offensive in itself. How hard is it to find a real Chinese name?
 
I agree about the decline on the card. I've never even heard it with "in China," but with a different country (not that it matters). I do see the intention, but depicting a hungry child as part of a joke crosses a line cardwise imho. Further, the expression is outdated, so the card feels dated. There is now more hunger in the U.S. than in China, according to a Gallup poll. Imagine if the card said there are kids starving in Alabama. You start to see a real kid, right?
 
 
I submitted a card from my Jewish FunnyBone collection, which had a photo on the cover of a very cute, young Chinese boy in China. He is standing in the back of a wagon in a marketplace. He looks happy. The concept was the never-before-seen-flipside of the old “clean your plate kids are starving in China” joke, especially popular around Jewish dinner tables where the consumption of food is so important. The cover line was: “His hunger suddenly gone, Kim Sung had no idea it was because little Marvie Stein of Brooklyn had just cleaned his plate.” Inside: “Finish your cake. There are kids starving in China. Happy Birthday!” This card was by far our best seller when NobleWorks was our distributor and it continues to be today. What’s more, since we started selling it in 2007 we have not received a SINGLE complaint. And yet the card was rejected by GCU. Here’s why: “MARKETABILITY - No Thank You - We're sorry, but we feel that the 'humor' you portray on this card doesn't just 'push the boundaries', but crosses the line and that is not a 'line' we as a company wish to cross.” So, in other words, a card that playfully makes fun of a tame old joke (which in fact makes fun of the person saying it) is not okay. But a card that makes fun of painful and humiliating disease is? BIZARRE is the only word I can think of to describe what your reviewers deem “crossing the line” and what they feel remains within it.  
[/quote]