Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login


One of the most common requests we received upon launching Commissions was to raise the price cap to make it higher than 4,000 Points. As of today, the price limit when setting up Commissions has been raised from 4,000 Points to 8,000 Points.

We're excited to see the increased usage of the Commissions platform and the wide variety of work that artists have been offering. With this increased limit, we're hoping to give artists more flexibility with the types of Commissions they offer, and more importantly, allow artists to earn more for their high-quality creations!

Screen Shot 2013-05-10 at 12.50.23 PM by wreckling



Add a Comment:
 
:iconfenrysk-art:
fenrysk-art Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
this has been much needed.
Reply
:iconartvelocity:
artvelocity Featured By Owner May 19, 2013
to the admins:

Cut that royalty in half.

I think 12.5% will satisfy all parties involved.
Reply
:iconsupichu:
supichu Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
THIS
Reply
:iconmukart:
MukArt Featured By Owner May 17, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
i still think they shouldnt take 20% of what i make. if i didnt pay for a membership, i would understand them getting some of the money for the service, but i pay for a membership. :/ i pay for the special features and that royalty is crap when im already paying the website to use its fancy pants extras. will be sticking to paypal most likely. they should get rid of the royalty for paying members :/ or at least lower it
Reply
:iconskunk-spunk:
Skunk-Spunk Featured By Owner May 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Okay, you're finally listening to us.

Now, how about planning on fixing that 20% royalty?
Reply
:iconcyrkael:
Cyrkael Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Good news for those who don't want to use paypal and still take commissions =)
On the other hand, what about the 20% fee ? Lowering it would certainly make people less reluctant to use the widget and would be a win-win situation... Or am I totally wrong ?
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
According to previous replies from staff members, I believe lowering the 20% isn't really an option, plus the 20% figure is considered more advantageous than what a typical gallery would charge you for this kind of service.
Reply
:iconcyrkael:
Cyrkael Featured By Owner May 19, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Oh really ? I never considered what the prices of typical gallery would be, but I think I wouldn't be ready to have that amount of money leaving my pocket and not going to the artist...
Though I totally understand dA needs money to maintain the system.
Reply
:iconimaginary--thoughts:
Imaginary--Thoughts Featured By Owner May 18, 2013  Student Writer
A real-life gallery and dA aren't totally analogous--a gallery has to contend with the physical limitation of how much wall space it has available and the fact that it loses money when it displays a piece it doesn't sell, so it makes sense to charge a somewhat substantial royalty there in order to make up the risk factor. In this case, the 20% royalty is preventing many users (including myself) from using the platform at all and is not necessary to compensate for any risks involved because there aren't any. If dA lowered the royalty to something that people wouldn't be bothered by as much (5%, maybe), then many more people would use the service and dA's net profit would go up. It really is better for everyone to lower it and it's becoming annoying that they're so silent on the issue in these updates when the royalty being as high as it is clearly is bothering many users.

TL;DR version: dA's service is the same as a gallery's, but it's needs as a business and the risks it's taking to provide that service are different so it doesn't have to follow the same procedures.
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
the 20% royalty... is not necessary to compensate for any risks involved because there aren't any.

You'd be surprised.
Nevertheless, you'd still be paying for maintenance of that system (and only if you manage to sell) and you're still free not to use the service in the event you deem it insufficiently beneficial.

(5%, maybe)

With the risk of sounding like I was against you: dA, as a business, have access to a good deal of telemetry to aid them in assessing point traffic, service costs and other sorts of relevant information; what sources are your numbers based on?
Reply
:iconimaginary--thoughts:
Imaginary--Thoughts Featured By Owner May 19, 2013  Student Writer
Yes, and to pay for that maintenance they have banner ads and premium memberships, as they always have. Are you saying that offering a commission platform has raised their costs significantly? Besides the initial cost of developing it, how? It can't have attracted much traffic since barely anyone uses it.

I said "maybe." I absolutely do not feel that I'm qualified to determine what the percentage should be specifically, but anyone who spends five minutes reading peoples' comments on these threads knows that the current percentage is too high for the service to gain widespread use or even acceptance within the community. As long as the percentage gives them a little more profit than they spend on server costs, it will make them steady profit. I find it very hard to believe that their costs are high enough for twenty percent to be the minimum for them making money, but if it is, then this project was doomed from the start.

It's also worth noting that dA's numbers are not necessarily based on anything but making as much profit as they thought people would be willing to put up with instead of making the service both profitable and beneficial to users. I love the site as much as anyone, but I won't deny that they're a business and their goal is ultimately to make money (alongside any loftier goals like enriching the online art community).
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 20, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I don't know how to put the following politely, so I'll just be blunt: several unfounded assumptions and the impressions of a few uneducated children amongst millions hardly qualify as gospel, or evidence of anything.

Besides, the entire premium content platform seems to take that 20% figure, it doesn't seem specific to commissions.
Reply
:iconimaginary--thoughts:
Imaginary--Thoughts Featured By Owner May 21, 2013  Student Writer
Besides yours, I've yet to see any comments supporting the current percentage in the many pages of them I've read (I'm sure they do exist, of course, but what I'm saying is that the vast majority of users do not support it). Unless the vast majority of deviants are children or almost all of the adults have chosen to remain silent, then what you've just said regarding the dissenters being in the minority or somehow invalid confuses me.

And yes, it is rude and somewhat arrogant to assume people who don't agree with you are automatically uneducated, immature, or children. Sorry, I didn't know how to put that politely.
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 22, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The site currently has 26 million registered users, 2.6mill if a whooping 90% were dud/spammer/plz/alt/deactivated/etc. accounts. Now look at the view and comment counters, and do the math.

Most people who're either satisfied or indifferent are generally far less likely to go out of their way to thank someone, or to voluntarily look for opposition. On the other hand, people who have a problem have the issue in their way, so they're far more likely to do something. (you don't file 'thank yous' every time you like something about your business; but you will file complaints every time you don't) You'll find this kind of behaviour in any such environment.

You won't see many people interested in refuting the claims a group of people that aren't really influencing things. You might see more of them, if the opposition had noticeable traction.

And yes, it is rude and somewhat arrogant to assume people who don't agree with you are automatically uneducated, immature, or children. Sorry, I didn't know how to put that politely.

On the contrary, my conclusions come from having asked them. The moment you challenge what they say and ask for any concrete evidence, or remind them that this system isn't magically self-sufficient without funding, or point out the finer aspects about :points:-based transactions and the financial nature of this kind of transfers, they get stuck. They aren't even at peace with the idea that they can simply choose a service that's better suited to their needs, if they find this one unsuited (basic competition), forcing dA to change their pricing, if they really had the competition getting their customers.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconhinakanin:
hinakanin Featured By Owner May 16, 2013
That's still pretty low, but I'm glad that it's at least been raised. Now let's see if we can make enough of a fuss to raise it more or get rid of it altogether...
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I believe that having limitation can be beneficial; in the event something goes wrong, it's better to lose a small amount, than a large amount.
Reply
:iconhinakanin:
hinakanin Featured By Owner May 16, 2013
That's true, but there's the whole issue with undervaluing art that's already rampant. Most of my commissions would run under $80, but that's not the case for everyone, and those people end up unable to receive point payments from people who don't have PayPal. I don't think removing the cap would promote dishonesty because it's usual for commissions to be paid upfront.
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Dishonesty can go in either direction, thus I don't believe that deciding who supplies their end of the bargain first makes the trade generally safer.
Reply
:iconhinakanin:
hinakanin Featured By Owner May 16, 2013
You see, I'm not saying artists can't be dishonest; I'm just saying that, since the commission widget doesn't warrant buyer security (nor do I think it can), it doesn't make much sense to have a cap for that reason, as it's commonplace to pay much bigger sums upfront in the case of PayPal commissions. The staff must have their reasons to keep a cap despite the overwhelmingly negative feedback, but I believe this one isn't valid because the risk is no lower than with PayPal orders.
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
it's commonplace to pay much bigger sums upfront

I consider that a pretty strong reason for concerns, especially in an environment which largely consists of far-from-professional entities on both sides of the proverbial barricade, though I believe the importance we assign to various scenarios will continue to remain open for debate.
Reply
:iconchaosacathla:
ChaosAcathla Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
Glad to hear it, hopefully people will have more realistic expectations now! Though I'm not expecting a miracle!
Reply
:iconvaia:
vaia Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
:thumbsup:
Reply
:iconcrickatoo:
Crickatoo Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Student Digital Artist
YAAAAAY! :eager:
Reply
:iconsilken:
silken Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Professional General Artist
I personally don't understand why there's a cap at all....
Reply
:iconorzephlen:
Orzephlen Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
IKR? We should be free to make our own decisions.
Reply
:iconsilken:
silken Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Professional General Artist
Yup
Reply
:iconroobeythehedgehog:
roobeythehedgehog Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
oh, phew. thank god. i thought it was something worse. but wasn't the limit already 8,000?.
Reply
:iconbugsy-alice-adopts:
Bugsy-Alice-Adopts Featured By Owner May 21, 2013
Yeah, i tought that i was 8,000 before too.
Reply
:iconaragornsgirl333:
aragornsgirl333 Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree with those saying that the cap is too low, and really shouldn't exist. If the price is too high for someone they won't pay it, but we should be encouraging artists to put a good value to work that may take days to complete, maybe even weeks! I also think that the 20% royalty dA takes is absurdly high. Yes, I can understand the need to take some royalty for site running costs and whatever, but 20% just comes off as greedy. I, for one, will not be using your commissions system, even if I do decide to take them in the future.
Reply
:iconbluebluefeather:
bluebluefeather Featured By Owner May 16, 2013
that's definitely excessive! I don't see why somebody would use that platform!
Reply
:iconsky-c:
Sky-C Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Student General Artist
Get rid of the 20% thing..Or at least lower it....
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
They plan on doing the opposite: efforts to improve the benefits of using the system are being made, one of which (the commission portal) was announced to be in the making some time ago.
They also have a system in place designed to help users of the system deal with contracts gone wrong.
Reply
:iconelucidator:
Elucidator Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
It seems to me that by having this kind of price cap, encouraging low prices, and taking such a large cut, all you're doing is sending away all the higher-level artists. An $80 commission won't sustain anything above an intermediate artist. Anybody semi-pro or above will head over to more advanced sites where they can rake in larger commissions and show their work alongside their peers. This leaves deviantArt with an increasingly young and unskilled member base. I don't understand why you would desire this for the site, and it saddens me.
Reply
:iconm-g-studio:
M-G-Studio Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I agree!
Reply
:iconanotherwanderer:
anotherwanderer Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
:iconfblikeplz:
This used to be my favorite art site, but it's going downhill, partially for the reasons you described.
Reply
:iconyulile:
yulile Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Agreed.
Reply
:iconprojectsonic:
projectsonic Featured By Owner May 15, 2013   Writer
Uh, why do commissions even have a price cap?

Are they afraid that for some reason a bot can make a ton of points somehow? Does it somehow have something to do with the royality system dA has in place? :/
Reply
:iconiamoret:
iAmoret Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I'm going to buck the negativity trend for once and say that I think that the changes are nice. :thumbsup:;) I personally don't do commissions, because I don't feel like I am at a proper level of skill yet, but if I did, I would probably use this widget.

For all the people wondering why dA gets part of it, let me give my two cents-

Running a website costs money, guys. A lot. Keeping the domain, paying staff, advertising, it takes a lot, and I really don't think they're taking any more than what's due them. If you don't like the idea, don't use it, plain and simple. Use PMs and e-mail, use PayPal; it's not like they're forcing you to use it. It's optional.

Okay, mini-rant over. :movingon:
Reply
:iconhardrockangel:
Hardrockangel Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
While I agree that running a website costs money, consider the following. If dA takes a 20%-cut (and I'm not saying it's not justified, I'm pretty neutral about the matter), then wouldn't it also be a great selling-point for using the widget if they could offer conflict-mediation, much in the same way Paypal allows for disputes to be opened in case of transactions gone awry? c:
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
My impression is that they already do that.
Reply
:iconhardrockangel:
Hardrockangel Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Except they don't. Paypal already does this, deviantART does not.
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
You can still contact the Help Desk in the event of a dispute and the system should make it easier for the staff to verify claims.
Reply
:iconhardrockangel:
Hardrockangel Featured By Owner May 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Are you speaking from experience or from assumptions?
Because last time I reported a scammer, dA told me they could not do a thing as the transactions are a choice between two deviants and they would not get involved.
Reply
:iconitsnotfilia:
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 17, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Reply
:iconhardrockangel:
Hardrockangel Featured By Owner May 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
They added in a cover for eventual disputes, though: "In general, buyers should proceed at their own risk. "
But thank you, I was not aware that that was already added to the FAQ.
Reply
:iconiamoret:
iAmoret Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I agree. To properly make this worthwhile, they do need some sort of added, special.... something to make it more appealing to the public. :nod:
Reply
:iconhardrockangel:
Hardrockangel Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'm going to agree with the people mentioning a commission-tab is probably handier and would look better design-wise.
Honestly, the only reason I haven't used the commission-widget yet is because there's no interest from the commissioners and also because it's a pretty long widget which just clutters up my page completely. I'm not going to get into the pricing-cap as that's been handled by other deviants already. ^^;

However, if I may suggest one thing concerning the fee: if dA is taking a 20% fee, I think it would be handy if you offered some tools to help both the artists and the commissioners. Say, for instance, mediation in case of a commission gone awry (Artists_Beware is full of examples). I also think the commission-search is a neat idea, but it needs to be promoted a bit more.

All in all, I think the widget is a good idea and I have thought so from the start since when it was introduced. However, I feel like the widget still has a whole lot of untapped potential and depending on how much time you guys can afford to work on it, I'd say that it could use a lot of expanding and tweaking based on community-feedback.
Reply
:icondanlev:
danlev Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Thanks for the comments. The clutter and size of the widget is definitely a valid concern. Some other people have brought it up as well. I just forwarded these concerns to the team -- thanks!
Reply
:iconhardrockangel:
Hardrockangel Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No problem, I figured I would give my opinion in case it could be of help.
Honestly, the widget at this point is still something with huge, but unfulfilled potential, so I'm glad to see you guys are taking the community-suggestions on board and are sticking to working on it to improve and expand upon it. :aww:
Reply
:iconskiesofchaos:
skiesofchaos Featured By Owner May 15, 2013  Professional Photographer
Generally curious. You make money when you sell people points so they can pay for a commission through the widget. You make money when the artists withdraw those points to convert them to cash. I know you have a lot of different quality of art and the range is vast in the artists that use DA. You are not a promoter, you do not provide any services other than the general site. No reception, no artist's meet and greet, no advertising of the the work by the artist using the widget. So, just exactly what are you doing that is worth 20% of their work? And how can you possibly consider anything less than a minimum of $1000 in a commission limit. You seem to think that by selling points and accepting points and converting points you are acting as some kind of agent for the artist. This is not however true at all. If you want paid for services, then you have to provide something worth the payment. Just as we do. Honestly, as long as you are requiring artists to sell through your points system, you have nothing to charge for. You are already getting paid.
Just my opinion of course. DA has many really good features, and there is much to recommend it. This however is not one of them.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:icondanlev: More from danlev


Featured in Collections

JOURNALS AND NEWS by Elandria

Articles and journals by Eitvys200

README.TXT by Thunderstatement


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
May 14, 2013
Submitted with
Sta.sh Writer
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
35,998 (11 today)
Favourites
26 (who?)
Comments
208
×