We got a great view of the different opinions, options and preferences in relation to a support model through the (many) forum posts we received over the last 10 days and we’re considering those too.
As Collis mentioned in the “timeout blog post”, the idea of the survey is to understand support behaviours to add to the research we had already done. We’ll be doing the same in the buyer survey.Thanks to those who have done it already….much appreciated!
Looks like the survey is missing some very crucial questions. I just created few questions that will not only bring valuable data but raise the eyebrow of both buyers and author at the time of making the item support mandatory. Examples:
1. While supporting your item, do you answer all the question of buyers or answer only selective ones that you believe as relevant to the item?
A) All, B ) Selective
2. If a buyer asks same question on comment section, email and external support channel – which way your answer will go through?
A) Comment, B ) email, C) External, D) Through all.
3. Do you have priority orders while answering support? If any, what that would be:
A) First come first served basis, B ) Based on severity of issue, 3. Based on how relevant the question is to the item.
4. In case a buyer asks same question 2-3 times within 24 hours, do you give more priority to the question and halt answering others?
A) Yes, B ) No
5. In case you mention/advertise your support response time on item page, do you feel you manage it successfully for all requests. What would be success rate you belive?
A) 100%, B ) More than 80%, C) More than 60%, D) Less than 60%
Without asking or addressing the above kind of questions, it is a surprise to make a proposal of making it mandatory. There are too many things that requires to be proactive before claiming/committing 72 hours response time. (Read the question 4. That will more likely happen)
Just completed the survey. The only good thing about recent activities of Envato is asking more questions about “item updates” and improvements rather than plainly sticking with item support / answers.
Related note, if the change log feature added to item page and the log has categories such as “Bug Fix”, “Added feature”, “Compatibility upgrade” etc, then the system can easily gather data and realize the actual pattern of item updates / improvements. This will help everyone including buyers, authors, reviewers and system. Since every update of items pass through reviewers, this kind of surveys are unnecessary.
Envato should set a minimum price, and allow authors to set any price above that. There should be no maximum. It’s pretty terrible and ridiculous that no matter how much effort or quality you pour into an item it will always be priced within 10% of every of item in the same category.
If you make an absolutely revolutionary WordPress theme it will be at most $10 more than the average. In no sense does this benefit ingenuity and creativity. Envato has claimed numerous times that it’s illegal in Australia to discuss pricing in the open. Maybe so. But what about artificially limiting the control authors have to maximize their (and by extension Envato’s) profits?
Some authors will overprice. Most will settle near the minimum, which should match Envato’s minimum standards for quality. I would price way higher and I think many authors could sell that value if there was an incentive to.Let the free market decide what is valued.
+1 Bump this.
Now that the item prices have been raised and the fee has been removed, you will receive extra commission on every sale. So if your item has a $2 price increase, and you sell 1000 copies again, you will now be receiving an extra $1000.
^ When they increased prices, the reason mentioned was not about this surcharge thing but another. See the reason mentioned in the blog:
As our authors continue to produce some of the highest quality creative work available anywhere online, this price change will help ensure they are able to continue to produce and maintain the best content possible for our community’s creative project needs.
Personally I wouldn’t complain Envato for taking surcharge but it doesn’t show professionalism when their announcements lack clarity and openness. Of course if the surcharge got removed completely in short span, then we can appreciate these steps.
I see this announcement not made in author dashboard. Why? Not actually important?
Isn’t this actually a change implemented already since our earnings page and statements differ now? In fact this announcement informs the fact that surcharge will not credit to author earnings. So worth informing to authors as well as buyers.
[Just requested staff reply]
Ah yes so another thing on authors so why are we paying for…. ah wait no… actually we are not paying 30% now any more aren’t we… we pay a small fee for the platform.
Mhm.. we never actually paid anything. Buyers always did and we get a share. So we must be happy we’ve been paid and agree with anything they come up and be grateful. Shame on us we sometimes dare to rant…This thread (and the one gathering data one too) is no more sticky so… not important anymore??
Looks like you understood the right message from these 2 announcements
As I repeat again and again, I wouldn’t be surprised if someday Envato says that buyers are actually paying 30% as fee and Elite authors paying nothing.
^ Is the reason behind current badge design.
Heya guys. Ratings, while certainly interesting, are not really a part of this announcement. Let’s try and keep this on topic. Thanks!
Since the announcement of “Author Driven Refunds” doesn’t cover how the sales count / comments / ratings will be treated in these scenarios, it is inevitable to expect staff answer on this.
In case the ratings remain after refund, most probably this will trigger more abusive buyers who blackmail with ratings + refund claim (even from competitive authors). Will add more pressure on author end since the buyers aware author can just refund.
Ratings aside, another subject we have to focus is, who will initiate the refund. Buyer or author? One more problem is refunds alone will not cover the actual loss of buyers. For example if a buyers expects/depended guaranteed support in timely manner (as advertised by author or market) and author fails to support and just makes a refund, this can create upto few hundred times more loss than item price.