FAA - The Largest Art Site in the World?

[Fran]

Thanks for the heads up!
I just tried and got this answer from the customer service.

I have now synced your images over to the Amazon site. They only appear on Amazon.com and are set at around 15% higher in price due to Amazon wanting money if you sell. The 15% is theirs.

It takes around 4-5 hours for them to appear in the HOME category from when I have synced them. You can find them by putting your name in search, on Amazon

We cannot pick or choose which images go up and they only place canvas prints on the site, not any of the others.

Until this is again automatic (we had to make it manual for a while) please contact me in a fortnight if you have made changes

Hope this helps and, if you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me

[Poncke]

Yup, I got that same response

[luissantos84]

Yup, I got that same response

thanks for letting us know

[ShadySue]

Any idea if they're set up to deal with tax for non US artists? All I can find is their tax page for US residents.

[stockastic]

Only canvas prints?  What's up with that?

[ShadySue]

So they send your images uploaded in a two week timeframe, and amazon chooses which ones they will sell?

[Fran]

So they send your images uploaded in a two week timeframe, and amazon chooses which ones they will sell?

If I understood it correctly, they send all the images, Amazon will only sell canvas for those images, and apply a 15% commision on the price.
Theoretically it should happen automatically every two weeks, but for some reason they disabled this procedure and the synchronization needs to be done manually by FAA.

[gemmy12]

But dont You think Amazon is charging much higher than 15% of FAA price ? I see my 36"x 23" canvas with gallery wrap has FAA price around 255$ and same is for about 475$ in Amazon. Can anyone correct me if i am doing some wrong math?

[luissantos84]

But dont You think Amazon is charging much higher than 15% of FAA price ? I see my 36"x 23" canvas with gallery wrap has FAA price around 255$ and same is for about 475$ in Amazon. Can anyone correct me if i am doing some wrong math?

I believe my pictures aren't showing up so far there but looking at other it looks like 17.6%, aren't you making any mistake with currencies?

[ShadySue]

But dont You think Amazon is charging much higher than 15% of FAA price ? I see my 36"x 23" canvas with gallery wrap has FAA price around 255$ and same is for about 475$ in Amazon. Can anyone correct me if i am doing some wrong math?

Just checking - are you sure that $255 isn't the price that 'you' see when logged in, rather than the price a customer sees?

[gemmy12]

But dont You think Amazon is charging much higher than 15% of FAA price ? I see my 36"x 23" canvas with gallery wrap has FAA price around 255$ and same is for about 475$ in Amazon. Can anyone correct me if i am doing some wrong math?

I believe my pictures aren't showing up so far there but looking at other it looks like 17.6%, aren't you making any mistake with currencies?

No Luis both were in USD. But i wrote an email to FAA support few hours back and i see that now they have been priced correctly. FFA+15%=Amazon.
Do the prices in FAA get changed automatically due to some glitch or something? Because time to time when i update my prices i see price for some of sizes of some of my images are blank...!

[gemmy12]

.

[gemmy12]

But dont You think Amazon is charging much higher than 15% of FAA price ? I see my 36"x 23" canvas with gallery wrap has FAA price around 255$ and same is for about 475$ in Amazon. Can anyone correct me if i am doing some wrong math?

Just checking - are you sure that $255 isn't the price that 'you' see when logged in, rather than the price a customer sees?

Aah.. you are right Liz. There are different values when we see the price when see logged in and out state. Thanks for the correction

[rimglow]

I started a thread about watermarking in the FAA forum. Feel free to join in. Maybe the owners will notice.

[Poncke]

Saw that and been posting in it as well ;-)

[stockastic]

I think you'll find that requests for changes or additions are pretty much a waste of time.  Look at their "suggestions" thread - back in 2010 someone compiled a list of current requests.  As far as I can see, none have been implemented.   The only responses from the forum moderator are "I'll pass that on" and "there are no plans as far as I know".  She's already stated several times that the watermark isn't going to be changed.



 

[sharpshot]

I don't think they're going to make changes for a bunch of stock contributors.  Especially when one of us brags about how hard it is to get accepted on the stock sites   It's an art site, so why not alter your stock images so they look more "arty" and it will be obvious if anyone has stolen the big preview image?

[rimglow]

  Well they certainly won't make any changes if nobody asks for it. They have to be made aware of what people want. Maybe generate a buzz. Get people talking.

[luissantos84]

  Well they certainly won't make any changes if nobody asks for it. They have to be made aware of what people want. Maybe generate a buzz. Get people talking.

indeed, nice of you to start a new thread

[stockastic]

  Well they certainly won't make any changes if nobody asks for it. They have to be made aware of what people want. Maybe generate a buzz. Get people talking.

Although I personally wouldn't watermark images that I'm hoping to sell as prints, the issue is obviously not going to go away.   But I don't think the problems is that they just don't get it, or don't care - it's that there's no "they".   It's a very small operation - maybe just a couple of people - and the site is on autopilot. 

A nice money machine, with no active developers behind it. 

[ShadySue]

I doubt if you'll get any improvement on the watermark. They're just not common on fine art / gallery sites.

I'm more concerned about the dishonesty re the 'sponsor this page and every visitor will see your image on the third line' (if they're dishonest in this, can we trust them?).

Can I repeat the question as to whether they are geared up for non-US taxpayers? If no-one knows, I will ask on their forum, just wanted to check it wasn't already common knowledge.

[stockastic]

Those of you who want big watermarks in the center of your images might consider RedBubble instead of FAA.

[luissantos84]

It's a very small operation - maybe just a couple of people - and the site is on autopilot. 

A nice money machine, with no active developers behind it.

funny how you keep on talking without ANY knowledge.... I have emailed them 3 times this week and got replies in less than 2 or 3 hours.... do some work instead of complaining!

[stockastic]

Interview entitled "Doing $5 Million A Year With Three Employees: FineArtAmerica CEO Sean Broihier":

http://www.sramanamitra.com/2012/03/22/doing-5m-a-year-with-3-employees-fineartamerica-ceo-sean-broihier-part-1/

A quote from Sean: "The entire company has three people on payroll: me and two individuals who cover customer service and technical support."

[luissantos84]

Interview entitled "Doing $5 Million A Year With Three Employees: FineArtAmerica CEO Sean Broihier":

http://www.sramanamitra.com/2012/03/22/doing-5m-a-year-with-3-employees-fineartamerica-ceo-sean-broihier-part-1/

A quote from Sean: "The entire company has three people on payroll: me and two individuals who cover customer service and technical support."

they can even have 1, sorry but I don't consider auto pilot a business that reply with REAL answers and in a short period of time, what would you say about Fotolia? the number of people on the payroll means jack as you should know.....