AR & Sistino firings?

[See Newsletters Here]

Name: E-mail:

See Newsletters Here

Surrender Posted by jguild2120

[Today]

• VOTE in the HAIR competit... by dinkledorf [Today at 02:58:01 AM]
• Sale at IK by WatercolorsbyKarsten [September 08, 2010, 10:18:10 PM]
• Imagekind improvement sur... by Sarah [September 08, 2010, 10:16:42 PM]
• SMELL (visual representat... by Sarah [September 08, 2010, 09:16:40 PM]
• Membership Levels & Benef... by Sarah [September 08, 2010, 09:08:07 PM]
• New Member~ Karsten...Wat... by WatercolorsbyKarsten [September 08, 2010, 06:22:57 PM]
• New Member! by aknbean [September 08, 2010, 06:38:32 AM]

[Dezine Zone]

My traffic has suffered on Sistino recently...I guess that mirrors a lot of other artists' experiences too. The only thing I can say in their favour is that recently I was posted a royalty check which had my name spelled incorrectly - they rectified the matter within days and I had my new check promptly sent to me (and I'm in the UK so it had a long way to come.) First positive thing I've ever said about them!! 

[JohnRizzuto]

I am not sure about A/R and Sistino but if you do have works available on art.com they are actually available on a number of different sites... amazon.com to name one...  I know for example, I have prints of NYC.  If I do a google search they also show on some other sites that sell NYC prints...  I asked art.com about this 2 years ago and the told me that they are affiliates and that all my sales will be tracked and I will be paid....  now I have no way of actually knowing because on the sales report it says art.com not amazon (for example)

The reason I am bringing up this point is because I am 99.99% sure that the art.com systems are not integrated with these other sites....  they probably just sent them the images somehow....  so when we delete images I bet they are deleted from the art.com system and not the other "affiliates".  I know this for a fact because an image I deleted from art.com over 2 years ago still till this day shows up on art.com.....   total mess.....

[Sarah]

I certainly agree with the total mess part, and that the works are available for sale on other sites, but I think the sales must take place at art.com. I can't see amazon.com having the actual images, nor the other affiliates.

You probably know more about this than I do, John, but I believe it would be illegal for art.com to send actual image files to anyone without your permission.

Think of all the legal terms you have to agree to whenever you upload images to a site. I can't think that other sites would jeopardize themselves by allowing actual image files to be placed on their site with no legal agreement from the copyright owner.

I think that all sales, whether affiliate or direct, come through art.com and would appear on the sales report as an art.com sale. They just don't bother to let you know where the sale came from.

I still think that even when we delete an image, it's not deleted all through the art.com system. Just parts of it. That would explain "an image I deleted from art.com over 2 years ago still till this day shows up on art.com." Even if it still shows up on an affiliate, it's probably because it's still on the art.com system and publicly searchable. Mine are, even though I can't see them myself. 

[Arcturus]

John and Sarah,
  Is Art.com so huge that they can't even delete from their system? I can still find myself all over the internet leading back to Sistino/AR, and Art.com. I can even go to my old url with AR and find my portfolio, information and all but it is devoid of images.  Can you imagine if they can't even keep up with a simple task like delete then what are the sales stats really like? Their system might be so huge that they could possibly be in error of actual royalties owed and who they are owed to.  Before I left an artist on the forum mentioned that they received several other artist's royalties and had to notify Art.com of the mistake and return the money and that is when I really started to get nervous. I don't know why they aren't held accountable. Could artists do a class action lawsuit against them? A while back a company in Florida abused my copyright and I went to a copyright lawyer and he suggested I contact other artists that had been ripped off and start a class action lawsuit. If I had sued myself the legal expenses would have been $10,000 and I couldn't afford it so that is why he suggested it. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I am totally pissed at big internet art business using and abusing artists.

[Sarah]

Arcturus, this is just the kind of thing this forum was intended for. Good post. And if you want to start a thread here to see how many would be interested in a class action lawsuit, feel free.

Although not all of them abuse us; I'm a member of, and happily employed by, Imagekind because they have high ethical standards. I'm also a member at EBSQart.com, where the standards are equally high. And I'm sure that many others treat artists fairly and well.

But there certainly are some notable exceptions, Sarah said discreetly.

[Dezine Zone]

  Diplomacy indeed, Sarah 

[Sarah]

Thanks, Tanya. It's not easy for me. 

[LukeT]

Without any insider info, it sure seems clear to me that they are removing original artists from Art.com, one move at a time, and what may seem like bad business decisions might be planned destruction. I'd like to give them the benefit of doubt, but If I had been paying them for a service like some of the other posters here had, I would demand reimbursment along with my demand for removal.
It seems like they make enough from the major vendors and "dead artists" as someone put it, to buck all the original artists. Sadly, it all comes down to $...

[Arcturus]

Sarah,
  After June 30th I am guessing we will know the "real deal". I wonder how many artists have signed up like me for Art.com, had it turn into AR/Sistino and now find out all you truely have is a website and not a sales venue. That is fraud and they are still signing up people as we speak that think that they will be on Art.com after June 30th.  I actually paid and now I could kick myself.  I am not sure what to do but wait and see what they unveil this time.....the bloody stinkers.....

[Dezine Zone]

You said it, Arcturus...enfuriating...     

[Andy Mercer]

I could be wrong but I think the whole episode looks more like cock up than conspiracy !

Don't forget they took on more staff to deal with the brave new world they had created.. if they really wanted to get rid of paying living artists.. I don't think they would have bothered. I believe that income from artist subscriptions must be significant and no business that I know, deliberately goes out to lose income. I still think it was an attempt to re-organise the work (run by a commitee ) to assist people in finding what they wanted.. and putting a brake on the inexhorable rise in images uploaded to art.com. Everyone recognised the problem of image overload before the changes and many welcomed attempts to sort it.

Don't under estimate human beings capacity to foul up big style. I have a pet theory.. that a group of people (a committee, a management etc) given enough time will do the exact opposite of what they previously knew was right. I see all this as adding weight to my theory.

A few guys hit on an idea to sell art on the internet and in true wild west style they went for it..  they were panning for gold.. and it paid off.. suddenly they had a vast organisation and staff and large parts of the world throwing images at them.. oh dear because when it came to actually running a business they didn't really know what they were doing.

Imediately after the changes.. they would all have been busy patting each other on the back and the moaning and groaning was just a sign of "teething troubles" and only as the noise continied did a few doubts start to creep in. Maybe a month or so ago.. as subscription incomes probably dipped on last year did the penny finally drop. So my feeling is they are now in "oh sh*t.. what do we do next?" mode. Will the cavalry (new management) come riding over the hill ? Your guess is as good as mine. 

Thats my theory anyway 

In England when a ref makes a few bad decisions (in football.. I think you call it soccer) the crowd shout.. "You don't know what you're doing!" So perhaps you would all like to join me.. in singing

"Yoooou don't know what you're doinnnnnnng!"

P.S. Thats me off the art.com Christmas card list !

[Arcturus]

Andy,
  This is a quote from Barney Davey's blog under "Bad Artist Rising..."

"Art.com is in pre-IPO mode now and may be jettisoning anything that is not generating a profit right now. It could be its model with Artist Rising and Sistino just need time to come around to be profitable, but that its money managers are forcing some painful measures on the company to help get top dollar when it goes pubic. Whatever the reason, the artists who have invested their time, money and marketing to drive traffic will be left holding the bag if these sites cease to exist."

Now I am no stock market guru and I barely understand "pre-IPO mode" but if this is true then why have they continued to sign up artists and receive funds from them knowing they are signing up to be on Art.com? Most of them don't need a website and few would join Sistino until it proved itself. You can go today and sign up and nowhere does it say " This is an online portfolio. You can submit images for consideration for Allposters but by the way , the royalty set up is different.  You won't make as much royalty as Art.com and no framing royalty....oh and your art will sell for less also."  It is wrong!!Just wrong!!  Mom!! ( Just borrowing a quote from Paris Hilton)....

[Sarah]

A few guys hit on an idea to sell art on the internet and in true wild west style they went for it..  they were panning for gold.. and it paid off.. suddenly they had a vast organisation and staff and large parts of the world throwing images at them.. oh dear because when it came to actually running a business they didn't really know what they were doing.

If they were fairly new, I could accept this. But they've been in business, doing this, for long enough that I would expect them to be doing a whole lot better at it than they are.

[JohnRizzuto]

I do not think it is or was deliberate in their mismanagement.  I sort of agree with Andy.  I think it was well intentioned people who really did not have a clue as how to run a business.  Yes, they have been around for 10+ years but they are still a mom and pop shop.  There software was old and thinking and planning (or lack thereof) was a true sign just how "green" they are when it comes to running a business.  Most companies that have a internet prescence (sp) only are like this.  Besides they Amazon.com's, Ebay,  Buy.Com, Google, etc, there are really not too many well run and profitable internet-only companies.  The same is true for art.com and the other "art" sites....  well intentioned but they do not run smoothly and/or deliver on there promises....  What we can hope for is that positives outweigh the negatives in the long run....  art.com has one and only one positive..... customers....  I was lucky enough to have a lot of works on art.com so my sales have been steady.... but if after the 30th they choose to remove my works, or limit the number I can put up there, or stop me from ever putting new works on art.com....then I will leave....  right now they are practically the only game time....

[bjdavey]

I flatly admit to my notions about what is going on at Art.com are purely anecdotal and based on conjecture. That ought to hold up in any court room as non prima facie information. In other words, I've whipped out the old S.W.A.G. Factor (SWAG = Either Scientific or Stupid Wild Ass Guess depending on how well you like the suggestion) to come up with my conclusions.

I see a lot of troubling talk about images available on affiliate sites when they were purportedly deleted upon request of the artist from the Art.com Web site. Along with this the idea that they were handling too many images was causing the problem. Regarding that, I think not. Here's why, in very short order and quicker than anybody would have guessed Art.com became one of the biggest customers of many poster publishers. Most I knew were caught off guard that some Internet site had reached such a volume of business that fast. But, all were pleased to have a new source of revenue.

To some extent, I think it was not as much new as replaced. That is, folks who previously would have gone to a Prints Plus type of poster shop now shopped online. I don't think Amazon found that many new book buyers, it just took them away from brick & mortar bookstores. The point is Art.com very early on had to have really good systems in place to handle the thousands of images it put online for the poster publishers. Adding more images later from artists couldn't, or at least should't, have been that troubling for the company.

There is something else going on that is causing the company to have such problems. Obviously, management is part of the equation or you would not have seen mass firings from the AR and Sistino part of the company. Things like that don't happen when all is well in a corporate environment. In those times, companies are looking to staff up to meet anticipated growth, not downsize to hunker down for impending bad times. We may never know the whole story, which is too bad because I'm sure it is juicy.

[bluerabbit]

I agree, John. The other sites do not give me the traffic and sales I receive here. I, too worry about what will happen after tomorrow. Fingers crossed.

I do not think it is or was deliberate in their mismanagement.  I sort of agree with Andy.  I think it was well intentioned people who really did not have a clue as how to run a business.  Yes, they have been around for 10+ years but they are still a mom and pop shop.  There software was old and thinking and planning (or lack thereof) was a true sign just how "green" they are when it comes to running a business.  Most companies that have a internet prescence (sp) only are like this.  Besides they Amazon.com's, Ebay,  Buy.Com, Google, etc, there are really not too many well run and profitable internet-only companies.  The same is true for art.com and the other "art" sites....  well intentioned but they do not run smoothly and/or deliver on there promises....  What we can hope for is that positives outweigh the negatives in the long run....  art.com has one and only one positive..... customers....  I was lucky enough to have a lot of works on art.com so my sales have been steady.... but if after the 30th they choose to remove my works, or limit the number I can put up there, or stop me from ever putting new works on art.com....then I will leave....  right now they are practically the only game time....

[LukeT]

In the 'sad but true' catagory Art.com gets a lot of traffic. And i think its because their name is "ART.COM" and obviously not because they are great business men.  But artists are also responsible for a lot of the traffic any of the online art retailers (including boundlessgallery.com) so, I think if one or two sites seperate themselves and artists began promoting that larger gallery to the public the traffic and sales for all would go up. 
While its understandable to want to direct people to your individual site, it is also a lot harder for anyone to find your work, not mention the difficulties of setup and ecommerce that a lot of artists run into (although not this tech-savvy bunch ).
Its a proven fact that fine art of all kinds can indeed be sold online (its why this forum is here) it just hasn't been decided who will be the Amazon or EBay of the group.
Art.com discovered it made money by selling 'stock' art, and is cutting the real artists out, maybe they try again, probably not, but someone else is going to become the place for 'real' art customers, where artists can charge 'real' prices...hopefully that someone is my employer 

[Sarah]

Oh yeah? My employer can beat up your employer!

 

[Amie]

now now, kids, there's room in the self-rep pie for a few of us, particularly if we work together against the big bad corporate nasties 

[LukeT]

Amie's right.  But we all love self-rep pie so much...
IK does the printing thing and everyone seems to like their service so far (although isn't that kind of how Art.com started, before they realized they could make more printing Picasso's then Unknown'os?). 
Okay, I apologize, comparing anyone to the mess that is Art.com is too low a blow.
BoundlessGallery is in a seperate arena, selling artists originals (of all kinds of media & category).
People who want a cost-effective print choose IK
Those looking for Oil on Canvas, Metal, Wood, Glass...Boundless
The best part is artists and photographers can use both

[Amie]

self-rep pie=muy tasty 

truly, I think art.com is missing the boat and walking away from a huge opportunity to embrace the arts community. pity with a company name like art.com.

[Dezine Zone]

I agree with Amie... 

[revad-via-proxy]

Maybe their domain should be taken away and replaced with oldart.com?

I was tempted to put an f in the middle, but as I get older I find myself less inclined to use that particular expression about anyone

[Sarah]

Maybe their domain should be taken away and replaced with oldart.com?

I was tempted to put an f in the middle, but as I get older I find myself less inclined to use that particular expression about anyone

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[Sarah]

truly, I think art.com is missing the boat and walking away from a huge opportunity to embrace the arts community. 

Totally.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Official Forum Business - Read Only ----------------------------- => Forum Policies - Please Read Before Posting => OVA Terms of Service => OVA PRO membership => Forum Announcements => Board Modifications ----------------------------- OVA Art Competitions ----------------------------- => SMELLS (visual representation of) => HAIR => SCANNER ART => Sounds - visual representation of => Previous Competition Topics ===> "Water" Competition - May 2008 ===> "FACES" June 08 competition ===> "MACRO" Competition ===> ABSTRACT ===> BLACK & WHITE ART ===> HOLIDAY MACRO ===> MUSIC ===> MATERIALS ===> EMOTIONS ===> MOVEMENT & TRANSPORTATION ===> COMPLEMENTARY COLORS ===> WILDLIFE ===> HOLIDAY COLOR ===> BIRDS OF A FEATHER ===> OVERDONE or CLICHE => Competition Rules - Please READ before entering images => General Competition Topics => FOOD ----------------------------- General Category ----------------------------- => Welcome New Members! => Calendar Events ----------------------------- Online Art Selling Sites ----------------------------- ===> artbyus.com ===> Art.com ===> artwanted.com ===> Boundlessgallery.com ===> cafepress.com ===> Deviantart.com ===> ebay.com ===> EBSQart.com ===> etsy.com ===> Imagekind.com ===> Lulu.com ===> RedBubble.com ===> UK and European Sites ===> yessy.com ===> zazzle.com ----------------------------- Critiques, Feedback, BRAGS ----------------------------- => Great Artists Discovered by Us ===> May 2010 Critiques ----------------------------- Marketing ----------------------------- ===> Art Blogs ===> Search Engine Optimization ----------------------------- Great Links & Learning ----------------------------- => Painting Resources => Photography Resources => Master Classes => Location, location, location  

Advanced search

A Rose with Reflection Posted by Buckwhite in SMELLS (visual representation of)

[Current Competitions]

Competition Rules
Competition Topics

Current Competitions

HAIR -
VOTE!

SMELLS - Entries open
Discussion & Details

Upcoming Competitions
Mega: BIG things
Creepy Crawly
Doorways
Speed
Your Idea of Heaven

[Official]

•    Official
•    Forum Business
•    PRO & Amazon
•    Sell on Amazon
•    PRO membership
•    OVA on Amazon
•    Submit Art
•    Competitions
•    Calls for Art
•    Show your work
•    Discovered Artists
•    Critiques
•    Saturday Show Your Stuff
•    Critique Panel Events
•    Individual Critiques
•    General
•    General
•    Welcome New Members
•    Art-Selling Sites
•    Art Sites & PODs
•    Marketing Your Art
•    Marketing
•    Selling & Publishing
•    Resources
•    ARTIST RESOURCES
•    Outstanding Links
•    Image Editing
•    OVA Galleries
•    Winners
•    Member Gallery 2010
•    Member Gallery 2009
•    Member Gallery 2008
•    All Galleries