One thing that needs to be cleared up is that file-sharing is not the same thing as theft. File-sharing is “illegal distribution” or “copyright infringement” but it’s not “stealing”. For further reading about this idea, go to: TechDirt: Copying Is Not Theft and QuestionCopyright.org: Copying Is Not Theft (Minute Meme #1). Be sure to read all the user-submitted comments below these articles for even more information.

The second issue that needs to be cleared up is the common, faulty, belief that one illegal download equals one lost sale. Companies, merchants, and even the Business Software Alliance (BSA) send out press releases about how they’ve been impacted by file-sharing. They might claim that they saw X number of people downloading their file, which must mean X number of lost sales. These companies then multiply these “lost sales” by the retail price of their product to claim they lost millions (or tens of millions of dollars) from file-sharing. And to further drive home the point, they’ll claim that these millions of dollars directly translate in Y number of jobs being lost.

Unfortunately, these kinds of claims (and these kinds of numbers) are designed to appeal to the emotional side of people, meaning these are scare tactics. After all, if the BSA “lose” that amount of money (and that amount of jobs) because of file-sharing, what will happen to the world’s economy if we allow this to continue? Journalists are quick to publish this “loss” information because it makes a good story, but many times, no questions are asked about how the data was collected.

When the BSA presented its own statistics about how they felt they were impacted by file-sharing, their research was debunked. In 2007, TechDirt wrote an article, saying BSA: Bogus Stats Again. As the article mentions: “In fact, a few years back the numbers were debunked by the very research firm that collected the data for the BSA.”

In 2009, this site analyzed the truthfulness of an article ran by the BBC about file-sharing: Filesharing Costs: Dubious Figures Making the Rounds Again. The author makes two good points when he says “[The data presented are] just the standard (and utterly unreliable) rightsholders-claimed figures (and not even first-hand!). To be fair in footnote 4 the authors [of the study] acknowledge that the phrase “lost revenues” is complex and that not all downloaded content would have been purchased.” The author is correct that almost all stories about file-sharing use data presented by the copyright-holders, who, obviously want to inflate the numbers as much as possible to show how they’re being hurt by file-sharing. The author makes another excellent point by saying:
“For example, if someone makes an unauthorised download rather than buying a CD they spend the money they would have spent on the CD on something else, be that a haircut, a meal, or going to a concert. If we want to count that as a loss to the music industry we need to count the gain it generates elsewhere.”
Yet the music industry never claims that their drop in CD sales is causing a rise in haircut sales.

There’s a saying that goes “correlation is not causation”, which, in this case, is a fancy way of saying, “Just because you see one of your products on a file sharing site, and just because you’re currently seeing a drop in sales, does not mean that these two are directly related.” And even if there is a relation between the two, how can anyone separate this one cause from all the other factors that create a drop in sales?

I’ll be offering plenty of proof in this blog about how this point is bogus, so I’d like to see some proof from people who can definitively claim that file-sharing is hurting their business. If you’re a merchant who’s selling digital products and you’ve discovered the mathematical formula which correlates illegal downloads to lost sales and corrects for variations such as: the quality of the product, the state of the current economy, the effect of any competing products, and the fickleness of customers, then please post it in the comments.

I also realize that arguing this point may be a lost cause since it’s sometimes hard to argue with merchants who just know that the file-sharers are “stealing their income”. There’s no way to ask for proof from people like this, and there’s no way they can provide proof of their claim. They won’t believe that their falling sales are caused by their own lack of quality or a downturn in the economy: the lack of sales must be caused by file-sharers.

Before I get into strategies of dealing with file-sharing, I’d like to look at the types of people who share files. If you’re a merchant who’s selling digital items, you should know which kind of file-sharer you’re dealing with.

1) The “Try Before You Buy” people:
These people are exactly what the names says: they download something to try it out, and then, if they like it, they buy the item. This article in TechDirt (from 2005) says CD Sales Increasing; File Sharing Increasing — Whose Assumptions Are Wrong? and this article (from 2004) talks about how a Study Shows File Sharing Not Harming CD Sales. Although these studies might be out-dated, they point to the same conclusion that some people are still willing to buy, even after they’ve downloaded the item for free. The reason for this is logical: if people are given a good reason to buy, then they will.

If you’re selling digital items, then this type of file-sharer is your target audience. You should think about ways to get them to try your items without using a file-sharing site. For example, maybe you offer free models on your site to show off your quality, maybe you offer a 30-day trial version of your software, or maybe you offer a “lite” version of your software which can be upgraded when someone purchases a license.

2) The “I can’t afford it” person.
These people can be spotted when they use the following statements: “I’m a poor college student and I can’t afford the item”, or “I get paid next week so I can’t afford it right now”, or “The software company is greedy so I don’t want to pay that price”, or “The company doesn’t offer a trial version, so I’m going to get the full version”.

The simple fact is that all of these are simply excuses to justify the person’s behavior. Yes, the economy is bad and yes, people are out of work, but this isn’t an excuse to illegally download something. Sure, a person who claims he can’t afford a $1,200 software program might have a point, but shouldn’t he wait until he can afford it? Why can’t he get a trial version from the company’s website to see if he likes it? And some software companies offer “poor college students” a heavily-discounted “educational” price for their products.
By comparison, someone who claims they can’t afford a $5 digital car model is usually simply using this as an excuse. If a person can’t afford a $5 product, then he probably has much bigger financial problems to worry about.

If you’re selling digital items, then this type of file-sharer is not your target audience. This type of person will probably never buy, even if you agree to lower the price of your product. And, of course, lowering your price leads to more issues, such as the price versus value of your product.

3) The Collectors and Traders.
These are people who have every file from every file-sharing site on their hard drive… and they probably don’t even know what they have. They usually don’t have the time or interest to use the files they have or to learn the software they’ve downloaded. Most of these people only download and keep the files for bragging rights: they’ll trade files with other collectors, and these files become a form of currency to them.

Some of these people are probably proud of the fact that they have movies like Avatar or The Dark Knight or Lord of the Rings. (On a side note, why would anyone spend the time to download a movie file of the 3 1/2 hour-long Lord of the Rings movies when it’s easier to buy it on DVD?) Even if these people have a high-end home theater system, they won’t be able to see Avatar in 3D or in full surround-sound like in the theaters. So what’s the point in even downloading it? One reason is point #1: some of these people may want to “try” the movie before spending money on a ticket.

If you’re selling digital items, then this type of file-sharer is not your target audience. You’ll never convert these people to customers since they won’t buy anyway. Chances are good, that if you tried to complain that they were sharing your items, they probably wouldn’t even know what you were talking about- they may not even realize that they have a copy of your item in their collection of files.

Once you’ve figured out the types of file-sharers, what can you do about it? Many merchants will want to take the obvious tactic and aggressively fight the file-sharers by sending out take-down notices and filing cease and desist orders.
This strategy usually works up to a point- after a while, the merchant starts to play “whack-a-mole”: he may file a take-down notice with one user, but then a second and third user will upload the same file. The merchant will file yet another take-down notice, but more users will upload the file.
And, let’s face it: music, movies, and software (including Windows, Photoshop, and high-end rendering programs) can easily be found on file-sharing sites, so if the take-down notices aren’t working for Microsoft or Adobe, why should sending out notices work for the average merchant?

So, instead of endlessly chasing uploaders, why not try something different?

1) Create a reason to buy:
Since merchants are effectively “competing” with file-sharing sites, they need to create reasons why people should purchase their products. The biggest question is this: what can you offer a customer that they can’t get on a file-sharing site? For example, do customers get free add-ons by entering their proof of purchase? Do customers get free upgrades or service packs? Do they get better customer service or tech support? Or should a merchant promote the fact that by purchasing, the customer receives the real item, rather than taking the risk of downloading a fake file, possibly with a virus?

Here’s something to think about: if music files can easily be found on file-sharing sites, why do so many people buy from iTunes? Why is iTunes the second-biggest music retailer in the US, just after Wal-Mart?

Granted, you might be asking how you can compete with file-sharing sites since you’re basically competing against your own items, only for free. TechDirt has a lot of interesting articles on the topic of Saying You Can’t Compete With Free Is Saying You Can’t Compete Period.

One Factor is Quality
Instead of fighting the file-sharing sites, merchants should realize that people will pay for something if they know they’re getting a quality item. People know that purchasing from iTunes means they’ll get the real song and not a poorly-sampled version, or the wrong song, or even a virus. In 2008, The Dark Knight was the most pirated movie and the highest earning movie. Wired.com wrote their own article: Piracy-Schmiracy: The Dark Knight Rakes In the Dough. Why is this? From the article at TechDirt:
“The fact that parts of the movie were designed for IMAX theaters drove many people to pay even more (or even see the movie multiple times) in order to experience the IMAX version, which simply can’t be replicated at home.”

The Motion Picture Association (MPAA) claims that the movie did so well because they were “on top of” the file-sharing and they were able to stop people from sharing the movie… but if this is the case, were they not “on top of” file-sharing for movies that bombed? Does the MPAA blame file-sharers for the poor performance of movies like The Last Airbender or Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore? Are they really saying that the quality of the movie has no effect on its income?

If you’re a merchant who’s selling digital products, maybe you need to take a look at your own product catalog. Are you offering quality products? Are you offering customers a good value for their money? Or are you selling the same thing, over and over again, with little variation, without adding anything new, or without trying to innovate what you do?

This article on TechDirt talks about finding the “scarcities” (or reasons) why people should buy your product. Although the article title is Ten Good Reasons to Buy, there’s a lot more than a list of ten items.

2) How will your reaction (or over-reaction) to file-sharers affect your reputation?
There have been many cases of the Recording Industry (the RIAA) suing people because they shared music files. This article on TechDirt, from 2006, talks about how the RIAA Suggests MIT Student Drop Out Of School To Pay Fine. Although it may sound humorous at first, a story about how the MPAA accuses laser printer of illegal file sharing actually shows the dangers of accusing people without any actual proof beyond a computer’s network address.
Though, to be honest, I don’t think the RIAA really cares how these activities affect its reputation. However, this will eventually get back to the musicians who don’t think that customers should be treated like criminals. Some musicians are deciding that it’s better to promote their music on their own rather than stay with the RIAA and anger their fans.

I’ve seen similar behavior at sites selling digital goods. Some merchants have been known to lash out and accuse artists who make artwork with their products, even though the merchant has no proof beyond the fact that the artist’s name isn’t on a sales report. The artist may have purchased under another name or at another site, which makes the merchant look like an accusing jerk. Will artists stop using this merchant’s products in case they also get accused of stealing? Or will other people start sharing this merchant’s products as a way to “get even”?
Plus, this merchant didn’t even consider the potential promotional value of having his product used in an image. If this artist’s image led to just a few sales, wouldn’t this outweigh the possible illegal downloading of the product by one person?

Should you really be treating your customers like criminals?
If you assume everyone is a “criminal” and they’re all out to illegally share your files, how does that affect how you view the average customer? Do you require him or her to provide a proof-of-purchase before you even talk to them?
Adding things like Digital Resource Management (DRM) or requiring registration keys only creates nuisances for legally-paying customers. These are almost as pointless as the anti-piracy warning at the beginning of DVD’s. People who illegally share the movie simply ignore the warning, so why should I, as someone who bought the DVD, have to wait 30 seconds to sit through it?

A quick search of almost any file-sharing site will show multiple copies of Windows, Photoshop, etc. So, if hackers can break the complex DRM and registration process for Adobe and Microsoft’s products, it’ll be a simple process for them to hack a smaller merchant’s registration keys. The hacked version will then be shared on the file-sharing sites, which allows the illegal downloaders to use the product without registering. Yet the paid customer has to remember to hold onto his registration number in case he needs to re-install the product.

One of the worst ideas was when I read a newsletter from a merchant who talked about putting a virus in his product file, with the intent to upload it to the file-sharing sites to infect anyone who downloaded this. There are two main problems with this idea. First, as the maker of the virus, you could be charged with the crime of damaging someone’s computer. How’s that for justice- you’re trying to keep people from illegally sharing your files, yet you wind up arrested for a crime!
Second, and this is the bigger risk, you might infect or offend a potential customer, whether it’s a “try before you buy” file-sharer or someone who’s downloading the file for legal reasons. (There could be many legal reasons for doing this, including: they need to re-download the file and the original store won’t let them, they’re curious if there’s a difference between the copy on the file-sharing site and their purchased copy, or whatever the reason.)
If your customers (or potential customers) realize they’re getting a virus from your products, this could cause them to panic, or it may cause the marketplaces sites to take down your products while they look for viruses. Ether way, this could severely damage your sales and income.

3) Using file-sharing sites as a promotional tool:
Obviously, digital products will be shared and it seems like every time you shut one person down, someone else will share it. I’m not saying that anyone should encourage or support file-sharing, nor am I saying that anyone should actively share their own product, but instead of actively fighting, but what if we played a “what if”?

Here’s an example: suppose someone downloads an illegal version of my helicopter model. Then suppose he really likes it and goes looking for more helicopters. Maybe he doesn’t find any more of my items on the file-sharing sites, so he looks for contact information in the products “read me” file. He then finds the site where he can legally purchase my products, and he buys a few more products.
And instead of yelling and screaming at this guy for downloading my product illegally and accusing him of “stealing sales”, what if I welcomed him as a new customer, answered his questions, and gave him good customer support? This kind of support adds “quality” to the product, which convinces the person to purchase.

Now, granted, this makes a big assumption that this person isn’t a “Collector” and that he actually uses the item that he downloaded. And it makes another assumption that the person is impressed enough that he’ll go looking for my other products. But, there have been numerous studies in the music industry to show how people are more likely to purchase a CD after they’ve illegally downloaded a song from that CD.

4) The time issue:
Yes, dealing with file-sharing sites can be an important issue, but keep in mind how much time it will take for you to go to the file-sharing sites, look for their “report abuse” page, fill our their form (perfectly, otherwise they may reject your claim), and so on. Many sites deliberately hide their contact information because they know they host illegal files, which makes it harder to report.

Some file-sharing sites are hosted on Blogspot, which is owned by Google. Their “report abuse” page seems almost designed to discourage people from reporting copyright infringement: the site actually says that you can be punished for false reporting. But if you really want to file a report, you have to follow ten specific steps and then mail or fax the information (no e-mails allowed)… and then hope the information doesn’t get “lost” and action is taken against the file-sharers.

5) And most importantly: what market are you in? What’s your business model?
If your business or service is to do nothing more than make $5 car models, then yes, file-sharing might put you out of business. However, if you offer your customers something more, such as quality products, customer support, tech support, or other services, then file-sharing will have no effect on you. No matter how many times people share your digital files; they’ll never replace your brand or your reputation.

You could also look at the music industry for ideas. The bands who only concentrate on putting out songs will be hard-hit by file-sharers, yet other bands make their living by performing. For example, The Rolling Stones haven’t had a “Billboard 100″ hit in years, yet they still fill stadiums with people. And of course, once people are at the stadium, they buy merchandise and t-shirts and CD’s and DVD’s and so on.

Do you want to spend your days hunting down file-sharers, sending out take-down notices, filling out forms, etc? Or do you want to create new and innovative products which expand your customer base and bring in more money? Do you want to be known as the merchant who’s too busy to make new products or add-ons because you’re spending all your time hunting down file-sharers and harassing any customer whom you believe stole your product?

After looking at all of this information, it’s up to the individual (or company) to decide if he wants to fight the file-sharing. Again, yes, unauthorized file-sharing is illegal, and yes, the people who do this should be brought to justice, but you have to decide for yourself how you want to best spend your time. Do you let the file-sharers “get to you” or do you do everything possible to convince your customers that it’s a much better value to buy your products?

Additional reading:
• TorrentFreak: The Pirate’s Dilemma
• TechDirt: Is Piracy The Leading Indicator Of Innovation?
• TechDirt: Software Developer Realizes That Pirates Are Giving Him Market Feedback and TorrentFreak: Game Developer Confronts iPhone Software Cracker
• TechDirt: The Future of Music Business Models
• P2P, Online File-Sharing, and the Music Industry An excellent resource to get you started in the research and studies used to determine whether file-sharing has an impact on the music industry.
• Dutch Study on Filesharing finds “File sharing has net positive economic impact… The net economic effects of file sharing on the Dutch welfare in the short and long term are positive.”

I’ve been selling digital products since 2001 and I’ve been running the Vanishing Point website since it started in 2004, so I figured it was time to share some of my experiences. Over the years, I’ve been asked numerous questions, ranging from the intelligent and challenging, to the downright “out there”.

Here’s a list of questions I’ve received over the years, with my sarcastic answer, which for obvious reasons, I never sent to the customer. I’ve also included a real answer in case some people don’t get the sarcastic one. In many cases, I’ve tried to retain the original grammar and spelling errors in the e-mail, though it’s not the customer’s exact e-mail message.
Please note: although I try to address some real customer-service issues (such as rudeness), this blog is meant to be humorous, along the lines of other customer-service humor websites, such as Rinkworks. (link opens in new window)

I’m trying to use my American Express card [via PayPal] to buy one of your items, but PayPal won’t let me. What gives? What’s the real reason I can’t purchase from you?

Sarcasm:
You got me. The gig is up.
I’m actually in collusion with American Express and PayPal and we’re all conspiring to make sure you don’t buy from me. In fact, to be on the safe side, anyone who tries to buy with your credit card will be added to our “Do Not Buy” list, kind of like the TSA’s “No Fly List”.

Reality:
Although this person suspects a grand conspiracy, there’s absolutely nothing like this at all. As I’ve tried to explain to people a number of times, I have no control over PayPal, nor can I control which credit cards they do or do not accept. If a customer has an issue with PayPal not accepting a certain credit card, the issue should be taken up with PayPal or the bank.

The best part about this question is how the customer jumps straight into accusing me of not letting him do something, when the issue is with PayPal and his credit cards. And, yes, customers jumping straight into threats and rudeness is a common theme in these questions.

PayPal charged my debit card instead of my credit card. How are you going to fix this?

Sarcasm:
Again, the gig is up. Since you found out that we obviously have access to PayPal’s transaction-processing system, I’ll get in touch with Sue in accounting and get her to fix this for you. Please don’t tell anyone else about this discovery or they’ll ask me to do the same thing for them.

Reality:
As above, we don’t control PayPal.
Unfortunately, this is also the start of the trend where customers don’t take responsibility for their transaction. After all, it’s up to them to pay attention to which account PayPal is drawing money from.

I paid with an e-check at PayPal. I demand you send me my download link immediately or I’ll report you for fraud!

Sarcasm:
You know, we enjoy sending out products before a transaction is complete. We trust that you won’t reverse the transaction before it’s completed so you can get a free product.

Reality:
The reality is that an “e-check” payment takes 5-7 days to clear and PayPal itself tells vendors to not to ship products until the payment has cleared. This “warning” by PayPal is included in the transaction e-mail they send to the vendor (and most likely, to the customer). And, although I’ve never paid with an e-check myself, I’m sure there’s a notice warning the customer about this delay.

So, again, this is a PayPal issue which we have no control over.

This question starts the trend of people not fully reading the instructions and then complaining when they don’t what they expect.

PayPal won’t let me enter an APO address when I try to create an account on their site.

Sarcasm:
Hey, Sue, while you’re changing the transaction-processing screens, could you get the guys in data entry to fix these screens? Thanks.

Reality:
It starts to get a little tiring trying to answer questions about how PayPal works. I can understand a customer’s frustration, but asking me to change PayPal’s data-entry forms won’t help. As before, this is a question that needs to be directed at PayPal’s customer service department.

Unfortunately, this is pretty much the full e-mail from the person. I would have been happy to give him alternative places to buy our products (which don’t require PayPal), but he seemed more interested in complaining than asking for a way to purchase our products.

Your website looks funny when I use Safari 10.38 Beta for Max OS 12. Can you please fix it?
Your website looks funny when I use Mosaic 1.3 for Windows 95. Can you please fix it?

Sarcasm:
Sure thing, no problem. We know that it’s our job to support every single browser in existence, from the latest bleeding-edge technology to browsers that were popular fifteen years ago.

Reality:
This should probably be obvious to most people, but obviously it isn’t: Beta software may not work properly… which is why it’s still labeled “Beta”. Website developers shouldn’t be expected to code their site to work with software which may not even be finished.

And, let’s face it, if someone’s using a fifteen year old browser, it’s probably beyond time to upgrade. Yes, I know Mosaic 1.3 doesn’t have all the security vulnerabilities of Internet Explorer, but still.

Are you planning on making seat belts for the Veepster [your car model]? It’s illegal to drive without seat belts here in South Dakota.

Sarcasm:
Thank you for your interest in driving our digital models on real roads. At this time, we’re hard at work getting our digital cars road-legal in every state. Unfortunately, we expect it will take a while for our car to pass each state’s strict safety-approval process since the Veepster doesn’t come with any real-world safety features, including seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, emissions controls, or power steering.

Reality:
I replied to this customer, explaining that it wouldn’t be worth the time and effort to make fully-working seat belts for a car model for a digital model.

I understand that people want realism in their models, but some details aren’t worth the effort to make: there’s no need to model every bolt and nut, just like there’s no real need to include seat belts.

But then I started thinking: even if it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt (in a real car), is it illegal to make an image of a digital model without a front seat belt?

Your latest product, the “Aeroplane Cruiser” is spelled wrong. The correct spelling is “Airplane”.

Sarcasm:
Thank you very much for taking it upon yourself to correct the spelling of my product. Congratulations for publicly shaming me for my lack of spelling ability. You win a prize.

Reality:
Product names are (usually) chosen carefully. This so-called misspelling was probably done for a reason. And to be blunt: who are you to be questioning how I spell the name of my own product? If I want to mis-spell it, I will!

You’d make more money if you converted the obj version of the F-15 [fighter jet] to Poser format.

Sarcasm:
Gee, even though I’ve been selling products since 2001, that idea never occurred to me. How can I ever repay you for such brilliant business advice?

Reality:
The reality is that, yes, there is the potential to make more money by selling a Poser version instead of an obj version. But, the other reality is that converting a model to Poser format involves rigging it with moving parts and re-mapping the materials.

In some cases, the models were not designed to be rigged with moving parts. For example, the F-15 fighter jet may have been modeled with its landing gear in the “down” position. I then have to figure out how to make the landing gear rotate up into the fuselage and close the landing gear doors. Many times, the landing gear (or the doors) were not designed to be moved this way: either the gear is too big to fit in the wheel-well or the doors are the wrong shape to fit against the fuselage.

I then have to make the decision about whether it’s worth the time and effort to fix up these models, especially when compared to the lower-than-expected sales of similar models.

I see that you’re no longer selling Panos’ Vietcong outfit and it’ll be on Renderosity soon. Do you know when?

Sarcasm:
Yes, on Jan 15, 2010 at 9:38am. We use a combination of clairvoyance and “farseein” technology to be able to predict the exact second when products are made live at Renderosity’s marketplace.

Reality:
In November 2009, the resale rights of the Vanishing Point products were sold to Renderosity. They now control when these products are released, and I am not part of their decision-making about what product is released when.

Has the customer ever thought to ask Renderosity or Panos (the merchant who made the product) about this?

I don’t see the [Starship Bridge] at Renderosity. Is there some other place I can buy it?

Sarcasm:
Meet me behind the store at midnight and I’ll get Guido to give you a good deal. Bring cash, come alone, and make sure you’re not followed.

Reality:
The bottom line is that many products are no longer Vanishing Point’s: they were sold to Renderosity and Renderosity now owns all the rights to these products. I can not sell them or give them away since they’re not mine. And doing so would be illegal, immoral, and unethical. Yet people still ask me if they can buy the no-longer-available products from me.

See the previous answer of contacting Renderosity and asking them about the product.

I accidentally uploaded a 200×200 thumbnail image to the [Vanishing Point] gallery, even though you don’t allow this. Sorry, but I thought this was Renderosity.

Sarcasm:
Thank you for thinking Vanishing Point is Renderosity. I know the sites look very similar since Renderosity has a black background and VP has a white background. The words “Renderosity” and “Vanishing Point” are obviously spelled too similarly and I understand how you could mistakenly think our site was actually Renderosity.

Reality:
It should be obvious that every site is different and has its own rules. Something that might be allowed at Renderosity may not be allowed at DAZ or Vanishing Point. It’s up to the merchant or artist to read the rules and follow them.

I just bought the Panel Van for Poser but I meant to buy the Utility Truck for Vue. Can I exchange this product?

Sarcasm:
What part of “Panel Van for Poser” did you not understand as you went through the multiple steps to check out and pay for the product? Did you not notice that not one of the check-out pages said “Utility Truck”? Did you completely ignore the list of items on the “Verify Order” page?

Reality:
First, we expect customers to be adults about their purchases, to take some responsibility for the items they’re purchasing, and to actually pay attention to what they’re buying. I don’t really care if “it was late” or “I was tired” or “the baby was crying so I couldn’t pay attention to what I was doing”. To be blunt: if it was late and you were tired or distracted, then you probably shouldn’t have been making a purchase in the first place. Is purchasing a product that important that it can’t wait until the baby stops crying?

Secondly, these are digital products. You can’t exchange them as you can with physical products: if I give you a new product, then you have received two items even though you only paid for one. Is this fair to me, to the merchants who may have worked on the product, or to the other customers who have paid for two separate items?

Thirdly, my cynical reply is that this is a ploy by some customers to purposefully get two products but only paying for one. They know that some sites have a “no questions asked” refund policy, so they figure they can “exchange” a “wrong” product and get a second item.

I realize that a vast minority of customers try this ploy, but it makes me very suspicious when a customer goes through the entire checkout process and never once notices that they’re buying the incorrect product.

I bought the PzVa Panther Tank but it won’t open in Carrera. What gives? I know the product says it’s meant for use in Poser, but I know Carrera can load Poser content.

Sarcasm:
I would have thought the words “for Poser” on the product’s description would have given you a clue that the product isn’t meant for use in other software programs. Obviously I was mistaken and every one of our products should naturally work in every single software program.

Reality:
What a fun question! The customer hits on two issues in one question!First, the issue of using the model in a program for which it wasn’t designed:

Unfortunately, the fact is that some products don’t work in every program. Should the artist who made the product really be expected to trouble-shoot the product in every program, even if he doesn’t have the program? And, although programs like Carrera may be able to import Poser models, sometimes the import process doesn’t work properly.

Here’s another example: suppose you own a 1995 Ford Mustang and you know it’ll accept BMW parts. Now suppose you go down to the auto-parts store and buy a BMW air filter (because it’s cheaper than air filters made for a Mustang). You go home, take out the air filter, put the new one it, but then find that it doesn’t quite fit exactly. Should you be entitled to a refund when you knowingly bought the wrong product? This isn’t a case of “the black dress isn’t flattering on me”– this is a case of you buying something that was not designed to work with your existing system, yet you chose to buy it anyway. Does a store have an obligation to give you a refund or exchange?

We’re also back to the issue of how to give an “exchange” for a digital product which can’t be returned.

Second, the e-mail was sent to me, the store owner. Should I be responsible for helping this customer trouble-shoot this product when the artist’s name is listed in the readme file? Wouldn’t the person who made the model be better able to help the customer? Why not talk to artist or merchant first, before contacting the store?

I just bought your Swap-A-Morph program for Windows and it won’t work on my Mac. Can I get a refund since I can’t use it?

Sarcasm:
Go jump in a lake! You knew it was designed for Windows, but you bought it anyway.

Reality:
As before, the customer bought a product knowing it wouldn’t work on his computer. I wonder why customers go through the entire check out process, pay for an item, download it, and then realize it won’t work? Why don’t they read the product description before buying?

Sorry, but I don’t think a refund should be issued since, as before, the customer needs to taking responsibility for his purchase: he should either read the product description fully, or if he doesn’t understand something, ask the person who made it, before purchasing.

I bought the “Veronica” figure from you and it doesn’t include a walk-designer file. Why is it missing? I expect you to issue me a refund immediately or make this transaction right.

Sarcasm:
What, you couldn’t find the super-secret file that was so secret it wasn’t mentioned in the product description?

Reality:
Um, did you even read check the product description to make sure “Veronica” actually comes with a walk-designer file? There’s no mention of this file any where in the description, so I’m not entirely sure why you assumed it would be included. And if you assumed it would be included, but you didn’t see it listed in the description, why didn’t you ask first, before purchasing?

How do I download my product? I purchased it, but now I can’t figure out how to receive it.

Sarcasm:
I’m so glad you asked that. We never would have thought about adding instructions like this to our website.

Reality:
This seems to be a re-occurring issue: people don’t take the time to read a website and, instead, they simply send e-mails to whomever they can find. Again, is this really the best option? How long did this customer wait for me to reply: an hour, three hours, twenty-four hours? If he had looked through the website, he could have found the answer in less time than it took him to write the e-mail.

1:00pm: I DIDN’T GET AN E-MAIL WITH MY DOWNLOAD LINK! I DEMAND THAT YOU MAKE THINGS RIGHT!
1:05pm: Look either send me the download link or give me back the $12.00. I haven’t received any e-mails from anyone at your company! I can’t believe this level of service! Let me know when I can download my purchase, within 12 hours or I will report the site to the Better Business Bureau, and file a disputed credit card charge with American Express.

Sarcasm:
(For once, I don’t have anything to say to this.)

Reality:
The first issue: this customer’s e-mail was “yahoo,con”… yep, the customer had a typo in his e-mail address, which caused the e-mail with the download link to not be delivered. Yet, instead of asking me politely why he didn’t receive the e-mail, he launches into a rude tirade about how it’s my fault and how he’s going to report me for fraud.

Second, this customer complained on the Saturday during Labor Day. Here in the United States, Labor Day is typically celebrated with end-of-summer cookouts. Suppose I had been out of town for the weekend. Would this person really have reported me to PayPal and the Better Business Bureau if I had waited until Sunday (more than 12 hours later) to reply?

Third, I can understand that a customer may be frustrated, but I have never understood why people send a second e-mail so soon after sending the first one. Some people wait an hour or so before sending a second e-mail, but still- if I don’t check e-mail until 5:00pm, I’m not going to see the 1:00pm e-mail any sooner. In fact, when I check e-mail at 5:00pm, I’ll see every single one of the complaining e-mails in the order in which they were sent. So, again, it makes no difference if the mail was sent at 1:00pm or 4:45pm: either way, I’ll see it at 5:00pm.

Fourth, whenever I reply politely to customers like this, they seem to re-compose themselves and apologize for their rudeness. Yet this doesn’t explain why they were rude in the first place. There are probably at least ten different ways to resolve this customer’s issue. Contacting the Better Business Bureau and threatening to do a chargeback should be a customer’s last resort.

Just because one merchant may have been rude to this customer doesn’t give him an excuse to be rude and threatening to every merchant and website.

I’m using Earthlink and I haven’t received my download link. Where is it? What’s going on over there?

Sarcasm:
Use an e-mail provider that doesn’t lock-down its users accounts with “advanced” spam filters!

Reality:
My real answer is close to the sarcastic answer: some e-mail providers (including Earthlink) require people to manually click on a link to “whitelist” their address before sending e-mail to an Earthlink account-holder.

As before, instructions on the Vanishing Point website tell people which e-mails they should allow so they can receive their download links. Plus, does this customer not realize that I won’t be able to answer their question if Earthlink (further) requires me to go through their “whitelist approval” process? Instead, he simply sends a complaining e-mail.

I didn’t receive the product I paid for instantly, so I’m going to post complaints in every forum I can find, rather than actually sending you an e-mail because I can’t be bothered to click on your Contact Us page. How do you like that?

Sarcasm:
I thoroughly enjoy chasing down customers who post complaints at multiple websites. Like you, I have nothing better to do with my time than to find a website, find a forum, start a new message thread, type in my comments, and wait to see who replies. I also enjoy it tremendously when I post a reply at one site but you’re already in the process of posting your reply at another site.

Reality:
Sorry, but I just don’t have the time (or the interest) to be chasing down complainers. The other reality is that I don’t believe a store’s staff should have to field customer service issues posted at other websites. Do people expect the staff at Renderosity to help fix issues discussed in the forums at DAZ? No, like any site, they’ll only fix issues when the issue is brought to their attention on their own site.

Related to this issue are the people who don’t like the product, but then post their complaint in an obscure forum (rather than contacting the seller or artist/ merchant) and then complaining again when he doesn’t receive a reply in the forums.

It makes me wonder if a person like this is complaining simply for the sake of complaining: after all, if he wanted help, shouldn’t he have contacted the artist/ merchant (whose name is probably in the product’s readme file)? I know some people post messages in forums to get help from other people, but these “other people” aren’t in a position to “make it right” if the product is actually faulty.

Can you make me a model of the B-24 Stratofortress, which flew over Europe in the winter of 1941?

Sarcasm:
And how much are you offering for this project? You say I should make it for free, out of the goodness of my heart? Well, since you put it that way, why not?

Reality:
This is something that customers don’t like to hear, but the reality is that I have plenty of projects already. Because of this, paying jobs have to take priority over requests for freebies. Yes, that’s right- like other professionals, I actually charge for my services.

I read an article on DeviantArt recently where they compare digital-content creation to other professions: would you ask a mechanic to fix your car for free? Would you ask a doctor to perform brain surgery on you for free simply because you need it for an upcoming project? Then why do people expect model-makers to make something for them for free?

If you don’t want to pay money for your request, at least have the decency to offer me something in trade: how about one of your own products or a service that you offer.

As an alternative, I send back a reply suggesting that people post requests like this in the forums to see if someone else would take the request. But, the person’s usual response is “But that takes too much time”. Yet it takes just as long to write an e-mail as it does to post a message in a forum. In fact, it now takes less time since the person already wrote the message when they sent me the e-mail: just copy the request from the e-mail and paste into the forum.

The other reality is that, after ten years’ worth of experience in the Poser community, I’ve learned a few things:

First, people tend to request niche products, usually because they need it for a very specific project. If the requestor isn’t paying me, but allows me to sell the model, I have to decide if the model will make enough sales to make it worth my time and effort.

Second, I’ve seen too many artists make something that was requested, but then the requester balks at the final price, as in “You want $10?? I certainly didn’t expect that high of a price. I’ll have to buy it next week when I get paid.” Obviously, this person never buys.

Every time I try to download something from your site I get an alarm from Avast! that a virus has been detected and I abort. Your site is the only one I get that from. I imagine a lot of people get it and simply don’t come back. Whatever is causing this–virus or otherwise–don’t you think you should get rid of it?

Sarcasm:
Well, gee, thanks for telling me specifically which item on which page is causing this! Your e-mail was so helpful in determining the cause of this issue.

Reality:
Although this e-mail doesn’t say it, the issue was caused by an item on our Free Stuff page, but the item itself was located on someone else’s website.

The first issue was that the “alarm” was a known false-positive by Avast. I did some research (which is what the complainer should have done) and found a number of user forums which talked about how Avast would create this “alarm” on certain international sites. And there were plenty of complaints about this false-positive in the forums as well.

The second issue is that the item is hosted on someone else’s site. While I try to do everything I can to prevent users from uploading malicious files, why doesn’t this person complain to the artist who’s offering the item? Why doesn’t he complain to the site which actually hosts the file?

Why doesn’t your store have a wishlist function? Now I’m forced to try and remember the model. If down the road I need something like this. You better hope I remember seeing it here, or stumble upon it again. I think your missing out not having a way to keep track of interesting models on your site.

Sarcasm:
Thank you for your business advice. I can tell from your lack of proper grammar and misuse of the word “your” that you must be an expert e-commerce consultant. I’m glad someone brought this to my attention since I never would have thought about this idea in the six years that Vanishing Point has been online.

Reality:
The reality is that Vanishing Point would have this feature if we thought it was a good feature to have.

When we were first creating the code for the website, we looked into the pros and cons of a wishlist system and we determined that adding this to the site wasn’t worth the time and effort. Yes, some people use it to do their shopping, but too many people simply drop things in their cart and forget about it.

We also studied sites such as Renderosity and we determined that many people would put an item into their wishlist, wait for the product to have its price dropped (due to no sales), and then purchase the product. We didn’t want to repeat this process and watch our customers only buy a product when the price dropped.

I have no money, as I spent it all on someone elses product, any chance you could let me have your new one “on account” until I get paid next week

Sarcasm:
We’ve invented a new system that allows people to use a “card” with a certain about of “credit” on it. With this “credit card” (as we call it), people will be able to buy things for which they have no cash. We hope our “credit card” system catches on with people.

Reality:
Again, this person must be serious about his question since he took the time to send the e-mail. I have to ask, though, why doesn’t the customer use a different credit card to buy the item? Is his card maxed out to the point where he can’t afford a $10 item? If so, then he probably should spend more time paying attention to his finances and less time looking at digital products.

And why can’t the person wait until next week, when he has money? What is so important that he needs the product right now, without paying for it?

I’ve setting up a new freebie site. I saw your freebies and they are really nice, is there any chance I could some put them on my site. Just one thing, as I do not know how to make things, can you take them down from your site and other places, and not say they are yours until I have made a name for myself.

Sarcasm:
Well, sure thing, I don’t mind giving up ownership and credit just to help some unknown person.

Reality:
My first response is: Is this guy serious? I suppose his is, since he sent an e-mail.

I know there are people on the Internet who steal content from other people and try to pass it off as their own, but I’ve never seen someone be so blatant about it and ask the original creator to remove it from his own site! Even if this guy “makes a name for himself” using other people’s content, what will that accomplish? Suppose a client hires him, based on the “work” he’s done. Can this guy really do the job or will he have to steal from even more people? Does this guy really think this is a smart way to do business?

How do I get started in Poser?

Sarcasm:
That’s an easy question to answer. In fact, the answer is so simple that I’ll also answer the meaning of life for you, at no additional charge!

Reality:
In all seriousness, asking how to get started in Poser is like asking how to get started with any subject: the question is so broad that I couldn’t even begin to answer it. And unfortunately, even if I tried to answer it, would this person then flood me with follow-up questions that could easily be answered by reading the manual or by experimenting with the program?

Even though many graphic designers use screen sizes of 1280 x 1024 pixels, there are still a large number of people who use a screen size of 800 x 600 pixels. If you design an image that’s 1000 pixels wide, it may fit perfectly fine on your screen, but it may not fit fine on other people’s screens. How much of your image will they see? If they view it online, both their web browser and the website will take up screen space. So, even though they may be using a screen that’s 800 pixels wide, they may only be able to see 700 pixels of your image. That means they won’t see 30% of your image!

If your viewer can’t see your entire image, how effective will your composition be? You may have designed your image to set a specific mood by the placement of the objects within it, but if a viewer can’t see half of the image, how will they know?

Some people may argue that viewers can just save the image from their web browser to their hard drive and view it later, full screen. There are two issues here: One, even if they do save it, they will still be viewing your 1000 pixels-wide image on their 800 pixel-wide screens. If they view it full-screen, their software program will scale it down to fit the screen, which could result in less than optimal results.

Another argument against this idea is the fact that many websites add code to their pages to prevent visitors from saving images. Many websites believe that visitors will save the images and upload them elsewhere (this is a violation of copyright law).

Another argument made by some people is that they can’t get a good level of detail with a 600 x 600 pixel image, so they have to make a 3000 x 3000 pixel image. My response is this: if viewers are marveling over the detailed models, then you haven’t done your job as an artist. Yes, you want to have detailed elements in your scene, but that should be almost an after-thought of your image. You want your viewers to focus on your artwork as a whole, not on the cool texture of one spaceship.

Many online galleries first show a small thumbnail so users can choose whether or not to view the 3000 x 3000 pixel image. But, this thumbnail is usually smaller (and with far less quality) than a 600 x 600 pixel image. So now you’re back to the issue of people seeing a less-detailed version of your artwork.

On the other hand, if your image is meant to be printed, then you will need to make your image as large as possible, based on your printer’s specifications. If your image will be a 24 inch by 36 inch poster, it will need to be significantly larger than an 8 1/2 by 11 inch image, which, in turn, will be significantly larger than an image meant to be viewed online. Instead of designing for a web browser’s window, you’re now designing for the size of a poster.

The best solution is to make your image the correct size to begin with. You are certainly free to render your size at any image – in fact; some people render their images two or three times larger than the final version. Reducing the image down can remove some imperfections created by the rendering software. Personally, I recommend that you reduce the size of your image so it will fit within an 800 x 600 screen or even a 1024 x 768 screen.

Let’s look at some examples. This is how an image would look when seen on the Internet using a screen size of 1024 x 768 pixels

Version 1:
In this “screen shot”, we’ve uploaded a large image to an online gallery. The image is much taller than the browser’s available window, so the viewer has to scroll down to see the rest of the image.

This may be the correct size for an image that’s meant to be printed, but it is way too big for a browser’s window. Consequently, the image loses much of its impact.

Version 2:
This is a little better. The image has been reduced, but it’s still too big for this viewer’s browser window. The viewer can see more of the image, but like before, the image doesn’t have the same impact.

Version 3:
In this version, the image fits nicely within the browser’s window. The viewer now sees your entire image and can appreciate the work you put into it.

As a side note, smaller images result in smaller file sizes. If you make a large image (for example, 3000 x 3000 pixels), there’s a chance that it may be too big for some online galleries. The pixel-size may be within the gallery’s limits, but if the file is 350 k in size, the gallery may not accept it. Reducing the image to 600 x 600 pixels will probably reduce the file size to below 100 k, which is well within the gallery’s limits.

Your next question is probably, “How do I reduce an image?” I recommend using Photoshop’s “Save for Web” feature (or a comparable feature in Paint Shop Pro). Generally speaking, images from a rendering program (such as Poser or Lightwave) may not be compressed as well as they should. You should save (or “export”) your image as a Photoshop file, open it in Photoshop, and then “Save for Web”.

You should keep in mind that the lower the compression, the higher the file size (and vice versa). A compression setting of “100″ will result in the best quality, but the highest file size. A compression setting of “1″ will result in the worst quality, but the smallest file size. I recommend a setting around “85″: this is a medium-high setting which results in a smaller file size without a noticeable loss in quality.

Poser’s low price (normally in the $250 range) and included content (models, clothing, poses, etc) allow almost anyone to quickly make digital images immediately after purchasing and installing the software. The learning curve for Poser is a lot less steep than that of more complex graphics programs.

However, many people seem to think that Poser is “unprofessional” because of its low price, its low learning curve, and the “amateur-ness” of many images made by beginners. These people tend to look down on the use of Poser simply because they don’t use it, don’t understand it, or more-often-than-not, because they just don’t like it. For this discussion, I’ll be calling these “professionals” by the more-correct term of “elitists”, which will mean “people who look down on something for their own personal reasons”.

Some Common Arguments from the Elitists

1) Not Professional?

These elitists claim (usually with specious logic) that “professionals” don’t use Poser simply because it’s “unprofessional”. Do they really mean that if I use an “unprofessional” software program, I can no longer call myself a “professional”? How’s that for circular logic?

Many elitists also claim that Poser images show a distinct “amateur-ness”, which obviously means that the software itself is amateurish. While I will agree that a lot of Poser-created images are amateur in nature, you have to look at the “big picture”: since Poser is inexpensive, fairly easy to use, and doesn’t require a super-computer, it’s only natural that a wide variety of people would use the software. Like anything in life, some people will have the talent to make good images, while some people won’t.

As an aside, I think Poser images can be compared to photography. As we speak, more and more people have cameras available to them, usually on their cell-phones. With so many people taking pictures with their cell-phones, can these photos be considered “art”? Probably not, but maybe some are.

Is it fair to say that every cell-phone camera is bad simply because some photos aren’t very good?

One of the worst arguments I’ve seen is when one of these elitists says something like “I know plenty of professionals and none of them use Poser”, as if to say, “Since I personally don’t know any ‘professionals’ who use Poser, then no professionals in the entire world use Poser.”

This would be like me saying, “My parents don’t use Poser and none of my friends’ parents use Poser.” Therefore, by this logic, my statement must obviously mean, “No parents in the entire world use Poser.”

This is just absurd.

What the elitists never see is how many real, professional studios use Poser. Here’s one example: In the book, The Art of Star Wars: Episode II, I saw a screen shot of a pre-visualization storyboard which used the human figures found in Poser. This storyboard helped the artists at Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) figure out how to block their shot, where to position the camera, and how background figures would be positioned in the scene.

Hmm… I guess this means ILM isn’t “professional” if they’re using Poser.

At Epcot’s Spaceship Earth attraction (at Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL), there is an animation of the ride vehicles rotating in space. There’s a family sitting in the seats… and guess what the figures are? Yep, the Adult Male, Adult Female, Male Child, and Female Child that come with Poser 4.

And we all know how unprofessional the artists and engineers at Walt Disney World are, especially for using a program like Poser. (Yes, that was meant as sarcasm.)

If you read newspapers like USA Today, you’ll commonly see the Poser figures used in the illustrations. In fact, once you’ve seen the Poser figures a few times, you can easily spot them in almost any setting.

2) No Professionals in the Forums?

Another argument put forth by the elitists is that no “professionals” post messages in the Poser community forums; therefore, the logic goes, if there are no professionals posting in the forums, there must not be any professionals at all.

This argument is pretty absurd as well, but let me just say this: real professionals are the ones who work 8, 9, or 10 hours a day (or more) to finish their deadlines. If you’re spending this much time on a project, you don’t have time to spend in any forums, let alone the Poser community forums.

Besides, would these elitists believe that a new user called “AndrewS” was really the director of Pixar movies? Or would they laugh him off as some “poser” (pun intended)?

3) Jealousy?

The most logical reason for the Poser-bashing is probably the simplest: professional jealousy. Some elitists may have spent years to build up their talent to the point where they can make a human figure from scratch. But, along comes John Poser-User who can place a pre-made human into a scene, pose it all kinds of different ways, and make an image in a few minutes.

Where’s the years of study? Where’s the “mastery” of building models?

This is also similar to the idea of using computers: when the Macintosh computer first came out, it was looked upon as childish, especially by the “pros” who had mastered DOS commands. To them, Mac users were almost dummies for not spending years learning arcane, text-based commands.

The idea continued into the Internet years: America Online (AOL) users were commonly looked down upon because they simply installed AOL, ran the software, and connected to AOL. There was no fiddling around with programs like “WinSock” or needing to configure a “TCP/ IP” Control Panel.

Where were the years of study of network protocols? Where’s the mastery of using computers?

4) Bashing Others is Cool

Or is the answer even simpler? Maybe people want to be “one of the gang” and enjoy bashing something because “everyone else is doing it” or because it “looks cool”.

Since John Super-User is bashing Poser, then it must be the correct thing to do. And since I want to be like John Super-User, I should bash Poser as well. Maybe I’ll even impress the cool kids with my pithy put-downs. (Yes, that was meant as sarcasm.)

Maybe people don’t actually think this when they post their message in a forum, but I would be willing to bet that it’s somewhere in the back of their mind.

Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion about mob mentality and group-think, I believe sharing put-downs creates an “us versus them” thinking: you’re either a “basher” or you’re “one of those people”.

A “mob think” dynamic starts to form, where people start to blindly act like everyone else without consciously realizing what they’re doing. In the case of online forums, people may bash Poser simply because that’s what the other people are doing. And since these other people have some high-quality images in their gallery, then they must be “experts” and they must know what they’re talking about. Maybe I can impress these “experts” by joining in with their bashing.

On the other hand, some people may start these kinds of message threads simply as a way to start a controversy and get attention, kind of like jumping into an online forum about Star Trek and posting a message that Star Wars is better. Does this message serve any constructive purpose? Usually not- for the most part, these kinds of message threads are simply created because the poster is either being a jerk or he wants attention.

Unfortunately, people will take the bait and they’ll post their own messages, both attacking his post and then attacking each other for their posts. Again, does this serve any constructive purpose?

What Does the User Want to do?

The answer to all this comes down to one answer: what does the user want to do?

Some people enjoy building things from scratch and learning every tool available to them. Some people enjoy reading the 3-inch manual cover-to-cover to master everything the software can do. But some people “just want to get it done”, whether it’s finishing a piece of artwork or writing a document or connecting to the Internet.

Imagine how hard it would be for me to write this blog (and for you to connect to the Internet and read it) if the “newbies” and “hobbyists” had lost out and we were all still using text-based software! I’d still be looking over the keyboard to find the Alt-Ctrl-Shift-F10 command. And, yes, even up until the late-1990′s, WordPerfect still used complicated keystrokes for bolding text, printing, and saving files instead of using the mouse.

Getting back to the world of digital artwork, I think this comparison is best:

Using Poser is like playing with action figures. As a kid, I played with Star Wars action figures (you may have played with G.I. Joe figures). Was my imagination stunted because I didn’t build my own figures or because I bought pre-made spaceships? In fact, George Lucas made tons of money by making action figures from every character, even the ones in the far background (such as “Prune Face” from Return of the Jedi).

On the other hand, building your own digital models in programs like Maya or Lightwave or 3D Studio Max could be compared to building models with LEGO bricks. Yes, I had LEGOs when I was a kid, though I always had trouble building spaceships for my Star Wars figures.

Are either of these “wrong”? Is playing with action figures somehow “worse” than building your own toys? Did anyone’s mom tell them to put their action figures down and “go build something”?

A Case Study

Here’s a quick case study that should amuse the elitists… or maybe not:

The boss walks into the graphics department and says that he needs a rough animation of a man walking around the client’s new car. The client will supply the car model, but the boss wants the animation to show how the proposed animation will look. And, if the client likes it, he’ll sign the contract for a full version, using live actors.

But, time is of the essence: if the boss doesn’t submit the animation quickly, the client may find someone else.

So, the project is given to two artists: John (who uses Poser) and Mary (who uses 3D Studio Max). Both John and Mary start working when they come in the next day, at 8:00 am.

John starts Poser, adds Simon (the Poser 7 male figure) to the scene, adds a business suit, loads a pre-made “walk” animation, and renders the animation. John finishes around noon, but spends the rest the day answering e-mail so the boss thinks he’s working long and hard on the project.

He goes into the boss’ office the next day with the finished animation. The quality is good and it gives the boss (and the client) a good idea of how the finished animation will look.

Mary uses Maya. She’s very skilled with the program, but it still takes her four days to make a human figure with clothes. She asks for an extension since it will take her a few more days to rig her figure and model the clothing. (“Rigging” allows a digital model to move as if it had a real skeleton inside it.)

She asks for another extension since she still has to make textures for the models.

Ten days after the boss asks for the animation, Mary turns hers in. The quality is excellent and the animation looks practically real. The client even comments that it’s hard to tell that Mary’s animation is computer-generated.

However, after looking at the animation, client changes his mind: he would like the guy to be wearing shorts and t-shirt instead of a business suit.

John goes back to Poser, removes the business suit and add the shorts and t-shirt. He goes back to his boss the next day and presents his new animation. John pads his time again so it looks like he worked hard.

Mary says it’ll take her another ten days to finish this part of the project. She has to remove the business suit from her model… and since her figure doesn’t have real arms and legs, she’ll have to create them (and shorts and t-shirt) from scratch. She’ll then have to create new textures for the guy, the shorts, and the t-shirt.

The boss shows John’s animation to the client and the client changes his mind again: he would like the guy to start with a shocked expression, and then change to a happy expression.

John goes back to Poser, adjusts the expression of the guy, and makes a new animation. He knows he’s got Mary beat, so he hands in the animation that afternoon.

Mary says it’s impossible for her to change the expression since she didn’t know this was a requirement and she didn’t build her model with the ability to change facial expressions.

John’s time to finish the animation: about 3 to 4 days.

Mary’s time to finish the animation: 20 to 40 days.

This is only a quick example, but in the “real world” where graphic designers have deadlines, I think using Poser is lot more common than the elitists would believe.

The Right Tool

The main point is that all of these programs are tools used to get the job done. Does it really matter if you use 3D Studio Max or Maya or Lightwave or Poser as long as you can get your project done in time to meet the deadline?

Poser was never meant to compete with programs like Lightwave, 3D Studio Max or SoftImage. This should be obvious by looking at the pricing: Poser is much less expensive than Lightwave (around $1,800), 3D Studio Max ($2,000 or more) or SoftImage ($10,000 or more).

Yet elitists only focus on Poser’s lack of features when compared to the more expensive software programs.

It’s kind of like saying everyone should drive a Rolls Royce because it’s “the best”. Sure, some people may consider it to be the most well-made car, but can it tow a boat, like an SUV? Can it handle eight kids and the equipment needed for soccer practice, like a minivan? Or maybe someone just doesn’t have the money to pay for the quality of a Rolls Royce.

Again, the point is that people should choose the tool (or software) that best suits their needs rather than reading a message in the forums by a guy who says SoftImage is the best program ever made. Again, it might be the “best” program for him, but is it really the best program for your project?

And, of course, these elitists think that everyone has the time and the interest to learn complicated software. Maybe you just want to make an image for your son and you have no interest in learning how to create polygons or UV map an object or create textures. Then why should you spend $10,000 and days (or weeks) learning software that you really have no interest in learning?

What Do You Think?

What do you think? Please feel free to post your comments and opinions.

Are you someone who looks down on the use of Poser and thinks it shouldn’t be used by “professionals”? Why do you think that?

Are you a professional that uses Poser (or are you a Poser hobbyist) that thinks these “pros” are being elitist snobs? Why do you think that?

The first issue is costs and expenses: digital products may not have the same “costs of goods sold” as physical products, though they do have the cost of the time it takes to develop, test, and upload the product. And like any other business, websites have expenses to cover, such as employee salaries, utilities, and the costs of computers and software.

As the prices of the products are lowered, the income for the site is also lowered. Yes, there are plenty of ways to increase income by adding more products or getting more customers, but is it in the best interest of the website to simply match pricing with another site?

For example, suppose a website can sell its digital products for $1.99. Should other websites match its pricing, even though they may sell similar (or better) products for $10 or $20 or even $30?

Value for the money

Personally, I think there is a huge difference in the perceived value of a $30 product versus a product priced at $1.99. I expect a lot more from the $30 product than a $1.99 one, even if the products are similar. And if I’m spending $30, I want to make sure I have a use for the product.

As a side note, I definitely think there is room in the market for both a $30 product and a similar $1.99 product. Almost by definition, the $30 version will have more features than the $1.99 version, and both products will fill the needs of customers. Some customers will need the $30 version for their animation projects and some will simply use the $1.99 version as a way to fill out their scene.

However, the issue here is that people expect the $30 feature-rich product to be priced at $1.99.

If the product is only $1.99, will people expect much (or anything) from it? Or will they throw it out and think, “Eh, I paid $1.99, so what if it doesn’t work”? Or will they purchase it, download it, and never use it, again thinking, “Eh, I paid $1.99, so what if I never use it.”

Either way, they haven’t put a value on the product: to them, $1.99 is a fair price for a disposable item.

The next issue is how the $1.99 pricing affects the perceived value of the market in general. Digital models are designed for use in a number of graphics programs, including 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, Poser, and Vue d’Esprit. Generally speaking, 3D Studio Max and Lightwave models are priced in the $40 to $50 price range, and usually more. Poser and Vue models are priced in the $10 to $15 price range, and sometimes less.

Poser and Vue models also usually include more features than the 3D Studio Max and Lightwave versions. For example, these models might have more moving parts or they might have more texture or color options. Animal models for use in Poser are always “rigged” and can be easily posed, but animal models for use in 3D Studio Max and Lightwave are usually not “rigged” in a similar manner.

Yet the Poser and Vue versions are priced significantly less than the 3D Studio Max and Lightwave versions.

And even though these models have more moving parts and have more color options, some people complain that a $15 price is “too expensive” when compared to a $1.99 price. Okay, yes, $15 is more than $1.99, but $15 is also less than $30.

Over the years, this “too expensive” thinking has caused the price-point for Poser models has been driven lower and lower. Many Poser users are hobbyists who may not have the money to spend on a $30 model. And unlike many 3D Studio Max and Lightwave users, they probably won’t be using it in a commercial project where they can charge the cost of the model to a client.

However, does this justify lowering the price to $1.99 instead of $10 or $15? And if the leading websites continue to price their products at $1.99 (or have “90% off” sales), what does that do to the larger market? Will customers expect every product to be this price? Will customers not buy unless the product is priced at $1.99?

Craftsmanship and the merchant’s income

This pricing method seems to ignore the concept of paying for the craftsmanship: how many hours did the merchant spend making his product? How many sales, at $10, will it take to pay for his efforts? How many sales will it take at $1.99?

Let’s say the merchant spent 30 hours making a car model. Now let’s say he only pays himself around minimum wage, but let’s use $6.00 an hour to keep things even. This means that the car model is worth $180 of his time.

Let’s also assume that he prices his car model at $10. He could probably charge more, but he figures this is a good balance between what he thinks it is worth and what he thinks customers will pay for it.

At the $10 price, he’ll have to sell 18 copies to pay for his time (assuming he gets the full amount). If he sells it through a brokering site and they give him a 50% commission, he’ll have to sell 36 copies.

If the site gives him a 50% commission rate but sells it for $1.99, he’ll have to sell 180 copies to pay for his time. Is this realistic? Can he (or the website) sell 180 copies?

Yet many customers only see the price tag (usually only the $1.99 price tag) and may not think about how the merchant is compensated for the time it took to make the car model.

Some websites avoid this issue by paying a merchant a large up-front payment for the product. In this example, they may pay the merchant $300 for his car model, which comes out to a rate of $10 an hour. Then, the website assumes all the risk of making back the $300 they spent on the model.

Will they make their money back? Probably, though it may a few months or more. Since they now own the product, they can price it at $24.95, then run a half-off sale (which is still more than the original $10 price), and then they can price it at $1.99.

This leads back to the original point of competing on price: if your website has to pay a merchant a 50% commission rate on his $10 product, will he agree to price the product at $1.99? His commission drops by one-fifth: from $5 to $1.

And if every product is priced at $1.99, where’s the incentive for merchants to innovate and make better products or better images? Why add realistically moving parts to your car model, or make a photo-real image to show it off, when it’s going to be priced the same as someone else’s plain chair model?

Don’t compete on price

Competing on only price is a losing battle: there will always be someone who can price their products lower than yours. If you decide to price your products at $1.99, what happens when your competitor prices his products at $1.50? Do you match his prices? What happens when a third competitor advertises that they’re selling everything for $0.25? At what point do you give up competing on price because you can’t make enough money to cover your expenses?

As a side note, you have no idea what’s going on behind-the-scenes at your competition. Maybe their $1.99 pricing is actually a “loss leader”. For example, maybe their parent company is making tons of money in a completely separate industry. Or maybe they have a consulting division which can cover any losses they may take from the $1.99 products.

If this is true and they’re actually losing money from their $1.99 pricing, does it make sense for you to match their pricing?

Instead, the solution is to focus on the other reasons why people should buy from you. Maybe you have a wider range of products or maybe you can offer “bundles” of similar or related products. Maybe your products include more features than what’s offered by your competitor. Or maybe you market your products to the people who want feature-rich products and who are willing to pay more than $1.99.

Or do you offer better customer service? Maybe you answer customer e-mails and questions quicker than your competitors do. Maybe you offer to help solve your customers’ issues rather than simply giving them a refund without even knowing what the problem is.

A good example of not competing on price is iTunes. People can get digital music files from a variety of sources, including getting them for free from not-so-legal sources. Yet iTunes has become the second-largest music retailer in the United States. Is it really because their prices are lower than everyone else’s? (You can’t get lower than “free”.)

Or have they figured out better ways to serve their customers?