5 ms·

Threadless announced Artist Shops in 2015 and rolled them out to Threadless’s general community in early 2016. Artist Shops, still in existence, allow designers

by dkarl 9y ago

Threadless announced Artist Shops in 2015 and rolled them out to Threadless’s general community in early 2016. Artist Shops, still in existence, allow designers to sell items printed with any design (allowed by Threadless’s terms and conditions) directly to customers and receive royalties on each sale.... The shift to a more equitable royalties and rights model removed the gamification elements of Threadless that made the site so addictive to some designers and users... many designers said that the windfall $2,500 prize for winning the weekly design competition was preferable to them and they lost the motivation to submit designs due to the change. That's a pretty dark lesson in human nature. If you give somebody nothing, they'll judge you by the big payoff you gave to someone else. If you give them a little more than nothing, they'll judge you by that. Better to give a few people a lot and give the rest nothing but dreams so everyone will always see you in a positive light.

duxup 9y ago
I can't help but think that lesson applies to politics too.
mintplant 9y ago
Reminiscent of the overjustification effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect The overjustification effect occurs when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task. The overall effect of offering a reward for a previously unrewarded activity is a shift to extrinsic motivation and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Once rewards are no longer offered, interest in the activity is lost; prior intrinsic motivation does not return, and extrinsic rewards must be continuously offered as motivation to sustain the activity. Tangentially, I would encourage anyone still in college to take some psychology classes while you have the opportunity. Fascinating and useful stuff.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 9y ago
  > Tangentially, I would encourage anyone still in college to take some psychology classes while you have the opportunity. What will you give me?
strebler 9y ago
Why is it so surprising? From both the designer and shopper perspectives, the Old Way does seem better. With the Old Way: Designer: does N work to create a design and has X% chance of winning $2500. They focus on what they love (i.e. design) and can get a nice quick payout if they're good. This is even better than a lottery, because it has the same excitement, but talent is also a factor which is very motivating. The marketing is done for them. Competing head to head is also kind of fun. Shopper: look at the top / winning shirts and buy one if they like it. Paradox of Choice is not a problem. With the New Way: Designer: needs to setup a shop, do N work to create a design, then M work to market the shirt, and needs to sell nearly 400 t-shirts to get to that payout. For the winners to achieve the same outcome, it's a lot more work. For most designers, I think it's safe to assume that the marketing part is nowhere near as fun as the design part. The excitement factor is totally gone. Shopper: has to wade through tons of shirts to figure out which one they like. Paradox of Choice is signifcant.
- petra 9y ago
  Great analysis. Altough i'm not sure that about the shopper side - since t-shirts are a self-expressive medium and not just a commodity like wine, probably there's value in offering a large selection. And if we'd change the old model to something like this: No prize. N designers competing. Top 1/3 win, and take all of the royalties of all the shirts in the competition, forever. How would you analyze that ? would it be a good model ?
  - strebler 9y ago
    Yes, having a store with selection is good for shopping. The contest is part merchandising and part marketing to show the "top hot new" SKU. For any contest to work, you need good entries. The prize is the payout that motivates those entries. I think a hybrid approach could likely work, where everyone's entry is buyable by default (and they get royalties). I'm not sure people would like if the winner(s) get royalties of other entries, but it might work. One factor I'm realizing (which may have motivated the change) is that contests are a more of a "novelty" from a marketing perspective, so it may have sustainability issues. People easily get bored, especially if it's the same experience repeated over and over.
misiogames 9y ago
isn't that the way the "American dream" works?
- Y_Y 9y ago
  You make an excellent, if cynical, point.
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  The American Dream is a middle class lifestyle. Post-World War II America saw a vibrant middle class. Post 9-11/Great Recession America has replaced its vibrant middle class with the ‘gig economy’
  - fhjjwei888 9y ago
    The gig economy is how the world worked prior to World War 2. Prior to the Great Depression, 90%+ of the US population was independent workers. It's been a very short period in human history where lifetime employment, sitting still in one job for 30+ years, became fashionable. It only became fashionable when the US government saw an opening to conquer the world, but needed to insure they didn't drop the ball, and tried to institute workers rights and the like, in a very hacky way, at that. There's really no reason it has to look at all like it has to live a fulfilling life of creative output. The whole dream of acquiring a stash of capital to free oneself from the daily grind seems largely illusory to anyone under the age of 50, thanks to many other things but the gig economy (IMO, the gig economy itself being a reaction to shitty office life conditions; the people are saying FU to oatmeal cubes, and staring a screen, being hassled by coworkers to do their job for them.) A modern hunting-gathering lifestyle has been shown to promote positive moods on life as well. Perhaps the notion of corralling the masses into "problem solver" groups (corporations) focused on some billionaires "problems" (not enough billions) isn't a sustainable model given inherent features of human biology and desire for free agency. If you think about it, it's really just paid servitude to a rich master. Not really the American notion of freedom given history.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    The “vibrant middle class” has been in decline since the 1980s and was basically gone by 9/11. The "gig economy” didn't replace it, it maybe nibbled around the edges of the stable working class.
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
This sounds no different to the startup ‘dream’ lots of people in the Bay Area have sold themselves on.
dwc 9y ago
Another angle is that when you build something a certain way, people who come and stay are the people who are attracted to that certain way. Those people are not going to like it when you take away the thing that attracted them. It's impossible to know for sure, but what if Threadless had started out their "new" way?
fhjjwei888 9y ago
"Human nature" that's been heavily shaped by cultural norms.

by dkarl 9y ago

duxup 9y ago

I can't help but think that lesson applies to politics too.

mintplant 9y ago

Reminiscent of the overjustification effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect The overjustification effect occurs when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task. The overall effect of offering a reward for a previously unrewarded activity is a shift to extrinsic motivation and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Once rewards are no longer offered, interest in the activity is lost; prior intrinsic motivation does not return, and extrinsic rewards must be continuously offered as motivation to sustain the activity. Tangentially, I would encourage anyone still in college to take some psychology classes while you have the opportunity. Fascinating and useful stuff.

aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 9y ago
> Tangentially, I would encourage anyone still in college to take some psychology classes while you have the opportunity. What will you give me?

strebler 9y ago

Why is it so surprising? From both the designer and shopper perspectives, the Old Way does seem better. With the Old Way: Designer: does N work to create a design and has X% chance of winning $2500. They focus on what they love (i.e. design) and can get a nice quick payout if they're good. This is even better than a lottery, because it has the same excitement, but talent is also a factor which is very motivating. The marketing is done for them. Competing head to head is also kind of fun. Shopper: look at the top / winning shirts and buy one if they like it. Paradox of Choice is not a problem. With the New Way: Designer: needs to setup a shop, do N work to create a design, then M work to market the shirt, and needs to sell nearly 400 t-shirts to get to that payout. For the winners to achieve the same outcome, it's a lot more work. For most designers, I think it's safe to assume that the marketing part is nowhere near as fun as the design part. The excitement factor is totally gone. Shopper: has to wade through tons of shirts to figure out which one they like. Paradox of Choice is signifcant.

petra 9y ago
Great analysis. Altough i'm not sure that about the shopper side - since t-shirts are a self-expressive medium and not just a commodity like wine, probably there's value in offering a large selection. And if we'd change the old model to something like this: No prize. N designers competing. Top 1/3 win, and take all of the royalties of all the shirts in the competition, forever. How would you analyze that ? would it be a good model ?
- strebler 9y ago
  Yes, having a store with selection is good for shopping. The contest is part merchandising and part marketing to show the "top hot new" SKU. For any contest to work, you need good entries. The prize is the payout that motivates those entries. I think a hybrid approach could likely work, where everyone's entry is buyable by default (and they get royalties). I'm not sure people would like if the winner(s) get royalties of other entries, but it might work. One factor I'm realizing (which may have motivated the change) is that contests are a more of a "novelty" from a marketing perspective, so it may have sustainability issues. People easily get bored, especially if it's the same experience repeated over and over.

misiogames 9y ago

isn't that the way the "American dream" works?

Y_Y 9y ago
You make an excellent, if cynical, point.
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
The American Dream is a middle class lifestyle. Post-World War II America saw a vibrant middle class. Post 9-11/Great Recession America has replaced its vibrant middle class with the ‘gig economy’
- fhjjwei888 9y ago
  The gig economy is how the world worked prior to World War 2. Prior to the Great Depression, 90%+ of the US population was independent workers. It's been a very short period in human history where lifetime employment, sitting still in one job for 30+ years, became fashionable. It only became fashionable when the US government saw an opening to conquer the world, but needed to insure they didn't drop the ball, and tried to institute workers rights and the like, in a very hacky way, at that. There's really no reason it has to look at all like it has to live a fulfilling life of creative output. The whole dream of acquiring a stash of capital to free oneself from the daily grind seems largely illusory to anyone under the age of 50, thanks to many other things but the gig economy (IMO, the gig economy itself being a reaction to shitty office life conditions; the people are saying FU to oatmeal cubes, and staring a screen, being hassled by coworkers to do their job for them.) A modern hunting-gathering lifestyle has been shown to promote positive moods on life as well. Perhaps the notion of corralling the masses into "problem solver" groups (corporations) focused on some billionaires "problems" (not enough billions) isn't a sustainable model given inherent features of human biology and desire for free agency. If you think about it, it's really just paid servitude to a rich master. Not really the American notion of freedom given history.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The “vibrant middle class” has been in decline since the 1980s and was basically gone by 9/11. The "gig economy” didn't replace it, it maybe nibbled around the edges of the stable working class.

aaronbrethorst 9y ago

This sounds no different to the startup ‘dream’ lots of people in the Bay Area have sold themselves on.

dwc 9y ago

Another angle is that when you build something a certain way, people who come and stay are the people who are attracted to that certain way. Those people are not going to like it when you take away the thing that attracted them. It's impossible to know for sure, but what if Threadless had started out their "new" way?

fhjjwei888 9y ago

"Human nature" that's been heavily shaped by cultural norms.