“Is the best product a unique product? A case study exploring alternatives to Mass Customisation with the online Virtual Community of Threadless”. By Adam Fletcher e-mail: [email protected]more at: http://www.thezig.co.uk Originally June 2006 (Updated March 2008)
41
Embed
Is the Best Product a Unique Product? Exploring alternatives to Mass Customisation with the community of Threadless.com by Adam Fletcher
Mass Customisation has been portrayed as the ultimate form of marketing and the “business opportunity of the next millennium”. This paper presents the results of a case study undertaken with the online t-shirt manufacturer Threadless and its Virtual Community.
The literary assumption that consumers want unique products, following recent renewed interest in Mass Customisation has prompted this research. The aim of this study was to look at an industry where it is technically possible to deliver a “pure” Mass Customisation experience and then to look at businesses adopting different approaches to see what they offer the consumer.
Threadless’ business model aggregates opinions of user submitted designs and manufacturers the most popular into limited t-shirts. This studies looks at why this model is an attractive proposition for customers, community members and for Threadless.
The results challenge a number of assumptions which can be found in the wider MC literature. Respondents at Threadless are willing to accept a product which they did not create and is not unique. This is providing that the product is at least limited, and that they have had involvement in its creation. The other key finding is that whilst Internet may offer enabling technologies which reduce the cost of individualisation, these same technologies may also reduce the cost of aggregation. This allows businesses to group and manufacture for ever smaller markets of customers sharing the same needs.
The author rejects the notion that a unique product created by its purchaser is the definitive product, calling for businesses to look for ways to combine both involvement and exclusivity in product creation utilizing these aggregation opportunities.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
“Is the best product a unique product? A case study exploring alternatives to Mass Customisation with the online Virtual
It is suggested that Threadless is a unique community of co-design, and it is proposed that adopting an
idiographic approach may help to highlight as many of the unique features of this community as
17
possible (Bryman & Bell 2003). The research approach was essentially constructivist. While critics
may argue that participant observation lacks reliability and may lead to bias, this is accepted, the
Threadless VC is not an absolute reality where scientific measurement may occur. It is not disputed
that research in this manner may lead to results which are not generalisable. Instead an interpretivist
approach may suggest the existence of some key motivators or enablers which may exist in a number
of different Virtual Communities. The goal is purely to seek a degree of theoretical generalisability
from the results.
The research comprised of a questionnaire completed online amongst community members and a
participant observation of community communication. A questionnaire was used as it allows for further
exploration of the emergent themes but allows for the drawing of a broader consensus from the
community in general. It can help to understand the meanings they attribute to their acts and to the acts
of others (Bryman and Bell 2003). It can also be tailored to gather data on a specific topic (to help
answer the Research Questions), whilst having questions which are more open in nature,
complimenting the exploratory nature of this study.
A link to the questionnaire was posted on the Threadless “Blog Forum”
(http://www.threadless.com/blogs) which is a public messageboard (the two names will be used
interchangeably). Prior agreement had been received from Threadless to post the message and link. It
was felt that this would encourage respondents to complete the questionnaire and raise its profile
amongst the community.
The second piece of research was a participant observation, monitoring and classifying all
communication on Threadless’ messageboard called the “Blog Forum”. This observation lasted for
18
seven days from the 1st to 8th of March 2006. Further analysis and classification of the comments
posted below the first ten design submissions mentioned on the “blog forum” during this time was also
completed. Participant Observation in this unobtrusive manner does raise a question of ethics
(Paccagnella 1997). In this case all the data analysed is considered as public discourse and viewable by
all. To respect the privacy of the community members no names of community members or links back
to the text were recorded. Only communication deemed relevant to this research was viewed &
categorized.
19
5.0 Results, Findings and Discussion
In total the questionnaire was completed by 204 visitors to the Threadless “Blog Forum”. As all site
visitors regardless of whether they are guests or community members have the ability to view the
Threadless“Blog Forum”, the total population is impossible to quantify. The “Blog Forum” is separate
from the more common activities of rating, submitting or purchasing so is unlikely to be viewed by a
majority of site visitors. In total 191 of these responses were deemed usable for this survey, the other
13 contained incomplete information. In total 219 users started the questionnaire giving an 88%
(approx) started/completed rate.
Over the seven day participant observation, a total of 422 messageboard threads (threads begin with a
single member posting a title and message which other members may reply to) were viewed and had
their topic category logged. Table 3 shows the different categories and the total number of individual
threads in each. Thread types 3a-3e were deemed relevant to this study and likely to return data which
would help answer the research questions.
20
Table 1: Number of Threads by Topic observed on the “Blog Forum”
Thread Classification Thread Type N. of Threads
1. Social - not T-shirt related 197
2. T-shirt related - not Threadless 6
3a Design help 8
3b Request by designer for feedback on an Initial design (before the submission stage)
17
3c Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed scoring 10
3d Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed scoring (by the designer)
24
3e Vote request for T-shirt undergoing scoring (by the designer)
8
4. Discussing of a winning (printed) T-shirt 59
5. Discussing Threadless/Talking to Threadless 28
6. Requesting a reprint of a sold out design 9
7. Suggestions of what Threadless should do next 5
8. Request for help (general not Threadless related) 20
9. Street Team (a Threadless loyalty scheme) 16
10. Sponsor Post (Post from Threadless) 2
11. Discussion of recent Purchase/What to Purchase 15
Total 424
Although all threads were viewed and categorised, only type’s 3a-e (67 in total) were considered of
interest to this research and also had their replies recorded and categorized to get a picture of the
collaborative communication used on the Blog Forum. In total 6751 replies occurred in all threads over
the seven days. Of these 794 (11.6%) were in the threads categorized as 3a-3e on Table 3 and therefore
the type of each reply was also recorded and categorised using a similar classification scale. It was a
surprise to the researcher just how social the Blog Forum was, with the vast majority of topics started
21
(over 80%) having nothing to do with Threadless or design in general, yet the frequency with which
people returned to the forum was very high with more than 45% returning several times a day (see
Appendix A, Q.4).
5.1 What aspects of the Threadless business model do its community members consider the most important?
When asked to prioritise from 1-7 the most important reasons why they purchased from Threadless, the
top four variables (cited 1-3 in importance) are shown below in Table 2.
Table 2: Responses most voted 1-3
Voted 1 Voted 2 Voted 3
Total 1-3 votes for that
category. Ranking
Innovative designs 52% 15% 6% 73% 1
Exclusivity of designs (short run production cycles)
9% 29% 15% 53% 2
Involvement in the design process
7% 17% 21% 45% 3
Price 10% 10% 21% 42% 4
The Threadless ethos and
brand 6% 12% 14% 31% 5
Sizing and colour ranges 4% 12% 15% 31% 6
Delivery times 12% 5% 7% 24% 7
Surprisingly and contradictory to the wider MC literature it was not involvement which scored highest,
instead it was “Innovative designs”. In fact the results showed that involvement only ranked 3rd in
importance. Customers liked the exclusivity offered by Threadless’ limited batch production. Perhaps
in a market dominated by large multinational brands Threadless’ offer of a limited (although not
exclusive) item is compelling enough. Verbatim feedback also supported this, respondent n.146 said
22
“Uniqueness, that’s all I want and search (sic) from these shirts, it makes me feel as a single individual
that doesn’t follow the clothing trends that are made popular today.” Respondent n.164 agreed and said
“I feel the greatest reason people buy from Threadless.com is the short runs of unique, clever designs.”
In this case the quality of the design might be far higher than they feel they can have produced which is
perhaps why 60% (see Appendix A, Q.15) of the community have never submitted a design. So it is
suggested that the community is being asked to make a trade off between the losses in uniqueness
(compared to pure MC) for the increase in the design quality of what is produced.
5.2 Does this business model support aggregation of user requirements? If so, how?
The strength of this type of NPD is in how it uses technology to simplify the cost of aggregating users'
requirements. The ratings system acts as a form of market research gauging demand for an as yet un-
manufactured product. During the research other examples of this aggregation were also observed. The
participant observation of the Blog Forum highlighted several examples of small groups being formed
around certain designs which were not popular enough to be put into manufacturing but were liked by a
subset of the community. Thread ID:422 and a comment on Submission ID:10 are an example of this
“The design was very popular here on the blogs, but threadless has told us they don't want to print it.
Do we want to print it ourselves? if enough people are interested, i'll have the shirt printed up on my
buck and sell it for cost here on the site...” (Reply on Thread ID:422)
“Thanks for all the positive feedback everyone! (sic) and if this doesn't get picked, I will be printing it
for my own company.” (Comment on Submission ID:10)
23
While not authorised by Threadless this shows that even sub-groups of community members can use the
functionality provided by Threadless to find other users with similar design tastes. These groups may not
be large enough to make them financially viable for manufacture by Threadless, but this showcases user
lead aggregation which may lead to t-shirts being manufactured in smaller quantities for groups of users
who meet on Threadless..
5.3 Sawhney and Prandelli (2000) state that “a business model that combines
communities into product development empowers peripheral players”, how much
evidence of this can be found within the community of Threadless?
The answer to this question is dependent on who is judged to be the “peripheral players” within the
Threadless community. If we consider that essentially Threadless is running a non stop competition
then the key actors are Threadless and the people that submit designs. Without these there is no
competition, nothing to rate or manufacture. With over 60% of respondents having never submitted a
design this leaves the majority of our sample as so called “peripheral players”. If we compare their
behaviour to those that have actually submitted a design to the competition, the results are surprising.
Non-designers reported higher overall satisfaction, rated more designs, were more likely to post or
reply to messages on the Blog Forum and had also brought more t-shirts in the past year. They have the
same voting rights as everyone else and although they may be lacking the technical skills to submit a
design they are needed by the designers to improve the ratings of their designs. The result of this is that
in the observation period 17 different threads asked for their (and the community in generals) feedback
on designs before submission and 24 during the ratings process. This supports Sawhney and Prandelli
(2000) showing that a strength in the Threadless business model seems to be in the way that it offers
different ways for peripheral players to become involved, as one questionnaire respondent said “we get
24
to become a part of the t-shirt design we are helping somebody with… Involvement is a big factor.
(Respondent n. 58)
If we compare the Threadless business model against the original aim definition of MC from the
Literature review which was “Aim to reach large numbers of customers but simultaneously treat them
as individuals (Davis 1996)”, the Threadless model seems to achieve this. The experience is different
for every person visiting the site as they decide what to rate, how to rate it and what feedback to leave,
this experience offers the unique value which Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) suggested MC
provides. The actual t-shirt purchased is not unique but because designs are limited, distribution
worldwide the likelihood of seeing somebody else in the design is small. Small batch production over
one off items should help the manufacturer towards another MC goal - maintaining the efficiency of
mass production (Pine et al 1993; Piller 2003).
Hart (1995) suggested that the homogeneous market was a thing of the past. The Threadless model
contradicts this, the Internet represents a global marketplace which increases the likelihood whilst
reducing the cost of finding multiple consumers with the same, homogeneous needs. It is believed that
this highlights a potential gap in the MC literature which has over emphasised the value consumer
place on uniqueness. Instead of thinking that MC “is the capability to offer individually tailored
products or services” (Zipkin 2001), instead the ideal as suggested from the Threadless research maybe
closer to a limited (but not unique) product with the usual high customer involvement. While the
homogeneous market may be in decline the Internet offers an opportunity to find customers with
homogeneous requirements. Piller and Walcher (2005:7) said that “The Internet provides an efficient
platform to reduce the often difficult and costly process of transferring need information from
customers to a manufacturer.” Threadless shows that it also provides an efficient platform for
25
customers to transfer need information to other customers supporting an aggregation of users
requirements.
Previously, getting this kind of need information through traditional market research would have been
time consuming and laborious. By utilizing the Internet and reviewing community data Threadless can
look at the number of maximum ratings or average rating and from previous experience make an
estimate of the number of sales that interest level will equate to. The Threadless approach delivers
customer involvement but minimises some of the challenges that reduce manufacturer satisfaction with
MC. Lee et al (1999) said that for the manufacturer keeping large quantities and varieties of raw
materials with uncertain, fluctuating demand could send inventory costs out of control. The community
provides data to help gauge demand. Yet the consumer does not have to pick from a range of uniform,
“average” products (Lee et al 1999). Production complexity is reduced somewhat as you’re not
producing one off items.
The research also seems to suggest that this business model helps overcome some of the other MC
challenges cited in the literature review, this is represented by Figure 3 below which adapts the original
conceptual framework in light of these new findings.
Figure 3: Adapted Conceptual Framework
The most relevant findings from this section are now summarized below in bullet form:
• The majority of users did not submit designs but still showed high involvement and higher
satisfaction scores than designers.
• Supporting the idea that consumer have difficulty articulating what they want, the most popular
reason for not submitting a design was “Lack of Artistic Ability”.
• The primary reason for purchasing from Threadless was “Innovative Designs”. Exclusivity was
26
27
considered more important in the purchasing decision than involvement.
• A large amount of support was available to designers and they showed a willingness to
collaborate. Users provided feedback and suggestions to designers at every design stage.
Community members who felt they lack the artistic ability to design could perform other
functions in the design process (commenting, reviewing and rating).
28
6.0 Research Conclusions & Limitations
Results showed that Threadless offers an interesting balance of MC and niche production, giving
customers a unique experience but asking them to agree collectively on which product best suits their
needs. This aggregation allows the manufacturer to produce in small batches instead of producing one off
unique items. This approach is further supported by the results of the questionnaire in which respondents
placed “innovative designs” over involvement in the design process as the key reason they buy from
Threadless.
The first key finding was that consumers in this case seemed willing to make the trade off between
creating a unique product as long as the received product was of a higher standard that they would have
been able to produce. This has potential impact for those businesses considering MC and offering a fully
customised product.
The second key finding observed in the participant observation was the willingness of the VC to support
each other and offer help and advice throughout the design process. This support can help overcome the
problems that customers have during the MC process and reduce the support the manufacturer has to
provide.
The final conclusion drawn from this research is that while technology is cited as removing
communication barriers between manufacturers and customers, making it easier to receive want
information, it is also suggested that this same technology facilitated the sharing of want information
amongst customers. Threadless has developed a mechanism to aggregate this information and let its
customers decide collaboratively the products which best meet their aggregated needs. It is proposed that
29
this reduces the current disconnect between a manufacturers desire for production efficiency and reliable
demand and a customers desire for involvement and unique (or at least limited) products. This may have
implications for manufacturers trying with difficulty to offer the uniqueness that the MC literature
proclaims customers want, when an equally effective albeit less radical approach may be available.
7.0 Recommendations for future research
The research hinted at a potential link between involvement and purchase intention. A majority of
respondents felt that simply rating a design regardless of the rating given increased the chance that they
would purchase it. Respondent 11 said that they felt they got “Way better scores when people feel they
helped decide the final product...” This could have important implications as it may mean that
regardless of the quality of the output simply being involved in the process might strengthen the
likelihood of purchase.
Contrastingly Expectation Disconfirmation theory “predicts that unrealistically high expectations will
result in lower levels of perceived benefit than those associated with realistic expectations” (Staples et
al 2001;1) may suggest that increased involvement in the product creation process would only raises
consumer’s expectations of that final product, which is an interesting potential paradox which would
benefit from further research.
30
8.0 References Berger, C. Moslein, K. Piller, F. & Reichwald, R. (2005) “Designing modes of co-operation at the customer interface: learning from exploratory research.” European Management Review (2005) 2, 70-87. Brown, S.L., Tilton, A. & Woodside, D (2002) “The case for on-line communities.” The Mckinsey Quarterly, 1. Collin, S (1999) “Doing Business on the Internet”. 3rd Edition, Kogan Page; London Davis, S. (1996) “Future Perfect” Addison-Wesley;Reading Ernst, H. & Gulati, R. (2003) “Virtual Customer Integration – Bringing the Customer back into the Organisation”. In Fuller et al (2004) Franke, N. & Shah, S. (2002) “How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users.” Research Policy 32; 157-178 Franke, N. & Von Hippel, E. (2003) “Satisfying Heterogeneous User Needs via Innovation Toolkits: The case of the Apache Security Software” Research Policy 32, no.7: 1199-1215 Fuller, J. & Hienerth, C. (2004) “Engaging the creative consumer.” European Business Forum (EBF); issue 19, autumn 2004. Fuller, J. Bartl, M. Holger, E. & Muhlbacher, H. (2004) “Community Based Innovation: A Method to Utilize the Innovative Potential of Online Communities” Proceedings from the 37th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences 2004. Available at http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/07/205670195c.pdf [last accessed 10th Sept 2005] Hagel & Armstrong (1997) “Net Gain: Expanding markets through virtual communities.” Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Hart, C. (1995) “Mass customization: conceptual underpinnings, opportunities and limits” International Journal of Service Industry Management Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 36-45 Jeppesen, L. & Frederiksen, L. (2004) “Why firm-established user communities work for innovation: The personal attributes of innovative users in the case of computer-controlled music instruments” Working paper available at http://ideas.repec.org/p/ivs/iivswp/04-02.html [Accessed 10th March 2006] Lampel, J. & Mintzberg, H. (1996) “Customizing Customization” Sloan Management Review, Fall 1996, pp. 21-30 Lee, S.E. & Chen, J. (1999) “Mass-customization Methodology for an Apparel Industry with a Future” Journal of Industrial Technology, vol.16, n.1 Nov 1999 – Jan 2000 Lee, S. Barua, A. Whinston, B. (1999) “The complementary of Mass Customization and Electronic
Commerce.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 9, No. 2, March 2000, pp. 81-109 Paccagnella, Luciano. (1997). “Getting the Seat of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for Ethnographic Research on Virtual Communities”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 3, Issue 1. Piller, F. (2002) “Customer interaction and digizability - a structured approach to mass customization.” Working Paper, Available at http://www.mass-customisation.de/download/pil2002-2.pdf [Accessed 05th October 2005.] Piller, F. & Berger, C. (2003) “Customers as Co-Designers.” IEE Manufacturing Engineer. August/Sept 2003 Piller, F. Moeslein, K. & Stotko, C. (2004) “Does mass customization pay? An economic approach to evaluate customer integration.” Production Planning & Control. Vol. 15, N.4, June 2004, 435-444 Piller, F. & Muller, M. (2004) “A New Marketing Approach to Mass Customisation.” Int J. of Computer Integrated manufacturing. Oct/Nov 2004, Vol. 17, N.7, 583-593. Available at http://www.mass-customization.de/download/ijcim04.pdf. [last accessed 1st October 2005] Piller, F. Schubert, P. Koch, M. Moslein, K. (2005) “Overcoming Mass Confusion: Collaborative customer co-design in online communities.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (2005) 4. Available from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/piller.html [last accessed 10th October 2005] Piller, F. Walcher, D. (2006): “Toolkits for Idea Competitions: A Novel Method to Integrate Users in New Product Development”, Journal of R&D Management. Pine, J. (1993) “Mass Customization: The new frontier in business competition.” Harvard Business School Press; Boston Pine, J. Victor, B and Boynton, C. (1993) "Making Mass Customization Work" Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, September-October, 1 1993, pp. 108-111. Pine, J. (1994) “Customers don’t want choice”, Managers Journal, Wall Street Journal, 18th April, p.A14 Pine, J. (1998) “Welcome to the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Review, Jul/Aug98, Vol. 76 Issue 4. Porter, M. (2001) “Strategy and the Internet” Harvard Business Review, Vol.79, Iss.3, pp. 62 -79. Prahalad, C. Ramaswamy, V (2004) “The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers” Massachusetts:Harvard Business School Press Rainie, L., & Packel, D. (2001) “More online, doing more.” Pew Internet & American Life Project. [online] Available from http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/vf_pew_internet_community.pdf [last accessed 14th December 2005]
Ridings, M. Gefen, D & Arinze, B. (2002) “Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11; 271-295 Sanders, H. (2001) “Financial rewards of mass customization.” MCPC 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 World Congress on Mass Customization and Personalization, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. [online] available at http://www.sanders.ch/2000-02-23,%20Mass%20Customization%20(New%20York%20speech).pdf [last accessed 15th March] Sawhney, M. & Prandelli, E. (2000)“Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets.” California Management Review, Summer 2000; Vol. 42, Issue 4. Schubert, P. & Ginsburg, M. (2000) “Virtual Communities of Transaction: The Role of Personalization in Electronic Commerce.” Electronic Markets Schubert, P. & Koch, M. (2002) “The Power Of Personalization: Customer Collaboration and Virtual Communities.” Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems Teresko, J. (1994) “Mass Customization or Mass Confusion.” Industry Week, June 20, 1994 Staples, S. Wong, I. & Seddon, P. (2002) “Having expectations of information systems benefits that match received benefits: does it really matter?” Information and Management, 40 (2), pp. 115-131. Von Hippel, E. (1986) “Lead users: a source of novel product concepts.” Management Sciences 32 (7), 791-805 Von Hippel E. & Tyre, M. (1995) "How "Learning by Doing" is Done: Problem Identification in Novel Process Equipment." Research Policy, (January) p. 1-12. Von Hippel, E. (1998) “Economics of Product Development by Users: Impact of "Sticky" Local Information.” Management Science, vol 44, n.5 (May) p. 629-644 Von Hippel, E. (2005) “Democratizing Innovation.” MIT Press accessed. Available at http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/ [Accessed 1st Oct] Zipkin, P. (2001) “The Limits of Mass Customization.” MIT Sloan Management Review; Spring 2001, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p81-87
What follows is the raw response data from the messageboard questionnaire. No question was compulsory,
and branching was used which explains the variable response level. The full top-level results of the
ethnographic research are on pg.21
Q.1 How old are you?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Under 10 years 1 0,50%
10-19 years 111 55,78%
20-29 years 78 39,20%
30-39 years 8 4,02%
40+ years 1 0,50%
Total 199 100%
Q.2 How many t-shirts have you purchased from Threadless in the past year?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
0 18 9%
1 15 8%
2-5 56 28%
6-10 50 25%
10-15 36 18%
15+ 24 2%
Total 199
34
Q.3 Since your first purchase from Threadless, what percentage of ALL your t-shirt purchases (including purchases from both online retailers and traditional offline stores) have come from Threadless. For example, Paul has brought 10 t-shirts since his first purchase, 5 of which were from Threadless so he would answer 50%.
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
10% 12 7%
20% 9 5%
30% 9 5%
40% 12 7%
50% 14 8%
60% 12 7%
70% 18 10%
80% 30 17%
90% 19 11%
100% 38 21%
Not sure 5 3%
Total 178
4. How many times a week do you visit the Threadless website?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Less than once a week 2 1%
Once or twice a week 15 8%
Every other day 22 11%
Every day 57 29%
Several times a day 100 51%
35
Total 196
5. Do you rate potential designs at Threadless?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Never 5 3%
Once or Twice 1 1%
Occasionally 53 27%
Often 54 28%
Most times I go on the site. 83 42%
Total 196
6. Do you think it is more likely that you will buy a t-shirt that you have rated?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Yes 104 53%
No 45 23%
Not Sure 47 24%
Total 196
7. Do you think it is more likely that you will buy a t-shirt that you have rated highly (given a
rating of 3 or more), than one you have rated 2 or less?
36
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Yes 136 91%
No 5 3%
Not Sure 8 5%
Total 149
8. Have you ever looked at the Threadless Blog Forum?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Yes 191 98%
No 4 2%
Not Sure 0 0%
Total 195
9. How often do you view it?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Less than once a month 3 2%
Once or twice a month 7 4%
Once or twice a week 19 10%
Every other day 23 12%
Every day 52 27%
Several times a day 87 46%
Total 191
37
10. How often do you post or reply to messages?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Never 12 6%
Once or Twice 31 16%
Occasionally 69 36%
Often 79 41%
Total 191
11. Have you ever posted requesting design assistance on the blog forum?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Yes 63 33%
No 124 65%
Not Sure 4 2%
Total 191
12. Did you receive a response from other members offering to help?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Yes 61 97%
No 2 3%
38
Not Sure 0 0%
Total 63
13. Have you ever responded to anyone posting, asking for design assistance?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Yes 114 60%
No 72 38%
Not Sure 5 3%
Total 191
14. Approximately how many times have you responded offering assistance?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
1 9 8%
2-3 28 25%
4-5 18 16%
5-10 18 16%
10+ 32 28%
Not Sure 8 7%
Total 113
15. How many designs have you submitted to Threadless?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
0 119 61%
1 14 7%
39
2-3 16 8%
4-5 16 8%
6-7 4 2%
8-9 8 4%
10+ 17 9%
Total 194
16. If you haven't submitted a design, why not? (Tick as many of the below as you agree with)
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
No interest in designing 12 6%
Lack of artistic ability 71 34%
Complexity of submission requirements
14 7%
Shortage of free time to produce designs
53 26%
Other, please specify (not shown here)
56 27%
Total 206
17. How many of these have been selected for production?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
0 155 91%
1 10 6%
2-3 5 3%
4-5 0 0%
6-7 1 1%
40
8-9 0 0%
10+ 0 0%
Total 171
18. What do you consider to be the most important reason why you buy t-shirts from Threadless? Rate each option below in a scale of 1 (most important) to 7 (least important)
(Only 1-3 votes are shown below to save space)
Voted 1 Voted 2 Voted 3
Total 1-3 votes for that
category. Ranking
Innovative designs 52% 15% 6.% 73% 1
Exclusivity of designs (short run production cycles)
9% 29% 15% 53% 2
Involvement in the design process
7% 17% 21% 45% 3
Price 10% 10% 21% 42% 4
The Threadless ethos and
brand 6% 12% 14% 31% 5
Sizing and colour ranges 4% 12% 15% 31% 6
Delivery times 12% 5% 7% 24% 7
Q.19 Do you feel that you are part of a wider Threadless Virtual Community?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage
Yes 155 91%
No 10 6%
41
Not Sure 5 3%
Total 179
Q.20 If Yes, do you feel a sense of attachment to this community?
Response Choices N. Respondents Response Percentage