do consumers want to design unique products on the internet? a study of the online virtual community...

8/14/2019 Do consumers want to design unique products on the internet? A study of the online Virtual Community of Threadless.com and their attitudes to Mass Customisation, Mass Production and Collaborative Design

1/84

Do consumers want to design unique products on the

internet? A study of the online Virtual Community of

Threadless.com and their attitudes to Mass

Customisation, Mass Production and Collaborative

Design.

Adam Fletcher

This Dissertation is submitted in part-fulfillment of the degree ofBachelor of Arts (Honours) in Business Information Systems

Nottingham Trent University, 2006


2/84

This is the public version of the dissertation made available at

http://www.hiphipuk.co.uk

About the Author

Adam Fletcher [email protected]

Founder ofhttp://www.hiphipuk.co.uk

Age: 23

Based: Leipzig/London

Tel: + 49 163 453 9016

I would be interested in participating in further research topics in this field of interest.I'd be really happy to offer (mostly bad) advice to anyone undertaking research in asimilar area.

Copyright: This research is offered under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives (basically just cite me if you use any of this).

Thanks!


3/84

Abstract

Mass Customisation has been portrayed as the ultimate form of marketing and thebusiness opportunity of the next millennium. However implementing a businessapproach which balances the mass with customisation is difficult with few successstories. This thesis presents the results of a case study undertaken with the online t-shirt manufacturer Threadless and its Virtual Community. The literary assumptionthat consumers want unique products, following recent renewed interest in MassCustomisation has prompted this research. The aim of this study was to look at anindustry where it is technically possible to deliver a pure Mass Customisation

experience. Threadless business model instead aggregates users opinions of usersubmitted designs and manufacturers the most popular. This studies looks at why thismodel is an attractive proposition for customers and for Threadless. The secondaryfocus of this study was to see how much collaboration occurred within ThreadlessVirtual Community, relating this back to the broader User Innovation & MassCustomisation literature.

Research was conducted using an online questionnaire completed by members of theThreadless Virtual Community and a participant observation of messageboard postsand replies conducted over a seven day period. The Threadless community werefound to (not as the literature would have predicted) willing purchase a product whichwas not unique even when other companies offered the opportunity to create a uniqueproduct. This was because of the innovative nature of the products design. Thecommunity valued this innovation over involvement in the design process. This thesisproposes that as the literature suggests the Internet eases the process for receiving

information from customers on their wants and needs. This supports the 1-1 customerand supplier relationship needed for Mass Customisation. However it proposes thatthis same technology also facilitates communication between customers andaggregation of their needs. This can help overcome some manufacturer inefficienciesin Mass Customisation, however, it also suggests that a model combining theindividualisation of Mass Customisation and the personalisation of Mass or NicheProduction with high customer involvement may better suit both parties.


4/84

Contents

AbbreviationsBTO Build to OrderLP Lean ProductionMC Mass CustomisationNPD New Product DevelopmentVC VirtualCommunity

Figures & Tables

Figure 1: Production Methods - Comparison between Customer Involvement & Quantity

Produced............................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2 A continuum of Strategies adapted from Lampel & Mintzberg (1996)............ ........... 16

Figure 3: MC approaches used by VMs ............................................................................................ 24

Figure 4: The Threadless Business Model..................................................................................... 32

Figure 5: Conceptual framework showing a MC disconnect between Customers and

Manufacturers ................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 6: Frequency of Responses for Topics 3a-3e ......................................................................... 46

Figure 7: Responses to Q.17 Do you design on your own............... ........... .......... ........... .......... .... 48

Figure 8: Responses to Q.18 Do you ask for feedback before you submit your design ........... .. 49

Figure 9: Responses to Q.24 reasons for not submitting a design.......... ........... .......... ........... ......... 52

Figure 10: Adapted Conceptual Framework .................................................................................... 60

Table 1: Description of Production methods..................................................................................... 14

Table 2: Mediums for VC communication........................................................................................ 27

Table 3: Number of Threads by Topic observed on the Blog Forum ......................................... 45


5/84

Chapter 1

Introduction, Term Definition, Context and Justification

The business opportunity of the next millennium (referring to MassCustomisation)

(Hart 1995:1)


6/84

1.0 IntroductionThis dissertation will investigate consumers attitudes to Mass Customisation (MC) and

collaboration for new product design conducted within a Virtual Community (VC).

Research in this thesis is centered on the online virtual community of the online t-shirt

business Threadless.com. Threadless is an ongoing design competition in which users are

invited to submit a t-shirt design to the Virtual Community. Any registered members can

rate the design out of five and can also provide qualitative feedback to the designer,

usually in the form of modification suggestions or positive/negative written feedback. A

number of the highest rated t-shirts are then produced in short production runs and sold

on the site.

To follow is a critique of available literature in this area, followed by a discussion of the

findings from a questionnaire completed by members of the Threadless VC and

ethnographic research of messageboard communication. Conclusions are followed by

recommendations for further research in this area.

1.1 Mass Customisation (MC)The definition of MC adopted by this paper is Hart (1995) who said MC was:


7/84

mass produced system.

(Pg. 1)

In short, increasing variety and involvement for every customer without losing

manufacturing efficiency. Despite being cited as not having had the business impact that

was anticipated (Lee et al 1999), MC can be seen in a wide variety of products/services

and industries. In the apparel sector Spreadshirt the online design your own t-shirt

business allows anyone to design their own t-shirt produced and dispatched within 48hrs.

Lego now actively engage their customer base in new product developments and allow

users to design their own Lego sets online (for more about the Lego Factory see Berger et

al 2005). In the footwear industry most of the major trainer manufacturers allow for

custom designing (such as Reebok CUSTomer or Nike through NikeID) and some

offer completely custom products exactly molded to fit the customers foot (such as

Adidas miAdidas service, see Berger et al 2005). Other MC products include Wine

(Elite Vintners), Cameras (Leica) or the extremely successful build to order model used

by Dell. Levi offer over 4,224 combinations of its customised jeans (Rifkin 1994), while

11 million bicycle variations are available from the National Bicycle Industrial

Companies made-to-order system. In other markets you can see the affects of a trend

towards individualization and flexibility. The financial services sector allows you to

almost pick your own loan interest rate at Prosper.com or odds for gambling at

Betfair.com. These are just some of the many examples of a shift to towards customer


8/84

One common feature in all the examples above are that they use the Internet as the key

enabler, with which to interact with their customers. Advances in Information

Technology in recent years in particular e-commerce, the Internet and the creation of

what is now a global marketplace are recognized as the key enabler for adoption of MC

(Piller 2002, Von Hippel 1998, Schubert and Koch 2002, Pine et al 1993, Fuller and

Hienerth 2004)

MC is a fundamental shift away from the teachings of Mass Production (MP) which

focused on standardized products produced in high volumes. This approach is often

attributed to the work of Henry Ford and the model T Ford back in the 1920s. Mass

Customization is concerned with creating unique products or services using the efficiency

of Fords MP.

1.2 The Virtual Community (VC)This paper will look at how a VC can support MC activity. To date there is no one

definition that has been adopted by the academic community for a VC, developing on

definitions from Schubert & Ginsburg (2000) and Sawhney & Prandelli (2000) we

propose that Virtual Communities are:

The union between individuals or organizations using electronic media to communicate


9/84

The Internet itself could be viewed as one large VC. The first example of what is now

referred to as the Internet, Arpanet, was designed as a community to share scientific

research (for more information see Rheingold (2000)). Today what was one VC has

become many thousands devoted to almost any imaginable niche, from the huge

community building the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com) to the

childrens Lego robotics community the First Lego League (www.firstlegoleague.org).

1.3 Context

MC as a concept has been discussed in academic literature with regularity since it was

first articulated some 25 years ago. The idea of a customer designing a product or service

was not a new concept even then, instead writings on MC were commenting on an

increasing shift away from Mass Production towards individualised products increasingly

designed with input from customers.

The Internet has the potential to change the way we buy and sell, empowering small

businesses to sell on a global platform as if they were a multinational (Collin 1999),

reducing barriers of entry (Porter 2001). The internet facilitates direct and rich interaction

with customers (Piller & Walcher 2005), allowing customers to give feedback and

collaborate on new products. Internet sites such as MySpace or Ebay have shown that the


10/84

The proposed benefit of MC is that consumers are incorporated into the design process,

designing the exact product or service they require. This will allow a business to develop

a 1:1 relationship with their customers, understanding their exact requirements, helping

to build a relationship with them which is impervious to competitors (Pine et al 1993).

1.4 Justification of Topic Area

Why should we care about Mass Customisation? Mass Customisation is an important

topic worthy of discussion for a number of reasons. It is the focus of a large quantity of

academic interest and research in the past few years (Tseng & Piller 2003). Future

businesses adopting this business approach may be influenced after reading that they are

faced with an uninterrupted trend towards individualization (Piller & Muller 2004:1).

Mass Customisation has been described as the business opportunity of the next

millennium (Hart 1995;1) for businesses willing to recognise that the traditional system

is becoming obsolete (Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004:9), with homogeneous markets

increasingly a thing of the past (Hart 1995:38). This thesis looks to address these

assertions head on and critically analyse and re-evaluate MC.

Growth of technologies in manufacturing such as Computer Aided Design (CAD) as well

as the Internet have led to a resurgence in interest in MC, it is estimated that of the 2700

plus English language articles on MC 60% have been published since 2001 (Tseng &


11/84

With this renewed interest and optimism there is a need to re-evaluate the original

proposal in todays business environment. This thesis will look to re-assess the business

potential of MC and customer collaboration on the Internet.

Research from the academic literature suggests that MC represents a huge potential

opportunity for businesses. Studies such as Berger et al 2005; Kamali and Loker 2002

have shown consumer dissatisfaction with standard products and a strong interest in

customisation, along with studies which suggest that consumers are willing to pay more

for a product or services if they are involved in the design process (Oon and Khalid 2001;

Piller et al 2004; Berger et al 2005). There is also a body of literature suggesting

innovation maybe accelerated through collaboration (see Jeppesen and Frederiksen 2004

for an overview), when combined these suggest the business implications of the MC

approach are vast.


12/84

Chapter 2

Literature Review & Conceptual Framework

There is nothing simple about MC

(Hart 1995:1)


13/84

2.0 Literature Review (5000)

This chapter will begin with an explanation of MC, followed by an overview of the

history of the term. What follows is a critical re-examination of the underlying

assumptions behind MC. This aims to show that the current academic thinking regarding

MC may be incorrect. This is followed by the presentation of an alternative approach to

MC adopted by the online retailer Threadless and discussion of how this model might

better support MC & innovative activities such as NPD.

This paper takes the view of Hart (1995) who suggests that there are two different ways

of defining and conceptualising Mass Customisation. The first visionary definition is

the ability to provide your customers with anything they want profitably, any time they

want it, anywhere they want it, any way they want. (Hart 1995:1)

While this is only meant as a transcendent, absolute idea that exists solely in the ideal

(Hart 1995:1), it best describes the basic principal and inherent complexity of MC. The

key difference between MC and the traditional one size fits all, any colour as long as its

black approach of Mass Production made famous by Fordism is the unique, tailored

experience that the customer receives. You aim to reach large numbers of customers but

simultaneously treat them as individuals (Davis 1996), whilst aiming to maintain the


14/84

The use of flexible process and organizational structures to produce varied and often

individually customized products and services at the low cost of a standardized, mass

produced system. (Hart 1995:1)

The key difference in this second definition is the idea of not promising to produce

anything a customer may desire but introducing flexibility, variety and where

possible individualisation to the experience. Note that this definition does suggest the

possibility to maintain the efficiency of mass production (Pine et al 1993; Piller

2003). Research suggests that in most industries this is at present unrealistic, even

with advances in manufacturing (such as CAD) and telecommunications (e-

commerce etc) technologies reducing the trade-off between variants and production

cost (Piller 2003) at present adding variety results in additional operational costs

(Brabazon and McCarthy 2004).

Davis (1996) suggests that as technology advances markets become ever increasingly

differentiated. The ultimate form of this differentiation he suggests is the idea of

markets of one, where an individuals needs are met with mass efficiency.

Definitions of MC in the academic literature have tended to overplay the need for MC

to create a unique product or service. This paper rejects this and suggests that its

customer involvement that is the fundamental principal of MC (Piller et al 2004). The


15/84

Table 1: Description of Production methods

Method Quantity Produced Customer Involvement

Mass Production The Customer is broken into broadsegments. The aim is to develop a productor service suited to the average user in eachsegment (Franke & Hippel 2002)

Involvement is limited tomarket research aiming toestablish which productattributes have the widestappeal (Duray et al 2000)

Niche/Craft Production More categories and varieties to fit the

needs of smaller, more specific segmentsof buyers (Lee et al 1999)

Customer involvement is

usually higher than in MassProduction but limited to thesame market research methods.

Build-to-order Using standard modules allowingconfiguration at a late stage in themanufacturing process. (Economist 2001)This is the model made famous by Dell.

Customer gets to configure theiroffering from a pre-definedarray of available components(Brand 2004).

Mass Customisation Each customer is their own segment

(Bardacki & Whitelock 2003), the aim totailor the product/service to fit exactly theneeds of each individual consumer.

Comprehensive customer

interaction is essential here,with the customer actuallyinitiating the interaction bysharing their requirements(Bardacki & Whitelock 2003).

MC has been portrayed as a radical, polar opposite of MP, actually when as Table 1

suggests it may represent more of an evolutionary step change than a revolutionary. As

thinking evolved from MP through to Lean Production (LP) made famous by Toyota in

Japan, the early mover competitive advantage from LP would have diminished. MC may

have been a natural shift, seeking extra value from lean production systems through

finding ways to better meet the needs of customers (Alford et al 2000).

It is only when we consider the customer involvement in each model that MC can be seen


16/84

Figure 1: Production Methods - Comparison between Customer Involvement & Quantity

Produced

MP was focused on creating economies of scale by standardising manufacturing, in LP

these economies came from streamlining the production process with suppliers. MC

however is not insular or internally focused along the value chain, instead it looks

externally to get greater customer involvement, earlier. This changes the process from a

production-push to a demand-pull (Economist 2001; Agrawal et al 2001) market. Rather

than trying to sell a product you have already produced, you have already sold the

product before youve created it (Rifkin 1994). As figure 1 shows the customer

involvement is greatly increased while the quantity produced is often just one unit.

The inherent complexity of combining the different approaches of mass and


17/84

Lampel and Mintzbergs (1996) have provided the most widely adopted framework for

evaluating MC approaches, which is shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2 A continuum of Strategies adapted from Lampel & Mintzberg (1996)

The literature tends to draw a picture of two opposing and distinct strategies and mindsets

(Lampel & Mintzberg 1996). In reality as suggested by this framework there is a

continuum of strategies and it is the task of industry to decide which approach best

compliments the needs of their customers and the capabilities of their business. Dells

build to order model is often thought of as a MC showcase (Piller & Walcher 2006).

Applied to the Lampel & Mintzberg framework Dells approach it is not pure or even

il d i i b i d d di i ll i h


18/84

With an overview of the history and principles of MC now complete, the next section

will look to critically evaluate the proposed benefits of MC cited in the literature.

2.1 Why MC?

If there really is nothing simple about MC (Hart 1995) then why is this topic worthy of

such academic and business interest? Teresko (1994:46) believes If you can sell

everything you make, mass customisation is irrelevant. This like Harts visionary

definition may be correct in an absolute, transcendent and idealistic way however in

reality it is flawed. While today a business may sell everything that it produces, only in a

market monopoly are sales liable to be static and not subject to competition from rival

businesses. While today you may sell everything you make, a competitor moving to MC

and offering the customer increased choice may irreversibly change this. Just because

you are selling you may not be satisfying customers or selling profitably and fast enough

to reduce potential revenue sitting in stock. It also doesnt address the fact that by

utilising MC you are co-designing with the consumer which will allow you to always sell

everything that you make and as suggested by empirical research (see Piller et al 2004 for

an overview), sell at a premium price.

According to the literature a business choice not to pursue MC and encourage customer


19/84

individualization (Piller & Muller 2004:1) which is making the homogeneous market a

thing of the past (Hart 1995).

MC supports heterogeneity of requirements by allowing the consumer a tailored

experience and where possible a tailored product or service. The consumer does not have

to pick from a range of uniform, average products (Lee et al 2000). Once the customer

has seen just how responsive a manufacturer can be, the relationship it is suggested

becomes impervious to competitors (Pine 1993; Teresko 1994). It is acknowledged that

information acquired by the supplier during the MC experience when used correctly will

represent a considerable barrier to entry for competitors (Peppers et al 1999). However,

for the relationship to be considered impervious there would have to be a link between

satisfaction and loyalty (repurchase intention). While the focus of this paper is not to test

that particular assumption it is worth mentioning that this is still an assumption and the

strength of the link between satisfaction and repurchase intention/loyalty is still open to

debate (see Seiders et al (2005) for more background on this or Iacobucci et al (1994) for

an interesting discussion of this as one of the many satisfaction fables). For this reason

statements about an impervious relationship are met with scepticism. Just as, at a time of

limited resources a manufacturer may opt for a more profitably client, the clients loyalty

is multifaceted with manufacturer responsiveness being just one factor.


20/84

specification. Online the process is often simplified using online Configurators or

Toolkits (see Von Hippel (2005) for an extensive review of these). Toolkits are defined

as

Technology that allows users to design a novel product by trial-and-error

experimentation, and delivers immediate (simulated) feedback on their design ideas.

These technologies are great for the manufacturer as they reduce the cost of MC,

outsourcing most of the process to the customer (Piller 2002). However, the problem is

that when faced with an online toolkit, multiple or even unlimited configuration options

does the customer know what they want? If they do know are they able to articulate it?

Too many options and they may suffer Mass Confusion (Teresko 1994). This is when a

user is overwhelmed by the number of design choices available to them. It is suggested

that mass confusion is one of the major explanatory factor for the delay in adoption of

MC by business (Piller et al 2005). Striking the correct balance between utility and

complexity will greatly increase the success of the MC experience, for example Nissan

found that although they offered advanced customisation options consumers didnt want

to select from eighty-seven varieties of steering wheel (Pine et al 1993).

2.2 MC & the Manufacturer


21/84

necessary discounting to reduce stock levels (Sanders 2001). The key difference with MC

is that consumers are incorporated into the design process, and design the exact product

or service they require. As manufacturers no longer have to predict demand for a product

they may theoretically be able to keep smaller inventories of finished goods. Heavy

discounts and promotions to move less popular products out of warehouses may become

a thing of the past achieving both manufacturer and consumer satisfaction (Lee & Chen

1999). Whilst potential lowering stocks of finished goods, MC may have a negative

effect on other areas of the manufacturing process. Large quantities and varieties of raw

materials will need to be held to help support uncertain, fluctuating demand which could

send inventory costs out of control (Lee et al 1999).

This loss of certainty is offset by the possibility of charging more for customised items.

Just how much, if any, of a price premium a customer is willing to pay is still open to

debate with contradictory studies in the literature. Some research has suggested that

customers want and are willing to pay more for customized or non-standard products

(Piller and Berger 2003; Piller and Muller 2004; Franke and Von Hippel 2003, see Piller

and Muller 2004 for an overview of research conducted). The problem with this research

is that it is often undertaken using a questionnaire. Measuring WTP using a questionnaire

may leads to unrealistic results as consumers have an imagination about customisation,

but no experience of it (Piller & Muller 2004). It is worth noting that a large number of


22/84

unsurprising that many consumers would say they would be prepared to pay a premium

for this experience. However, without experience in designing products online customers

may not be aware of the challenges in articulating what they want, a number of sources

suggest on the whole consumers find it almost impossible to do this (Berger et al 2005;

Zipkin 2001; Von Hippel 2005). They may also be unaware of the amount of time and

involvement required in this process (Piller & Muller 2003). It is suggested that if these

respondents were asked again after they had attempted to customise a product, the

number of people who said they would be interested and prepared to pay a premium

would be reduced. There is no guarantee that even with additional help provided by the

manufacturer to provide the technical information in a format understandable to the

customer (sticky information, see Von Hippel 1998 for an overview), the consumer is

able to produce something that meets their desires. As Expectation Disconfirmation

theory suggests this is only made harder as increased customers involvement will

incrementally increase customer expectations. It is for precisely these reasons that studies

proclaiming customers desire to MC and pay a premium for the privilege are met with

skepticism.

The willingness to pay a premium will also be dependent on the type of industry and

product. Its not overly surprising that the one study which did not find any evidence of a

link between willingness to pay and customisation was Jiang (2002). This study looked at


23/84

significant value add or a way of gain competitive advantage through differentiation.

Further research on the longevity of any potential competitive advantage is necessary and

missing from the literature to be able to conclude the long term effects of MC on an

industry.

2.3 Mass Customisation in the car industry

Perhaps it will be easier to conceptualise MC if we look to an industry to see how the

potential of MC has been applied. One industry cited as being complimentary to a MC

approach is that of the automobile industry. This is said to have the demand

fragmentation and market saturation that might compliment a MC approach (Bardacki &

Whitelock 2003; Pine 1993; Cusumano 1994). Its suggested that Vehicle Manufacturers

(VMs) must aim for mass customisation so that everyone can find what they want at a

price that they can afford (Cusumano 1994), particularly as they are saturated home

markets and sophisticated customers (Alford 2000).

Vehicle manufacturers have found that progress implementing MC, despite a Mckinsey

report estimating a potential cost savings of $80bn, has been slow with MC still

representing the illusive Holy Grail (Economist 2001). What is also interesting is how

this industry perhaps more than most has already had to go through two radical shifts in

manufacturing mindset as it has adapted to Mass Production pioneered by Ford and in


24/84

(Brabazon & McCarthy 2004). Whilst the manufacturer might want to offer unlimited

variety, complicated manufacturing processes prohibit this. Instead scale economies may

be possible by creating common platforms, as reducing investment in body fabrication

processes can save a significant proportion of new vehicle costs (Alford 2000). The

successful Ford Puma for example is based on the Fiesta platform, delivered in just

seventeen months illustrates how derivatives for profitable niche markets can be rapidly

produced from a high-volume vehicle (Alford 2000). This example shows how

complimentary manufacturing approaches (in this case combining mass & niche) can be

used to deliver the right level of variety. In this example common platforms can given the

illusion of choice allowing many models to be produced from a core design, this sort of

modularity is an important part of Dells success in the PC market.

Instead of MC, VMs have due largely to the size of the industry been able to give the

illusion of MC. Exploiting the Internet to find the whereabouts of a car that matches the

customers personal requirements somewhere within the existing manufacturing process

or distribution system, often called Virtual Build to Order (VBTO) or locate to order

(Brabazon & MacCarthy 2004). VBTO exploits the variety that exists in automotive

pipelines [] easing the way for customers to buy from future stock rather than from

finished stock (Economist 2001). In the automotive industry it seems that, customers

can only get close to a pure MC experience if they are prepared to pay a high premium.


25/84

Figure 3: MC approaches used by VMs

The reason for highlighting this industry is that despite attempts to incorporate MC into

the business model there has been limited success. Instead the industry has adapted levels

of MC, often supporting existing manufacturing processes. Although MC beyond simply

configuring modules may be available, it is only at the very top end of market where it is

available to customers willing to pay a high price premium one example is BMWs


26/84

customisation (Lampel & Mintzberg 1996) strategy is not applicable for this industry

due to technological challenges and the realization that consumers want choice and

involvement but not eighty-seven different types of steering wheel (Lampel &

Mintzberg 1996). Its worth noting how here the car industry has in VBTO adopting a

system which offers a trade-off, allowing customer involvement and utilising

telecommunications technology to overcome manufacturing difficulties. Finding an

appropriate trade-off in this manner will feature throughout this thesis.

2.4 Mass Customisation & the Virtual Community.

In recent times there has been a resurgence of interest in MC. As previously mentioned

Piller & Tseng (2003) estimate that of the 2700 plus English language articles on MC

60% have been published since 2001. This renewed interest it is suggested is because of

the introduction of new technologies in particular the Internet, which is widely cited as

the key enabler of the adoption of MC (Piller 2002, Von Hippel 1998, Schubert & Koch

2002, Pine et al 1993, Fuller & Hienerth 2004). The Internet provides an efficient

platform to reduce the often difficult and costly process of transferring a customers wants

or needs to a manufacturer (Piller & Walcher 2005). Lee et al (1999) goes as far as to

suggest that mass customization is a post facto reaction made possible by the

introduction of electronic commerce. As well as facilitating the efficient production of

customized goods, Internet technology facilitates the personalisation of customer


27/84

received less focus in the literature is how encouraging collaboration amongst mass

customising customers can improve their MC experience. One internet technology which

can facilitate this collaboration amongst consumers is a Virtual Community.

Despite that lack of consensus in what exactly constitutes a VC, they have existed online

in various forms for approximately 30 years (Ridings et al 2002). Today there are

thousands of these communities and a recent report found that 79% of Internet users

identified at least one community with which they maintained regular online contact

(Rainie & Packel, 2001). They are expected to have a significant impact on commercial

companies fundamentally changing how they develop, price and promote their products

(Hagel & Armstrong 1997). The definition adopted for this thesis is Sawhney & Prandelli

(2000):

The union between individuals or organizations using electronic media to communicate

within a shared semantic space on a regular basis. The communities provide sociability,

support, information, a sense of belonging, and social identity. This community is usually

but not exclusively created around shared values or interests.

The VC can take many forms each with their own characteristics (Wellman 1999,

Dholakia et al 2004). There isnt scope in this research to cover them and explore the


28/84

Table 2: Mediums for VC communication

VC Mediums Description Communication Type

Chat Room Online conversation in close to real-time.Usually no record of communication kept.

Synchronous

Message/BulletinBoards

Allow the user to post content which otherusers may reply to, usually communicationis kept for a long period of time and thecommunity can browse this.

Asynchronous

News Groups Usually in the form of a Message or Bulletin

board which requires specialist software toconnect the user to the news server toview/contribute to users posts. Often theNews Group is formed around a specifictopic.

Asynchronous

E-mail Group Often referred to as Listserv groups, this is acommunity centered on e-mailcommunication using one e-mail address

which users use to post. These tend to havehigher levels of moderation and morefocused specialized communication.

Asynchronous

Instant Messaging(IM)

Examples of this are MSN or AOLMessenger, these enable you to build lists ofyour online friends and communicatedirectly with them. The emphasis here isoften more on meeting people you already

know than meeting new people as in a chatroom.

Synchronous

Wikis Pioneered by the online encyclopaediaWikipedia. Community is usually builtaround a shared interest area in which allusers have the same right to alter communitygenerated content.

Asynchronous

It is suggested in the literature that VCs are attractive to businesses as they provide a

mechanism to:


29/84

- Access a communities publicly available knowledge base containing informationdetailing their likes, dislikes or demographics (Ridings et al 2002).

Obviously before the consumer will be willing to openly share information and ideas

there is a need for trust in the community, trust that the community hosts will not exploit

information on the members, perhaps selling their contact details or ideas.

Trust is defined as an implicit set of beliefs that the other party will refrain from

opportunistic behavior and take advantage of the situation (Hosmer 1995). Online

however trust is multi-faceted. A member may only be communicating directly with one

other member, however if this communication is viewable by other members, then it is

not only the trust that the two directly communicating members have with each other, but

their level of trust in the community as a whole, and with the communities provider

which will shape their communication (Ridings et al 2002). Repeated interactions can

help to build a culture of trust and commitment which only encourage further innovation

and involvement (Fuller and Heinerth 2004; Fuller et al 2004). Without this trust users

may be reluctant to contribute and the knowledge sharing potential between organisations

and the community is lost. Threadless helps to build this trust by having a clear privacy

and usage policy with explicitly states the rights it has over community generated content

and designs.


30/84

innovations originate in the user rather than the manufacturer domain (Von Hippel 1988;

Piller & Walcher 2005).

Collaborative design is of interest as it may support MC using a community to encourage

creativity and assist customers in making better choices than if they are left to design in

isolation, selecting from a large variety of choices (Von Hippel & Tyre, 1995; Franke &

Shah, 2003; Piller et al 2005). This support should help provide the knowledge that

Berger et al (2005) said was stopping consumer specifying an individualized solution that

corresponds to their desires.

Sawhney & Prandelli (2000) concluded that a business model that combined

communities into product development empowers peripheral players, giving them the

right to contribute their own experience and individual knowledge to the final output.

Each consumer can add to the collective knowledge of the community from their

experiences. This collaborative method of innovation has gained momentum and interest

in recent times because of the open source software movement, which has shown that

self-organised groups are able to create software applications superior to commercial

offerings (Fuller & Hienerth 2004). Jeppesen & Molin (2003) believe that this user

creation and development results in a longer product life and greater sales of the basic

product.


31/84

Some studies have proven that often without conscious effort from the community

sponsor collaborative activity is already taking place. Franke & Shahs (2003) research

concluded that

Without exception, the innovating community members we surveyed do not innovate in

isolation or secrecy; they receive important advice and assistance from other community

members (Pg. 158).

The little academic research into just how much help community members give each

other and what motivates them to support and share ideas with each other has ultimately

formed this thesis and research outlined below. Trust is expected to be even more

important here than in a normal VC environment, as community members are sharing

more than just communication on a shared interest, but plans ideas and innovations.

There will need to be a system for managing the intellectual property (IP) that these

members create (Sawhney and Prandelli 2000) and clear documentation on the rights of

the community host or sponsor on how this IP will be managed and utilized. Over time

trust and commitment in the sponsor and co-collaborators should increase. The consumer

becomes a virtual co-innovator, with strong ties to the company and new product (Fuller

et al 2004).


32/84

2.5 Threadless - The future ofMass Customisation?

Instead of thinking of opposites this thesis suggests that its the towards the centre of the

continuum between MP & MC or Standardisation & Individualisation that may offer the

best fit for consumers and manufacturers. Its suggested that conceptual polarization has

lead management thinkers to ignore strategies which combine these logics (Lampel &

Mintzberg 1996). One company which on the surface seems to combine these two

strategies well and will be the focus of this papers research is the online t-shirt

manufacturer Threadless. Threadless business model cannot be categorised under

Lampel & Mintzbergs framework as it has one fundamental difference from all the

approaches, the customisation & customer input occurs at the earliest possible point in

the value chain, at the conception stage. Threadless business model is outlined below in

Figure 4.


33/84

In this approach the customer is in almost complete control over designing the product

and determining what is to be manufactured. Every customer has a say and equal input

but collectively they decide which product moves down the activity chain where the

manufacturer handles the fabrication, assembly and distribution. In Threadless case

members of the community submit t-shirt designs which the rest can comment and score

from 1-5. The top scoring designs are usually then manufactured (Threadless have the

final say and consider factors such as technical difficulty, number of colours etc) and sold

in limited quantities on the site. The winning designer receives $2000 in exchange for the

rights to the design. If we think why Lampel and Mintzbergs framework did not include

an approach which had only customisation at the products conception and design stage, it

might have been because the paper was written in 1996. The Internet, e-commerce and

Virtual Communities existed then but were still in their infancy. Since the widespread

adoption of the internet and subsequently e-commerce there has been an evolution in the

thinking concerning Mass Customisation. This thesis would like to show, contradictory

to the focus of the most of the literature (the exceptions being Lampel & Mintzberg 1996

and Piller & Walcher 2006) and with the help of Threadless and its VC that these

enabling technologies while reducing the cost of individualisation may also reduce the

cost of aggregation. The Threadless model works by grouping customers with similar

requirements and interests into niches, unifying a fragmented and heterogeneous market.


34/84

order to offer customers exclusivity the t-shirts are manufactured in small batch

quantities and some designs never printed more than once. In Threadless case this has

resulted in most t-shirts selling out almost immediately after production.

This research aims to look more closely at why the Threadless model is successful and

what motivates consumers to participate in this VC. The specific research areas can be

found later in theResearch Strategy section.

2.6 Conceptual Framework

This section introduces the conceptual framework shown in Figure 5. This framework is

used as the basis for the primary research following conclusions drawn from the

academic literature concerning MC and VCs. It is believed that there has been an over

emphasis in promoting MC as the future of manufacturing, jumping from one extreme to

the other and ignoring strategies combining both these logics (Lampel & Mintzberg

1996). The fundamental assumption of MC is that with no obstacles, challenges or

inconveniences customers would probably rather create a unique offering to match their

needs. Todays business climate does not seem to offer this, so at present there is

believed to be a disconnect between the customers desire for involvement and

individualization, and the manufacturers desire for economies of scale and predictable,

manageable demand. Co-creation with consumers is not simplistic and as such there are a


35/84

Figure 5: Conceptual framework showing a MC disconnect between Customers

and Manufacturers


36/84


37/84

3.0 Research Strategy & Methodology (1000)This section will outline the primary research methods and the philosophy and strategy

that underpin their use. The aim of this research is to try and answer the following

research questions in relation to Threadless and its VC.

1. How much collaboration is there between designers and the rest of community

prior to submitting designs?

1.1 Do all community members submit designs? If not, what factors stop

members submitting designs?

2. What is it that keeps community members visiting and interacting with

Threadless and its VC?

2.1 Does this business model support aggregation of user requirements? If

so, how?

2.2 Sawhney and Prandelli (2000) believe that a business model that

combines communities into product development empowers peripheral

players, how much evidence of this can seen at Threadless?

3.1 Research Justification


38/84

manufacturer handles the mass. If it is to be believed that consumers dont want choice,

they want exactly what they want (Pine 1994) then they would have little reason to use

Threadless. There are a large number of make-your-own t-shirt providers such as

Spreadshirt (www.spreadshirt.com) or t-shirt.com (www.t-shirt.com) allowing the

users to upload their design and specify shirt colour, size etc. These cost the same or

fractionally more than Threadless t-shirts and in the case of Spreadshirt are dispatched

within 48hrs. The majority of barriers to pure MC identified in the literature or

conceptual framework have minimal impact in the t-shirt market, so why is Threadless

able to operate profitably and successfully? This its is suggested makes it an ideal case

study for what might happen when future technology removes the barriers to using close

to pure MC (see Lampel & Mintzberg 1996) in more complex products/services.

3.2 Research Approach

To research Threadless a case study approach was adopted. While only focusing and

researching one community a case study approach offers an opportunity to gain a deeper

insight into a relatively unexplored phenomenon (Jeppesen & Frederiksen 2004). The

research uses different research methods to enhance the precision of conclusions by using

different data, but data related to the same phenomenon (Jick 1979). The research

comprised a questionnaire completed online amongst community members and two

different participant observations of the community.


39/84

general. It can help to understand the meanings they attribute to their acts and to the acts

of others (Bryman and Bell 2003). It also has the advantage of generating a large number

of responses in a short space of time. It can also be tailored to gather data on a specific

topic (to help answer the Research Questions), whilst also having questions which are

more open in nature, complimenting the exploratory nature of this study. Question

branching was used in the questionnaire to separate users that submit designs and those

that do not, before further in-depth questioning occurs.

A link to the questionnaire was posted on the Threadless Blog Forum which is a public

messageboard. Prior agreement had been received from Threadless to post the message

and link, to get their permission to use the forum. It was felt that this would encourage

respondents to complete the questionnaire and raise its profile amongst the community. A

prize draw was offered for those participants taking part to encourage participation, it is

noted that this could have resulted in repeat submission (these were removed by the

questionnaire software) and resulted in respondents only motivated by the prize and not

comprehensively or truthfully completing the questionnaire. The prize was only one t-

shirt which has a $15 value which should have stopped this type of behaviour.

The second piece of research was a participant observation, monitoring and classifying

all communication on Threadless messageboard called the Blog Forum. This


40/84

Delbridge and Kirkpatrick (1994:37) suggest that participant observation involves the

researcher immersing themselves in the research setting, to sharing in the subjects lives.

It is felt that this method was applicable as the aim of the research was to share in the

communitys lives and understand how the community members interact and what

encourages users to share, critique and collaborate.

Participant Observation in this unobtrusive manner does raise a question of ethics

(Paccagnella 1997). In this case all the data analysed is public discourse. The view taken

by this researcher is that while the communication may be deeply personal it is not

private (Sudweeks & Rafaeli 1995). 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. Observation

was preferred over active participation to reduce the likelihood that the presence of a

researcher may modify the phenomena being studied (Paccagnella 1997). A mixture of

quantitative & qualitative analysis was adopted. A purely quantitative approach might

have missed the subtle nuances of interaction that can meaningfully describe the

interactions of a community (Thomsen et al 1998). All topics were viewed & classified,

those relevant to the study (related to submissions or the process of designing) also had

their responses classified on a similar scale.


41/84


42/84

hypothesis. In this case there is a willing trade off between studying multiple

communities and the opportunity to gain a deeper insight into Threadless (Jeppesen &

Frederiksen 2004).

All the research took place in a short time period of time (March April) as it was

deemed important as this research is did not attempt to be longitudinal, with the ever

changing nature of VCs the gap between research methods kept as short as possible

offering a cross-section snapshot of the community at the time of research.


43/84

Chapter 4

Findings & Discussion

Without exception, the innovating community members we surveyed do not innovate inisolation or secrecy; they receive important advice and assistance from other communitymembers.

(Franke & Shah 2002:158)


44/84


45/84

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.

Table 3: Number of Threads by Topic observed on the Blog Forum

Thread Type

N. of

Threads

1. Social - not T-shirt related 1972. 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) 84 Discussing of a winning (printed) T-shirt 595. Discussing Threadless (The company)/Talking to Threadless 286. Requesting a reprint of a sold out design 97. Suggestions of what Threadless should do next 58. Request for help (general not Threadless related) 209. Street Team (a Threadless loyalty scheme) 1610. Sponsor Post (Post from Threadless) 2

11. Discussion of recent Purchase/What to Purchase 15Total 424

Although all initial posts that started each thread were viewed and categorised, only

types 3a-e (67 in total) were considered of interest to this research and 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 figure 6 and


46/84

categorised. It was a surprise to the researcher just how social the Blog Forum was,

with the vast majority of topics started (over 80%) having nothing to do with

Threadless or design in general. While showing how close the community is and just

how much of their day to day lives they shared with other members, off-topic

subjects such as Which superhero are you? or Im going veggie would have

helped very little in answering this studies research questions.

Figure 6: Frequency of Responses for Topics 3a-3e

The second stage of the participant observation was to look at the category of

communication used in the comments section below each submitted design. The

submissions chosen were the first 10 submitted designs mentioned on the Blog Forum


47/84

commonly posted comments were giving positive feedback or making a suggestion to the

designer, both considered collaborative.

Table 4: Submission Comments Categories and Frequencies

Comment Categories N. Comments

1 General Conversation - not T-shirt related 552 Designer discussing design 24

3a Making a design suggestion e.g. reduce textsize 1143b Giving design feedback - positive 3323c Giving design feedback - negative 303d Giving design feedback - mixed 283e Designer talking about incorporatingresponses in future sub 6

Total 589

The reduction in the number of categories needed in this part of the observation shows

that comments were generally on topic and either giving positive feedback such as I

LOVE the drawing and the idea (Comment on Submission ID:1) or making a suggestion

e.g.

The grey/neutral one is my favourite. But I love the placement of the kelley green one.

Combine those too, and you have a 5 (Comment on Submission ID:3)

The data collected from this research will now be used to help answer the research


48/84

4.1 Is there any collaboration between designers and the rest of community priorto submitting designs?

Results suggest that a considerable amount of support is available to designers

wishing to use it. However of the 73 respondents who had submitted a design, 63%

said they design on their own, shown below in Figure 7.

Q17 - Do you design on your own?

63%

37%

Yes

No

Figure 7: Responses to Q.17 Do you design on your own

The figure of 36% who responded no suggests that there is some collaboration

within the community but the specific nature of this collaboration is unclear due to


49/84

community member adds a comment below their submitted design as collaboration

and therefore answer no while another may not. The following questions further

highlighted this ambiguity in which 60% of respondents said they did ask for

feedback before submitting designs, shown below in figure 8. This suggests that

designers believed there to be a difference between collaboration and receiving

feedback.

Figure 8: Responses to Q.18 Do you ask for feedback before you submit your

design

In total 63 respondents (32%) said they had asked for help on the Blog Forum with

over 96% shown below in Table 5 indicated they received it. This suggests that while

not that commonly used there is supporting available for designers that wish to use it.


50/84

When asked the question Have you found feedback on your designs from other

members useful, 82% of those users that had received feedback said they found it

useful. Respondent n.118 said that they felt It has helped me become a better

designer too, I've learned and picked up styles from those around me.

The participant observation however found community communication involving the

critiquing and suggesting revisions at every stage of the design process from rough

idea to submitted design. In total there were 57 specific threads started by designers

about their designs. Of these 25 topics were for designs still in development and had

topic titles such as Opinions Before Sub (submission) and others shown below in

Table 6.

Table 6: Examples of Collaborative Thread TopicsThread N. Topic Title Date N. of Replies359 (sic) Villians Submission Preview "6th March" 20401 Samurai are dead (design help?) "6th March" 8413 The Bird Tree - Feedback Wanted! "3rd March" 12418 Opinions Before Sub "3rd March" 23

The conversation below shows an example of the type of support and feedback the

community gave designers asking for help. In this instance the topic author had

Thi i tt h i ht b t h t d thi k f b i th i d d


51/84

This is pretty rough right now, but what do you think of my absinthe induced green

fairy... (Thread Author, MsgID 196)

if you go absinthe - go all out. Have the filter spoon, the sugar cubes.

(Respondent, MsgID 196)

What should (sic) i do with her? Have her coming out of a bottle of absinthe?

Anyone have any good ideas? (Thread Author, MsgID 196)

Decent idea, but the drawing needs work. Maybe put a green bottle behind it or have

it holding a cocktail glass and a spoon. (Respondent, MsgID 196)

Further examples of this were found from the observation of comments placed below

design submissions. Of the 589 total comments posted, 114 comments suggested

potential revisions or alterations to the submission, some examples are shown below

The grey placement is what I (sic) recommend, because it is very balanced, unlike

the green. I love the art style, and I'm giving it a 5. (Respondent, Submission ID 3)

I think you should get rid of the sun and then re-center the image.

(Respondent, Submission ID 3)

Whilst not collaboration in the sense of dividing up the illustrative tasks this shows

evidence of a design evolution in which the community is developing together a

Thanks to everyone who (sic) leave the comments See you on the resub (sic) this


52/84

Thanks to everyone who (sic) leave the comments. See you on the resub (sic) this

design soon. (Design Author, Submission ID 1)

4.2 Do all community members submit designs? If not, what factors stop

members submitting designs?

Surprisingly 118 respondents (61%) had not submitted a design to the site, which

considering the frequency of visits to the site suggests that the primary reason for

using the site is not to submit designs. Question 23 asked respondents that had not

submitted a design what was stopping them, the results are shown below in Figure 9

Figure 9: Responses to Q.24 reasons for not submitting a design

Here the community and rating of other peoples designs provides an activity for the

other also responded in a way which suggested a lack of technical knowledge or


53/84

other also responded in a way which suggested a lack of technical knowledge or

artistic ability such as

I expect a level of quality in the printed designs that is greater than what I can

produce myself. (Respondent n.65)

I don't know how to use any designing programs!

(Respondent n.47)

I hold threadless designs to a high standard, when I create something I think is worth

printing, the threadless name, and $1,000 - i'll submit it (Respondent n.21)

Part of this reluctance might be due to the belief that their designs do not meet the

standard required to win the competition, however there is no way from this

questionnaire of knowing whether or not they would still produce that design for their

own consumption, using a make-your-own manufacturer. The submission task has

also not be simplified through the use of a dedicated toolkit which if used may have

simplified the process. Over the observation period there were 8 specific threads

asking for technical design help usually for a specific application such as Thread 351

entitled PSP7 HELP PLEASE shown below

is there a way to smooth lines on Paint Shop Pro 7?? (Thread Author)

It was expected that this figure would have been higher but that may be due to the


54/84

It was expected that this figure would have been higher but that may be due to the

fact that the applications mentioned will most likely have their own support sites. In

conclusion it is surprising that so many community members have never submitted a

design and this support the notion that some consumers lack the technical skills to

articulate their ideas and wants.

4.3 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 as shown below in

Table 7.

Table 7: Responses most often voted 1-3 in importance

Voted 1

Voted

2

Voted

3

Total 1-3

cotes for that

category. Ranking

Innovative designs 51.83% 15.18% 6.28% 73.30% 1Exclusivity of designs

(short run production

cycles) 9.42% 28.80% 15.18% 53.40% 2Involvement in the design

process 7.33% 16.75% 20.94% 45.03% 3Price 10.47% 10.47% 20.94% 41.88% 4The Threadless ethos and

Surprisingly and contradictory to the wider MC literature it was not involvement


55/84

Surprisingly and contradictory to the wider MC literature it was not involvement

which scored highest, instead it was Innovative designs. In fact the results

suggested 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 offers an opportunity to purchase

a limited although not exclusive item. Verbatim feedback also supported this,

respondent n.146 said Uniqueness, thats all I want and search (sic) from these

shirts, it makes me feel as a single individual that doesnt 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 greater than they feel they can have

produced which is perhaps why 60% of the community have never submitted a

design. So its 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.

4.4 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

the Blog Forum highlighted several examples of small groups being formed around


56/84

g g g p g p g

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 it did poorly out in the real

world, and threadless has told us they don't want to print it. the question becomes, 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, Iwill be printing it for my own company.

(Comment on Submission ID:10)

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 warrant Threadless

manufacturing the product but this showcases user led aggregation which may lead to

t-shirts being manufactured in smaller quantities for groups of users who meet on

Threadless..

4.5 Sawhney and Prandelli (2000) state that a business model that combines


57/84

y ( )

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 essential Threadless is

running a non stop competition then the key actors are Threadless and the people that

submit designs. Without these there is no venue, competition or manufacturer. 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 to become

If we compare the Threadless business model against the original aim definition of


58/84

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

the likelihood of seeing somebody else in the design is small. Small batch production

over one off 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

seems to increase the likelihood whilst reducing the cost of finding multiple

consumers with the same 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 homogenous market may be in decline the

customers to a manufacturer. Threadless seems to show that it also provides an


59/84

efficient platform for customers to transfer need information to other customers

supporting an aggregation of users requirements. Community members were

observed explicitly stating what would have needed to be changed to unsuccessful

designs in order that they would receive a better rating such as I love the image, but

Im not keen on that sun/moon thing, lose that and I would wear it! (Comment on

Submission ID:7)

Previously getting this kind of need information through traditional market research

would have been time consuming and laborious. By utilizing 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 figure equates to.

Lee & Chen (1999:2) said that MC would mean that

Heavy discounts and promotions to move less popular products out of warehouses

may become a thing of the past achieving both manufacturer and consumer

satisfaction

This we suggest is the key difference in the Threadless approach to MC, it delivers

customer involvement but minimises most of the challenges that reduce manufacturer

materials when they decide which t-shirt they want to produce. The community


60/84

provides data to help gauge demand. Production complexity is reduced somewhat as

your not producing one off items. The consumer does not have to pick from a range

of uniform, average products (Lee et al 1999). 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 10 below which adapts the original

conceptual framework in light of these new findings.


61/84

Figure 10: Adapted Conceptual Framework

The most relevant findings from this section are now summarized below in bullet


62/84

form:

The majority of users did not submit designs but still showed highinvolvement and higher satisfaction scores than designers. This supports

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 InnovativeDesigns. Exclusivity was considered more important in the purchasing

decision than involvement.

A large amount of support was available to designers and they showed awillingness 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.


63/84

Chapter 5

Armed with new connective tools, consumers want to interact and co-create value, not just with one firm but with whole communities of professionals, service providers, andother customers.

(Prahalad, C. Ramaswamy, V 2004:5)

Conclusion, Research Conclusions & Limitations, Reflective Critique of the

Research Process and Recommendations

5.0 Conclusion


64/84

5.0 ConclusionThis thesis has extended the current MC and customer collaboration literature by looking

at a unique business model offered by Threadless which has both characteristics. While

the literature is concerned with promoting the idea of offering customers unique products

from unique experiences, this thesis challenges the assumption that consumers want and

can realistically achieve this uniqueness. Utilising a multi-part participant observation

and a questionnaire this research highlights some the strengths of the Threadless

approach to MC.

This exploratory research aimed to find out why a consumer would buy a limited product

from Threadless when rival companies can offer them the chance to design a unique

product. It also tests literary assumptions that customers lack the knowledge to specify

their desired solution (Berger et al 2005), and if so can they may be supported through

collaboration with their peers in a VC setting?

The remainder of the chapter presents the final conclusions from the research. This is

followed by suggestions for recommendations for future research in this area. The

thesis concludes with a final critique of the process taken when conducting the

primary research and in the creation of this thesis.

5.1 Research Conclusions & Limitations


65/84

Results showed that Threadless offers an interesting balance of MC and nic

do consumers want to design unique products on the internet? a study of the online virtual community...

Documents