bounty42 wrote:By about 4 shirts actually, there was a 3 purchase at about 15 minutes out, and a 2 purchase around 9 minutes.
I was afraid that something would smell bad this morning, and Lucky's numbers smell to me. Aggregating info, I have the following sales numbers for Lucky:
12:00AM (Narf): 9095
9:00AM (Neuro): 9095 +0
10:00AM (Narf): 9104 +9
10:22AM (Neuro): 9104 +0
12:00PM (Narf/Bounty): 9113 +9
I feel like I must be miscalculating, but in neuro-math-world (a scary place if it involves proportions), that yields a DSR of 16.4 based on the past seven days of sales, a DSR of 14.92 based on Monday noon to Sunday/Monday midnight - and a projected DSR of 129.60 based on sales between 10:20AM and 12:00PM. For context, Save the Trees' projected DSR is 48 (based on Narf's 10AM numbers: I was only grabbing numbers for Lucky and Read), with a DSR of 11.43 based on 6.5 days of sales. Am I calculating those projected DSRs correctly? My instinct is that they don't look right, but maybe it's the sales that are off, not me.
Based on the numbers that have been posted on here, Little Things should have been a lot higher
I'm not seeing it. Would you be willing to explain?
citizencoyote wrote:I'd been wondering about this myself, honestly. He's had several prints lately, but few have hung around for long. This could certainly be one explanation, but I feel it's only part of it. Unless a shirt is featured as "most lady friendly," we have no way of telling what sizes are bought, no? Could a particular artist really live or die based on appeal to one sex?
I just looked back at Reckonings 178-220 except for 182 and 185, which are gone (unscientific sample: I started a year ago and went forward and back until I remembered that I'm supposed to be doing work). I was surprised to see only one week in which Walmazan had the most sales of women's sizes: #215, with "Ironic Bunny," with 41.02% of weekly sales being in women's sizes. With first week sales of 2210 shirts (NarfNumber), that's 906.5 shirts in women's sizes (I hope woot sent the person who received half a shirt the other half 
) and 1303.5 shirts in men's sizes (maybe the 0.5 people are married and take "togetherness" to an absurd level?) This week, using the current numbers, The Race has sold 783 shirts, of which 20.72% are in women's sizes, so let's say 162 women's shirts and 621 men's shirts. Ignoring the impact of Anvil on men's sales, that suggests approximately 160 sales lost in women's sizes alone, and I suspect it's actually much higher than that. Of course, there are numerous assumptions in this analysis that render it nearly useless - of which neither the least nor the most problematic is the assumption that the same people who bought a hipster bunny shirt are the same people who would buy a gleeful astronomy shirt. (Personally, I've never worn Ironic Bunny because its irony is not quite obvious enough to the local hipster clan.)
In my unscientific perusal of those Reckonings, the top selling shirt in women's sizes generally sold between ~21-48% women's sizes; I think I saw one week around 18%. I did not keep an official tally, but I'm fairly certain that patrickspens had the most number of "lady-friendly" shirts, with ramy a distant second; no one else seemed to have a consistently significant pattern. I was surprised that the most popular shirt in women's sizes was rarely, if ever, the overall top seller for the week.
Woot does not tell us what percentage of shirts are sold in which sizes. It seems obvious from sales, random threads, and the trading thread that the vast majority of sales are on men's sizes. I have a suspicion that the number of shirts sold in AA WS and WM might have been miniscule, maybe even a rounding error in shirt.woot's revenue. We've been vocal about the change, partly because we're completely out of luck and partly because several of the more prominent woot.artists are women who wore these sizes, but shirt.woot may not miss our sales at all. Obviously woot isn't going to accommodate us at this point, but it would have been nice if they had at least admitted that they forgot about the people whose sizes fall into the left tail of size distribution and maybe apologized. The decision - and especially the language used to advertise that women's sizes were now "built for ladies" - reeks of a decision made by a bunch of men who conceptualize of a women's body as being anti-"beanpole." No idea what social force might have given them that idea...
I'm not fond of the term "beanpole" - and I'm not a straight up-and-down beanpole, just a 7/8th-sized human being - but it's hard to be offended by it when the other side informed me that I don't have the build of a "lady" because I'm munchkin-sized.
Narfcake wrote:
I'm also feeling a general downturn in sales too - look at the DSR at the line.
Based on NarfNumbers, I believe there were 12,901 total sales this week, with 9,619 of those being debuts and 3,282 being oldies. The first "normal" week for which Narfcake pulled full sales data is #215 (ending 2011/09/26). It looks like there were 18,357 total sales, with 14,917 being debuts and 3,440 being older shirts. (FWIW, #214 involved a woot-off and had 23,238 total sales (14,213 debuts; 9,025 oldies.)
We'll attribute 25 of the missing sales from this week to Narf alone.
