Shirt.Woot

We went through some discussions when the cap was raised from 3k to 5k ... but apparently, the cap has been raised again.

Time to chime in, folks ...

Narfcake wrote:We went through some discussions when the cap was raised from 3k to 5k ... but apparently, the cap has been raised again.

Time to chime in, folks ...

Based on Snapster's post last time this happened this will continue to occur as Woot upgrades and Woot's goal is to eventually make 1st day sellouts all but impossible. I can't blame them but it's hard to believe this will actually result in more money for the artists.

I am not an artist myself, but these changes are unacceptable. As a consumer, one of the things that drew me to this site was the reciprocity with the artist. It created a community that was mutually beneficial for the company and the artist. Increasing the cap without any increased compensation for the artist AND without providing warning is teetering on breach of trust. The artists no doubt choose a site on which to put art partially based upon the audience and partially because it is lucrative for them. If the artist had foreknowledge of the changes, they may choose to take their art elsewhere. That's their right, their choice. These changes are a terrible way for Woot to "take care" of the people that keep them in business. Come on, Woot, word of mouth is not going to make up for the money lost on the cap increase. You can't possible believe that. That's corporate speak for "we're going to do what we want to, and there's nothing you can do about it." That's a mega cop out. Did you all learn nothing from Netflix?!!! Making changes to the structure of the business without informing all of the cogs of that wheel creates corporate disaster. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But Woot is losing touch with what I love(d) about the site.

6000 shirt sellout is unfortunate.
I have been BLESSED to have woot print 2 of my designs on shirts:

first: COEXIST at a 3000 shirt cap:
http://shirt.woot.com/shirts/coexist
this shirt reckoned at: 7576

and the 2nd: ALWAYS LEAVE A NOTE at the 5000 shirt cap:
http://shirt.woot.com/shirts/always-leave-a-note
this shirt will probably reckoned at: 5750

After my first print experience i was VERY pleased about the artist compensation. I told EVERY artist i knew and met, that they should consider submitting shirt concepts to woot for consideration.

After the BUMP to the 5000 cap, and my second woot shirt print, i reluctantly decided to pitch some of my other designs elsewhere first. (some will run on nowherebad.com & stupidhurts.us in the near future) i will VERY probably make less by quantity, but i will feel better that profit-sharing between artist and company will be more in sync.
( i'm not complaining...woot needs to make money & i'm a capitalist, so, more power to them! )

I do think woot is AWESOME. I just now realize that my first print experience was not in keeping with what they would prefer to pay out to a designer.

As they increase the sellout number without modifying the per-shirt payout to the artist, it has made the reality-check a little more sour than sweet.

i'm not indignant... just sad that it isn't a no-brainer to submit a design to woot first.

i'm one of the least talented artists that woot has printed, but i design simple shirts that i would buy if i saw in a store.
With both prints, it has been exciting to see the market respond positively! i very much thank woot for the opportunity and the experience.

just my 2 coppers on the sellout bump.

Thanks for starting a topic for this, Kane. I was going to post some thoughts, but... it's 2:30 in the morning here, and I don't want to turn into this guy:

Narfcake wrote:We went through some discussions when the cap was raised from 3k to 5k ... but apparently, the cap has been raised again.

Time to chime in, folks ...

What's their current cost per shirt? Has the increased production capacity significantly reduced the cost yet?

fablefire wrote:What's their current cost per shirt? Has the increased production capacity significantly reduced the cost yet?

No idea, but it would obviously be less, what with economies of scale and everything.

I'm aware that Woot's profit margins are thinner than the other major sites, but this expansion AND the previous one, should NOT have been at the expense of the artist. After all, a $10 sale is a $15 sale that will not happen (unless you're like me and nerdishly buys a duplicate or triplicate afterwards or something, but that's a really rare occasion).

If Woot is really squeezed for profits from higher production costs, then increase the price to the customer, PROVIDED that the artist is getting an increase in compensation too.

It'll be interesting how much revenue the top artists have brought to Woot; Patrick's and Ramy's numbers will definitely be up there. I estimate that The Binge's 52k+ sales has yielded over $750k to Woot. And pretty much any design that has sold over 8500 would yield over $100k ... and there's over 2 dozen designs that fall into that list.

Without the artist, the shirt is just a shirt. And we all know how well that sells here ...

just out of curiosity, does any1 know how the average total artist payout per design (initial payment + royalties) has varied, as the sellout quantities have changed?

Narfcake wrote:No idea, but it would obviously be less, what with economies of scale and everything.

I'm aware that Woot's profit margins are thinner than the other major sites, but this expansion AND the previous one, should NOT have been at the expense of the artist. After all, a $10 sale is a $15 sale that will not happen (unless you're like me and nerdishly buys a duplicate or triplicate afterwards or something, but that's a really rare occasion).

If Woot is really squeezed for profits from higher production costs, then increase the price to the customer, PROVIDED that the artist is getting an increase in compensation too.

It'll be interesting how much revenue the top artists have brought to Woot; Patrick's and Ramy's numbers will definitely be up there. I estimate that The Binge's 52k+ sales has yielded over $750k to Woot. And pretty much any design that has sold over 8500 would yield over $100k ... and there's over 2 dozen designs that fall into that list.

Without the artist, the shirt is just a shirt. And we all know how well that sells here ...

For sure. It's probably safe to assume that they've determined a higher cap is more profitable, otherwise they wouldn't do it repeatedly. If they're making the pie bigger, both woot and the consumers (collectively) are getting bigger slices, but not the artist. Of course, they can say that shirts selling under the old cap won't be affected by this increase, but that's what they said about the increase to 3000 and 5000 as well. One could speculate that 500 of those people in the This Was A Triumph sale might not have come back for the $15 price. I find it hard to believe that all 2500 of those folks wouldn't come back, provided the cap was still at 3000. It would be nice if they had a mixed model for first day sales. $1000 flat and additional compensation for shirts sold beyond a certain point.

I think woot has the right idea, trying to shoot for no sellouts. People are more likely to buy at $10 than $15. The social media buzz is better on the first day. There's a possibility of greater echo sales. I'll miss the bouncing button but I'll live. The amount of sales they lose from pressure situations (One More Gimlet BOUNGING BUTTON! I HAVE TO BUY NOW!) is probably negligible. But the more they achieve economies of scale, the more they and consumers profit, and it is a bum deal that the artists don't see any piece of this bigger pie on 1st day sales AND it's at the expense of 2nd day sales. :/

I believe they did a fee increase once, from $500 to $1000, when they increased the cap (I forget to which number). They might have just done that to be in a more competitive place in the market though. I suppose they'll increase it again when they no longer have one of the leading pay models.

Would be nice to see the current cost per shirt though, on a run of 6000 with a six color print. I'm all for woot being a business and making a profit. Ideally, everyone who helps make the pie bigger should get a bigger piece. :X

I know I don't comment too much around here, but I think a lot of the outrage is due to some misconception of what the increased number means. I think that while a lot of artists will see a negative impact from the increase (woot really should either bump up the initial flat payout or - a better solution - after a certain number of shirts sold over a threshold increase compensation, even a tiered system would make sense) the popular artists will actually benefit in the long run. Tjost gets a little screwed here, because if he had known about the increase he could have decided to submit the design somewhere else if he felt it would make him a larger profit.

Other popular artists are going to see an overall benefit I think. People who are directed to woot by social media/etc. are probably not already and will not become regular visitors. They are far less likely to come back if the shirt they want is sold out. Especially since a lot of people will think - $10 is a pretty good deal, $15, not so much. However if they are able to make the purchase they want, they probably come back. Eventually I think the increased traffic from more people returning will increase overall reckoning sales. More reckoning sales means artists who often find their designs in the reckoning are going to make more money.

I don't think it is bad for the consumer to benefit and for woot to grow its audience (and make a larger profit, clearly they do with more 1st day sales otherwise they would not do this). At the same time, I think since the compensation structure has not changed with changes in the sales structure, that should be looked at as well.

fablefire wrote:I believe they did a fee increase once, from $500 to $1000, when they increased the cap (I forget to which number).

the original derby payout was $200. they went to $500 starting with derby #10. i don't recall exactly, but i assume the daily payouts roughly paralleled those of the derby.

TBH, I really don't think the increase of the cap hurts artists. During the time that the cap was set to 5k, I had 7 designs that sold over 3000 (which means they would have previously sold out), but didn't hit the 5k mark, meaning they were available for the full 24 hours. These designs went on to do extremely well in reckoning (better than I would have imagined for non-sellouts). In fact, I compared those shirts to other shirts that sold out at the 3k cap using the time that the design hit the 3000 mark on the first day as a rough estimate of its sellout time, and my designs didn't perform any worse in reckoning as a result of having the cap raised.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the two designs that did sell out at the 5k mark (questionable table and kitchen warfare) are both around the 10k mark and going strong in reckoning now. Questionable table sold out just an hour before the day was over, so very few people actually missed it, and yet it topped the reckoning charts for 4 weeks and continued to have amazing sales thereafter.

One more thought I had is that the increased cap has actually been beneficial to shirts that sell under 3000. Nowadays, nobody expects shirts to sell out, so it is easy to wait and decide later, which might mean when it moves into the reckoning. These days, even designs that sell 1000 on the first day can sometimes move into the reckoning. I think there used to be some sort of lingering feeling that only shirts that sold out were worth buying in the reckoning, but that's gone now because of the extreme rarity of sellouts.

If you look at the top of reckoning right now, you can see a prime example of what I'm talking about. Zombie bait has already sold almost 2700 in the four weeks since its debut day, despite not selling out, and epic fail sold just over 3000 and managed to debut at #2.

I can understand the concerns people have, and it seems like it really would hurt the artist, but I don't think that's the case. Sure, it would be nice to bump up the first-day base pay, but I don't think that reckoning sales have really been hit. In fact, I think some designs have sold more than they would have otherwise just based on their perceived popularity due to heightened sales numbers. And in the rare cases when a shirt does manage to sell out, it makes it that much more special and exciting.

Isn't Woot's motto "One Day One Deal?" And doesn't that apply to every Woot shop except this one? I think we shouldn't question first day sales at all, and we should just be thankful the reckoning exists.

I did like being spoiled with the 3,000 sales cap, but the 1,000 bucks alone definitely compensates for the time and effort artist put into these design. If shirt.woot want to try to better fill the "One Day One Deal" role, so be it...

fablefire wrote:... It would be nice if they had a mixed model for first day sales. $1000 flat and additional compensation for shirts sold beyond a certain point.

Yep.

I think woot has the right idea, trying to shoot for no sellouts. People are more likely to buy at $10 than $15. The social media buzz is better on the first day. There's a possibility of greater echo sales.

Yeah, this was pretty much the CEO's response last time.

But the more they achieve economies of scale, the more they and consumers profit, and it is a bum deal that the artists don't see any piece of this bigger pie on 1st day sales AND it's at the expense of 2nd day sales. :/
... I'm all for woot being a business and making a profit. Ideally, everyone who helps make the pie bigger should get a bigger piece. :X

That's really my contention in all this. If a design is a success, reward it.

ramyb wrote:And in the rare cases when a shirt does manage to sell out, it makes it that much more special and exciting.

I think this was the true issue last night - that a sellout was expected, but wasn't obtained due to the increased cap. Which you did pull off instead; congrats, Ramy.

Clearly, Woot sets the industry standard in artist payouts. No one else comes close. Woot is a great place for artists to get paid for quality work, and they make awesome shirts. (debate about quality and awesomeness notwithstanding)

That being said, the increased caps obviously hurt artists in the $2 per shirt commission.

Ramy's shirt yesterday sold out at 6,000. Under the 5,000 cap last week, he would have already made an extra $2,000. Under the old 3,000 shirt cap, he would have made an extra $6,000. Instead, today he's still only at $1,000.

Can we expect that this shirt will sell that many more shirts beyond what it would have sold under the cap? Why would removing the cap increase the post first day sales by that much more?

I don't think we have any reason to believe it will last longer in the reckoning and sell 3,000 more shirts, in order to make back the lost revenue from the first day. 3,000 extra people just bought the shirt already, they are not likely to come back to buy it again.

Right? Am I crazy? Didn't Ramy just miss out on $6,000 he would have otherwise earned?

(of course, some of those first day sales would not have happened on subsequent days, because some people can't seem to find the Reckoning, don't want to pay $15 instead of $10, etc. What percentage? I have no idea. Perhaps substantial, but nowhere near 3,000.)

I think it's safe to say that for Snapster the bottom line matters more than the artists.

Personally, I don't buy any shirts on their first day. The artists already got paid- why shouldn't I make sure they get as much as I can make sure they can get?

zosai wrote:(of course, some of those first day sales would not have happened on subsequent days, because some people can't seem to find the Reckoning, don't want to pay $15 instead of $10, etc. What percentage? I have no idea. Perhaps substantial, but nowhere near 3,000.)

I don't think anyone has a real answer to that. The only shirt I can think of that had a substantial return the following day is The Cheese is a Liederkranz; 3000 sold out in 97 minutes, and another 2482 sold the 2nd day. I suspect that it was this that not only gave the idea, but funded the expansion too. Now how many more would've only bought on debut day, I have no idea at all. but obviously, a 6k limit would have sold out too.

Josephus wrote:I think it's safe to say that for Snapster the bottom line matters more than the artists.

To be honest, Woot loses out with the higher cap too. A $15 sale is $13 net to Woot. Even a $12 sale is $11 net to Woot.

So, going back to the previous discussion from when the cap was raised to 5k, I think most artists and buyers who commented liked the idea of a graduated system instead....yet the official responses (that I found) haven't actually responded to that at all. I don't think I actually commented at all last time, but I actually think the graduated system would be a win-win situation all around:

- Start out with the first however-many (I'm going to say 5k, though I doubt they'll go back now they're at 6k) at $10.
- After the first 5k, but still on the first day, raise the price to $12 AND put up the "this shirt is too popular and they won't all get printed for a few days" disclaimer
- Go to $15 the second day

Advantages for woot:
- No "Sold Out" to discourage potential buyers since first day sales not limited by specific production capabilities (which should also increase total site traffic as well as Reckoning traffic)**
- More profit on $12 shirts than $10 shirts (even if artist gets $1/shirt)
- Still encourages people to buy on the first day instead of waiting, because the people who are willing to buy at $10 but not $15 are far more likely to still be willing to buy at $12.
- Also still encourages people to buy *early* on the first day to get the $10 price and faster ship date, however people who miss that would still feel they're "winning" by being first-day-buyers because of the $12 price

Advantages for artists:
- For very popular shirts, much higher potential sales on the first day (more exposure, etc)
- Not getting cut out of additional profit because of woot's increased production capacity

Advantages for buyers:
- Having an option other than "buy the first moment I see or spend 50% more"
- For popular shirts, having a chance at buying for less than $15 without stalking the site every night (those that care enough about the difference between $10 and $12, or a few days delay on ship date, are the ones who are likely to stalk every night anyway)
- For first-time visitors, not ever being discouraged from coming back because the shirt was "Sold Out"

The biggest potential disadvantage I see for woot is the decreased profit from very popular shirts selling at bunch at $12 instead of $15...but I think this would be more than offset by not having to worry about increasing production capacity as the only way to get past all the "Sold Out" negative consequences that they want to want to avoid.** Compared to the current system, I don't see ANY disadvantages for artists or buyers. And for artists, certainly no disadvantage compared to continuing to increase first-day non-commission sales without a change in artist compensation.


**Avoiding sell-outs seems to be the biggest incentive for woot to change things, so honestly, I think a system that addresses that concern is the most likely one to have any chance at even being considered...

Joel replied to one of my earlier posts on the "This Was a Triumph" thread. I just wanted to repost my second comment here. I'm glad this thread is staying reasonable and using actual statistics to prove our points. Here's my reply back...
**
There's simply no way that raising the cap to that many more shirts will not affect the artist's bottom line. If the goal is simply to maximize first day sales, there should be an adjustment in the initial payout. Right now, and artist that sells 200 shirts makes the same as someone who sells 5,999. That's simply ridiculous! Had you waited until you had solid stats to say "here is proof that to our best estimation this will not harm the artists bottom line", I would be ok with that. However, by your own admission, there hasn't been enough testing of the 5,000 mark to prove otherwise. Most shirts are not affected. But your top sellers are completely impacted by this. First day sales have a ripple effect throughout the sales life of each shirt from where they start on the reckoning to how fast they fall off. I will absolutely insist on saying "Bad form, Woot. Bad form." Filling the needs of the consumer is OF COURSE the priority. But there are ways to meet the demand that are not to the detriment of the artist.

I'm wondering why woot hasn't just eliminated the first day limit, frankly. If they almost never reach it, then obviously they aren't hampered in the number of shirts they can print. that makes it an artificial limit, I think.

joelterrific wrote:I understand there's a badge of distinction that comes with a sellout, but remember that the sellout has always been tied to inherent production capacity and not a market researched ideal that told us "selling a shirt out is the best thing for everyone." For us, the goal has always been to capture as many first day sales as possible since we see that as the long-term strategy for the business. The more wooters the more sales, the more sales, the more artists we put to work and the more shirts ultimately sell. The sellout, while an event, isn't ideal.

How does higher sales numbers per shirt translate to "the more artists we put to work"? as of now, you sell one new shirt design per day. You don't sell more designs now than you did when you launched. You sell one hell of a lot more shirts now, but you pay the artists the same amount as you did when the first day was limited to 1000. Your artists are now far more valuable to woot than they were before. no?

This is pure speculation, and I have a lot of numbers I'll try to parse through later tonight ...

In the video, I count a 16 screen and a 10 screen setup, so I can see 3-4 production lines going at once. Still, I have to say that this past weekend was their first major test to see if they can truly pull off the quantities. The three designs sold over 15k of shirts ... and we have a random day today, which means the screen printing machines either need a day off for maintenance now ... or that such quantities in a row was not sustainable in the regular time span, whether in the labor aspect or in the logistics.

Call me a cynic but I'm struggling to figure out why I should care about this. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's bad for the artists, but honestly it appears all of the artists I care about have turned over completely. The Kitchen derby was probably the most horrendous I've seen in a long time. 2 out of the top 25 weren't either pop culture or cutesy emoticons. With pop culture banned, Australia might see the lowest winning vote total in over a year.

There's basically no one left that isn't pandering one of the two ways. I can't remember the last time I saw loopy or jewelwing. Robbie seems to reducing his presence and has Drakxxx subbed much recently other than Halloween? That's not to mention all of the people who are legit gone. Boots is about the only one left.

This bleeds into the originality topic, but I don't really see many people winning on their own merits be that the rehashed design choices or blatant use of pop culture just to sell to a fanbase.

I never really thought I'd say this, but more power to woot. Raise the cap to 10,000. I don't see anyone earning the benefit of the doubt. All I see is Teefury: Part II.

There are some promising new artists submitting designs. Hopefully they can catch a break and get a few prints before burning out.
I've mentioned this before, but outside of the "Woot Stalwarts" there is a good bit of Artist churn here. The Shirtwhat artist page bears this out.

amreli wrote:So, going back to the previous discussion from when the cap was raised to 5k, I think most artists and buyers who commented liked the idea of a graduated system instead....yet the official responses (that I found) haven't actually responded to that at all.

This is my main concern in all this. To me, most of the problems inherent in the decision to raise the first-day sell-out cap are moot. There's not much in the way of hard data to say whether raising the cap hurts or helps artists, especially since they raised the cap from 5000 to 6000 only five months after raising it from 3000 to 5000. Any way you look at it, though, raising the sell-out cap without raising the first-day compensation for the artist is a betrayal. I can't think of any better way to put it.

With each increase, woot has increased its profits without sharing any of the additional first-day profits with the artists - the people who are enabling them to make the pie bigger, as fablefire put it above. One could say that the profits won't increase "that much", since more people might be buying shirts at $10 instead of $15, but the fact remains that they can now sell twice as many shirts in one day as they could in 2008, while paying the artist the exact same first-day commission. That's essentially cheating the artists.

Probably half of the posts I've read in various threads about this issue have suggested some form of graduated pay structure for first-day commissions. Most of these ideas are pretty solid, IMHO, and still leave the scales heavily weighted in Woot's favor when it comes to making a profit. (The idea novastarj posted here is my personal favorite, not least because it would be simpler for woot to implement than some of the other plans.) I find it, frankly, disturbing that all of the official responses posted by joelterrific or snapster (at least all of the ones that I have seen) have completely ignored these suggestions. The only thing I've seen from them that's even tangentially related to this question is this:

joelterrific wrote:There is no limit to the commission we'll pay, and most artist would agree the earning potential here is by far the most competitive. We've paid millions in commissions over the years and have no plans to stop.

Not only does that not really address the issue at all, it's also a hugely ingenuous statement--not quite an outright lie, but close. It may be true that there's no limit to the commission they'll pay for shirts like The Binge and Nevermore that continue to sell indefinitely, but they seem inordinately reluctant to raise the first-day payout in keeping with the increased sales cap.

Even if woot won't consider adopting a graduated pay structure as a possible course of action - which they should! - it's bad form to not even acknowledge the ideas that people are putting forth. They should at least have the balls to say, "No, sorry, we're not going to make any changes like that right now." Avoiding the issue just makes it seem like they don't even want to give wooters the right to be pissed off at them... and sorry, guys, but you don't get to decide whether we have that right.

Also, the fact that a fair number of wooters (like myself) who are not artists, but primarily consumers, are protesting this should tell woot something. We're not just whining in hopes of a better deal - we're demanding accountability, fair business practices and transparency. (I get the impression we have pretty much 0% chance of getting that last one, but I thought I'd throw it in there for good measure. )

mrwednesday wrote:There's basically no one left that isn't pandering one of the two ways.

Hey now, I almost never do pop culture or a "cute" style, and I'm a regular derby submitter. There's a lot of artists like me who have been a constant presence for years, yet always get overlooked whenever these sweeping statements about the artists who still stick around today are made, possibly due either to their silence on the forums or lack of prints.

Just saying there's more in the derby than Ramyb, Boots, Tjost, etc. But you wouldn't know it with the way people talk.

This was over 6 hours of research and number crunching ... there's still more to add, but I have to be off to work shortly. If you appreciate this, I accept shirts as donations. ^_^

-----

To start this off, we have to go back to when the 3k cap was in place. To extend out what the potential sales would be, I averaged the hourly sales breakdown to come up with approximately how many sales are accounted at what hour. There's a chart on every shirt's sale stats ...

I'm using seven first place shirts that sold out their 3k on debut day:
Week 180, No One Left to Play With in 12:56, which is approximately 68% of a day's sales.
Week 181, Gardening at Night in 18:07, which is approximately 84% ...
Week 185, Acquired Taste in 8:10, which is approximately 42% ...
Week 186, Cooler Than You in 11:07, which is approximately 60% ...
Week 187, Unstealthiest Ninja in 10:43, which is approximately 58% ...
Week 188, They call me… Tim in 11:43, which is approximately 62% ...
Week 191, Tea! in 18:45, which is approximately 86% ...

Without a cap, theoretically they would have sold 4412, 3571, 7143, 5000, 5172, 4838, and 3488 on debut day, respectively, totalling 12624 sales lost on debut day for those seven. Ultimately, they sold 3440, 3192, 4148, 3376, 3567, 3414, and 3190 through Monday. Presuming the following three days were the return customers, only 440 of 1412, 192 of 571, 1148 of 4143, 376 of 2000, 567 of 2172, 414 of 1848, and 190 of 488 ended up coming back, which averages out to 28.39%.

BUT it's not that straight forward, as even with the higher cap, shirts still sold over the weekend, which means that not all of those subsequent sales were due to the sold out sign.

With that in mind, here are five first place shirts that sold more than 3k but less than 5k on debut day:
Week 199, They're Watching, 3805 debut, 3937 through Monday.
Week 200, In the Library With the Wrench, 4309 debut, 4545 through Monday.
Week 202, Funny Things are Everywhere, 3841 debut, 4003 through Monday.
Week 204, Scissors Paper Rock, 4599 debut, 4863 through Monday.
Week 208, The Three Classical States of Matter, 4784 debut, 5019 through Monday.

Removing 3000 sales to establish the same basis, their Saturday/Sunday/Monday sales average 14.26% of their >3000 sales. Applying the numbers to five more >3000 shirts and their next three day's sales ...

Week 213, Cell Division, 3603 debut, 3820 through Monday. 217/820 = 26.46%
Week 214, Haunted Housework, 3991 debut, 4191 through Monday. 200/1191 = 16.79%
Week 216, Always Leave a Note, 4368 debut, 4539 through Sunday. 171/1368 = 11.11%
Week 218, Click or Treat, 4794 debut, 5105 through Friday. 311/2105 = 14.77%
Week 219, Star Map, 3680 debut, 3798 through Monday. 128/798 = 14.79%

10 shirt average, 15.53% - A difference of 12.87%. In other words, roughly 1/8 comes back to buy a shirt at $15 when faced with the sold out sign.

Last week was the first week of the 6k cap. The first shirt to push it is This Was a Triumph, 5468 debut, 5687 through Monday. 219/2687 = 8.15%

I will wait until tonight to see what Family Breakfast closes out to (and see if the math corresponds), but so far, the numbers say that indeed, the higher cap does have a negative effect on the artist's subsequent sales.

BTW, in no case am I painting any party as being too demanding or greedy here. I'm not an artist, so it's not like the commission structure ever affected me in the first place. I'm also well aware of the business side of things too, hence seeking that balance that takes Woot, the consumers, and the artists in mind.

I'd kind of like to see a graph showing total sales per shirt plotted over the years, and another graph showing payouts per shirt over the same time, estimated based on total sales and first day limit at the time the shirt came out. I know we could get that data from the woot statistics, but I betcha it'd look something like this:


While it's true that woot pays better than the other sites, especially if the artist has a shirt like the binge, it's also true that woot has really big sales numbers compared to the other sites.

Playing Woot's advocate, their goal is that every person on the planet who might want this shirt be given the opportunity to buy it.

As it is, Woot is not quite a household name. When I mention Woot even to computer-savvy people, most of the time they still haven't heard of it.

Once everyone knows about Woot, obviously 2nd day sales would be greater than they are today since the saturation would be complete. The first day sales would be an even larger percentage of sales than they are today but since the pie would be so much larger, the artists would also be rewarded well.

I realize there's a lot of assumptions in there -- feel free to shoot 'em down.

I say Woot ought to at LEAST up the winning prize amount to $1500, due to the increased caps. Or, instead of Woot losing money on every winning shirt that doesn't sell out, add a SELL OUT BONUS of $500-$1000 to compensate for the increased first day requirements. Do this ONLY for derby designs, not dailies.

I will say that Woot has the best print quality out there. While they may not have a large print area, and only do the center of a shirt, I have yet to have a print crack, peel, come off, or otherwise fall apart.

I have shirts from TeeFury and Threadless that haven't survived 4 washes without the ink getting wrecked, so Woot definitely makes a good product.

SkekTek wrote:Or, instead of Woot losing money on every winning shirt that doesn't sell out, add a SELL OUT BONUS of $500-$1000 to compensate for the increased first day requirements. Do this ONLY for derby designs, not dailies.

Something like this concerns me, because I feel that some artists are going to be making a lot of extra accounts and buying their own shirts near the end of a day if they see that their shirt is near a sales-tiered bonus payment. Spend a few hundred dollars on their own shirts, get an extra thousand dollar bonus... this kind of insanity I really hope to not be seeing around here, and I'm sure it will happen if there's a set bonus related to a number of sales on first-day.

(For those not aware, artists can always see what their shirt sales are at during the debut day.)

kinzoku wrote:Something like this concerns me, because I feel that some artists are going to be making a lot of extra accounts and buying their own shirts near the end of a day if they see that their shirt is near a sales-tiered bonus payment. Spend a few hundred dollars on their own shirts, get an extra thousand dollar bonus... this kind of insanity I really hope to not be seeing around here, and I'm sure it will happen if there's a set bonus related to a number of sales on first-day.

(For those not aware, artists can always see what their shirt sales are at during the debut day.)

I'd love to see an artist buy hundreds of shirts just to get some extra graft. IE- at $10/shirt, it'd quickly get expensive to get to that sellout point. Plus it'd take a LONG time to keep buying shirts.

If it was $500, then unless a design was <50 shirts away, then the person would lose money on it. And 50/6000 is really a drop in the proverbial bukkit.

kinzoku wrote:
Just saying there's more in the derby than Ramyb, Boots, Tjost, etc. But you wouldn't know it with the way people talk.

Kinzoku, before you go throwing other artists under the bus, many many artists here (not all) do a mixture of pop culture and non-pop culture. Artists don't control what gets votes. People want relatable, which often means pop culture. Spend some time on shirtwhat. Talk about overlooking and making sweeping statements...

thatrobert wrote:Playing Woot's advocate, their goal is that every person on the planet who might want this shirt be given the opportunity to buy it.

As it is, Woot is not quite a household name. When I mention Woot even to computer-savvy people, most of the time they still haven't heard of it.

Once everyone knows about Woot, obviously 2nd day sales would be greater than they are today since the saturation would be complete. The first day sales would be an even larger percentage of sales than they are today but since the pie would be so much larger, the artists would also be rewarded well.

I realize there's a lot of assumptions in there -- feel free to shoot 'em down.

I completely understand where you're coming from here. Woot's goal in consumer convenience and instant gratification. My big issues are these:

1. If someone comes to the Woot site for a shirt the first day and it's sold out, chances are they'll come again. They know the site. Selling more on the first day is not going to dramatically increase Woot's fame.

2. It would be ideal if Woot was concerned about making things more profitable for the artist as they increase their profits. So far, however, they have shown NO signs of being willing to hear what the artists have to say. Had they come forward with a plan like what you stated, that would be easier to take. But the comments from Woot staff have only been justifications (without data, I might add) that they hope people will buy. There's no good faith attempt being made here by Woot. None.

Narfcake has great stats up already (AWESOME!). Hopefully someone at Woot will take the time to look it over and advocate for the artists.

Papaya79 wrote:Kinzoku, before you go throwing other artists under the bus, many many artists here (not all) do a mixture of pop culture and non-pop culture. Artists don't control what gets votes. People want relatable, which often means pop culture. Spend some time on shirtwhat. Talk about overlooking and making sweeping statements...

I'm sorry if you think I'm trying to throw artists under the bus, because that's not what I was trying to suggest at all. I was saying that there's more regularly-appearing artists in the derby than just the ones that often get mentioned.

Papaya79 wrote:Kinzoku, before you go throwing other artists under the bus, many many artists here (not all) do a mixture of pop culture and non-pop culture. Artists don't control what gets votes. People want relatable, which often means pop culture. Spend some time on shirtwhat. Talk about overlooking and making sweeping statements...

I think kinzoku was merely expressing frustration at the fact that some people on Woot only acknowledge a handful of artists. (MANY of which have subbed, and continue to sub, pop cult designs here and elsewhere)

However, you are extremely correct in that people want something they can relate to. In order for people to react you have to give them something they want. That can be a character, a favorite subject, even an emotion. This entire competition is about convincing people to want your work, no matter how you go about it. :\ The three people who have the most success at that each week get their work printed.

To steer this back on topic, I have no problems with the cap raise. Other than Threadless and I think La Fraise, Woot has one of the best artist compensation rates on the web. For those with incredibly strong designs, you make less money on the first day, but your designs are assured a top spot on the Reckoning. For those with average or low selling designs, the cap makes no difference at all.

Papaya79 wrote:My big issues are these:

1. If someone comes to the Woot site for a shirt the first day and it's sold out, chances are they'll come again.

Actually, if you at my math, I calculated only a 1/8 return rate. That means 7/8 do NOT come back.

2. ... There's no good faith attempt being made here by Woot. None.

That's jumping to conclusions. Without customers, there's no revenue to Woot. So don't bite the hand that feeds you, y'know.

Narfcake wrote:(Lots of numbers)

I will wait until tonight to see what Family Breakfast closes out to (and see if the math corresponds), but so far, the numbers say that indeed, the higher cap does have a negative effect on the artist's subsequent sales.

I appreciate the work you put in here, but I think the approach is wrong. The next three days after a shirt prints are not what determine an artist's commission, it is the overall sales after the first day. I took a rough look at the numbers, and while it was difficult to find perfect examples for everything, I tried to pick shirts that ended up selling in the same general range.

So first, here are some stats for shirts that sold out at 3000 (If anyone has exact sellout times, I can edit the post, but these are as close as I can remember):

World 1-1 building- sold out around 10:39 AM, sold 2500 in reckoning
They call me tim- soldout around 11:02 AM, sold 1500 in reckoning
Cooler than you- sold out around 11:05 AM, sold 2500 in reckoning
Ding dong the witch is dead- sold out around 1:00 PM, 2700 in reckoning
Order of Operations- sold out around 11:00 AM, sold 2000 in reckoning
Cuteness Overflow- sold out around 12:45PM, sold 1700 in reckoning

The reason I chose these shirts is that they all fall around the same sellout time. The reason I chose this approximate time is that it projects to 5000 sold for the day. Therefore, these shirts would likely have just barely hit 5000, or at least come extremely close, had they been allowed to continue selling for the rest of the day.

Now compare this to shirts that sold over 3000, but fell short of the 5000 mark after the cap was raised:
Boba fetch- 4100 first day, 2400 in reckoning
Morning powerup- 4100 first day, 3100 in reckoning
Three Classical States of Matter- 4700 first day, 2700 in reckoning
Aztec Sunset- 3900 first day, 2100 in reckoning
Funny Things are Everywhere- 3800 first day, 1900 in reckoning
In the Library with the Wrench- 4300 first day, 3800 in reckoning
Poison- 4700 first day, 2500 in reckoning

These numbers are approximates, but I think they show pretty clearly that overall sales can be just as high if not higher with the increased cap. There may be a small impact on sales in the next couple of days after a shirt goes up for sale, but it seems to be made up for in the long run. And I only included shirts that already got reckoned in these numbers. Questionable table, which barely made the sellout mark at 5000 (which makes it pretty comparable to the shirts listed above) has already sold nearly 5000 more since its first day.

Obviously there are anomalies in both directions, but I don't think there is really reason to believe that the success, or lack of, of any one particular shirt can be attributed to a change in the sales cap.

SkekTek wrote:I say Woot ought to at LEAST up the winning prize amount to $1500 ...

Too much risk on designs that don't find the buyers. As it is, the $1k payout on designs that sell less than 1000 is break even at best, and most likely a money loser when overhead gets factored in. So yes, the better selling ones do allow Woot to print designs that otherwise wouldn't look all that fiscally good on paper.

Woot took a chance printing this one shirt I have. And maybe you'll understand why there is a need for some strong sellers from time to time too.

The bonus payout ... yeah, too easy to manipulate.

I will say that Woot has the best print quality out there. While they may not have a large print area, and only do the center of a shirt, I have yet to have a print crack, peel, come off, or otherwise fall apart.

The very early shirts weren't all that great in print quality (Sore Thumbs, Offensive Robot), and occasionally they do mess up, but in the grand scheme of it all, the print quality is great. More importantly, USA made! I can also count on the sizing - something I can't with Threadless because I have no idea if the shirt I get is from Bangladesh, India, Mexico, or ???. I haven't had any print issues with any of my TeeFury shirts, but it's not like I have many of them either.