“Do consumers want to design unique products on the internet? A ...

<strong>“Do</strong> <strong>consumers</strong> <strong>want</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong> <strong>unique</strong> <strong>products</strong> on the 

internet? A study of the online Virtual Community of 

Threadless.com and their attitudes <strong>to</strong> Mass 

Cus<strong>to</strong>misation, Mass Production and Collaborative 

Design”. 

Adam Fletcher 

This Dissertation is submitted in part-fulfillment of the degree of 

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Business Information Systems 

Nottingham Trent University, 2006 

Adam Fletcher – Do <strong>consumers</strong> <strong>want</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong> <strong>unique</strong> product on the internet. 

2006 

1

This is the public version of the dissertation made available at 

http://www.hiphipuk.co.uk 

About the Author 

Adam Fletcher – adamfletcher@gmail.com 

Founder of http://www.hiphipuk.co.uk 

Age: 23 

Based: Leipzig/London 

Tel: + 49 163 453 9016 

I would be interested in participating in further research <strong>to</strong>pics in this field of interest. 

I'd be really happy <strong>to</strong> offer (mostly bad) advice <strong>to</strong> anyone undertaking research in a 

similar area. 

Copyright: This research is offered under the Creative Commons Attribution-No 

Derivatives (basically just cite me if you use any of this). 

Thanks! 


2006 

2

Abstract 

Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation has been portrayed as the ultimate form of marketing and the 

“business opportunity of the next millennium”. However implementing a business 

approach which balances the mass with cus<strong>to</strong>misation is difficult with few success 

s<strong>to</strong>ries. This thesis presents the results of a case study undertaken with the online tshirt 

manufacturer Threadless and its Virtual Community. The literary assumption 

that <strong>consumers</strong> <strong>want</strong> <strong>unique</strong> <strong>products</strong>, following recent renewed interest in Mass 

Cus<strong>to</strong>misation has prompted this research. The aim of this study was <strong>to</strong> look at an 

industry where it is technically possible <strong>to</strong> deliver a “pure” Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation 

experience. Threadless’ business model instead aggregates user’s opinions of user 

submitted <strong>design</strong>s and manufacturers the most popular. This studies looks at why this 

model is an attractive proposition for cus<strong>to</strong>mers and for Threadless. The secondary 

focus of this study was <strong>to</strong> see how much collaboration occurred within Threadless’ 

Virtual Community, relating this back <strong>to</strong> the broader User Innovation & Mass 

Cus<strong>to</strong>misation literature. 

Research was conducted using an online questionnaire completed by members of the 

Threadless Virtual Community and a participant observation of messageboard posts 

and replies conducted over a seven day period. The Threadless community were 

found <strong>to</strong> (not as the literature would have predicted) willing purchase a product which 

was not <strong>unique</strong> even when other companies offered the opportunity <strong>to</strong> create a <strong>unique</strong> 

product. This was because of the innovative nature of the <strong>products</strong> <strong>design</strong>. The 

community valued this innovation over involvement in the <strong>design</strong> process. This thesis 

proposes that as the literature suggests the Internet eases the process for receiving 

information from cus<strong>to</strong>mers on their <strong>want</strong>s and needs. This supports the 1-1 cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

and supplier relationship needed for Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation. However it proposes that 

this same technology also facilitates communication between cus<strong>to</strong>mers and 

aggregation of their needs. This can help overcome some manufacturer inefficiencies 

in Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation, however, it also suggests that a model combining the 

individualisation of Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation and the personalisation of Mass or Niche 

Production with high cus<strong>to</strong>mer involvement may better suit both parties. 


2006 

3

Abbreviations 

BTO – Build <strong>to</strong> Order 

LP – Lean Production 

MC – Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation 

NPD – New Product Development 

VC – Virtual Community 

Figures & Tables 

Contents 

Figure 1: Production Methods - Comparison between Cus<strong>to</strong>mer 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 Cus<strong>to</strong>mers and 

Manufacturers” ................................................................................................................................... 35 

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

Figure 7: Responses <strong>to</strong> Q.17 <strong>“Do</strong> you <strong>design</strong> on your own”............................................................. 48 

Figure 8: Responses <strong>to</strong> Q.18 <strong>“Do</strong> you ask for feedback before you submit your <strong>design</strong>” ............. 49 

Figure 9: Responses <strong>to</strong> Q.24 reasons for not submitting a <strong>design</strong> ................................................... 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 

Table 4: Submission Comments Categories and Frequencies ......................................................... 47 

Table 5: Responses <strong>to</strong> Q.14 “Did you receive a response…” ........................................................... 49 

Table 6: Examples of Collaborative Thread Topics ......................................................................... 50 

Table 7: Responses most often voted 1-3 in importance................................................................... 54 


2006 

4

Chapter 1 

Introduction, Term Definition, Context and Justification 

“The business opportunity of the next millennium” (referring <strong>to</strong> Mass 

Cus<strong>to</strong>misation) 

(Hart 1995:1)

1.0 Introduction 

This dissertation will investigate <strong>consumers</strong> attitudes <strong>to</strong> Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation (MC) and 

collaboration for new product <strong>design</strong> 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 <strong>design</strong> competition in which users are 

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

rate the <strong>design</strong> out of five and can also provide qualitative feedback <strong>to</strong> the <strong>design</strong>er, 

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 Cus<strong>to</strong>misation (MC) 

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

“The use of flexible process and organizational structures <strong>to</strong> produce varied and 

often individually cus<strong>to</strong>mized <strong>products</strong> and services at the low cost of a standardized, 


2006 

6

mass produced system.” 


2006 

(Pg. 1) 

In short, increasing variety and involvement for every cus<strong>to</strong>mer 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 <strong>products</strong>/services 

and industries. In the apparel sec<strong>to</strong>r Spreadshirt the online <strong>design</strong> your own t-shirt 

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

Lego now actively engage their cus<strong>to</strong>mer base in new product developments and allow 

users <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong> their own Lego sets online (for more about the Lego Fac<strong>to</strong>ry see Berger et 

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

cus<strong>to</strong>m <strong>design</strong>ing (such as Reebok “CUSTomer” or Nike through “NikeID”) and some 

offer completely cus<strong>to</strong>m <strong>products</strong> exactly molded <strong>to</strong> fit the cus<strong>to</strong>mers foot (such as 

Adidas’ “miAdidas” service, see Berger et al 2005). Other MC <strong>products</strong> include Wine 

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

by Dell. Levi offer over 4,224 combinations of its cus<strong>to</strong>mised jeans (Rifkin 1994), while 

11 million bicycle variations are available from the National Bicycle Industrial 

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

<strong>to</strong>wards individualization and flexibility. The financial services sec<strong>to</strong>r allows you <strong>to</strong> 

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 <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>wards cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

involvement and empowerment. 

7

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

enabler, with which <strong>to</strong> interact with their cus<strong>to</strong>mers. 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 <strong>products</strong> produced in high volumes. This approach is often 

attributed <strong>to</strong> the work of Henry Ford and the model T Ford back in the 1920’s. Mass 

Cus<strong>to</strong>mization is concerned with creating <strong>unique</strong> <strong>products</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> 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” 


2006 

8

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

referred <strong>to</strong> as the Internet, “Arpanet”, was <strong>design</strong>ed as a community <strong>to</strong> share scientific 

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

become many thousands devoted <strong>to</strong> almost any imaginable niche, from the huge 

community building the online encyclopedia “Wikipedia” (www.wikipedia.com) <strong>to</strong> the 

children’s 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 cus<strong>to</strong>mer <strong>design</strong>ing 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 <strong>to</strong>wards individualised <strong>products</strong> increasingly 

<strong>design</strong>ed with input from cus<strong>to</strong>mers. 

The Internet has the potential <strong>to</strong> change the way we buy and sell, empowering small 

businesses <strong>to</strong> 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 cus<strong>to</strong>mers (Piller & Walcher 2005), allowing cus<strong>to</strong>mers <strong>to</strong> give feedback and 

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

power of the Internet lies in uniting individuals, developing a VC <strong>to</strong> support your 

business. 


2006 

9

The proposed benefit of MC is that <strong>consumers</strong> are incorporated in<strong>to</strong> the <strong>design</strong> process, 

<strong>design</strong>ing the exact product or service they require. This will allow a business <strong>to</strong> develop 

a 1:1 relationship with their cus<strong>to</strong>mers, understanding their exact requirements, helping 

<strong>to</strong> build a relationship with them which is impervious <strong>to</strong> competi<strong>to</strong>rs (Pine et al 1993). 

1.4 Justification of Topic Area 

Why should we care about Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation? Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation is an important 

<strong>to</strong>pic 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 <strong>to</strong>wards individualization” (Piller & Muller 2004:1). 

Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation has been described as the “business opportunity of the next 

millennium” (Hart 1995;1) for businesses willing <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> 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 & 

Piller 2003). It is suggested that now more than ever, is the time that we should reassess 

MC. Unlike at the ideas conception, <strong>to</strong>day the <strong>to</strong>ols needed <strong>to</strong> make it a successful 

proposition with the advent of e-commerce and internet are available (Lee et al 1999). 


2006 

10

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

proposal in <strong>to</strong>day’s business environment. This thesis will look <strong>to</strong> re-assess the business 

potential of MC and cus<strong>to</strong>mer 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 <strong>products</strong> and a strong interest in 

cus<strong>to</strong>misation, along with studies which suggest that <strong>consumers</strong> are willing <strong>to</strong> pay more 

for a product or services if they are involved in the <strong>design</strong> 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. 


2006 

11

Chapter 2 

Literature Review & Conceptual Framework 

“There is nothing simple about MC” 

(Hart 1995:1) 


2006 

12

2.0 Literature Review (5000) 

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

his<strong>to</strong>ry of the term. What follows is a critical re-examination of the underlying 

assumptions behind MC. This aims <strong>to</strong> show that the current academic thinking regarding 

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

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 Cus<strong>to</strong>misation. The first visionary definition is 

“the ability <strong>to</strong> provide your cus<strong>to</strong>mers with anything they <strong>want</strong> profitably, any time they 

<strong>want</strong> it, anywhere they <strong>want</strong> it, any way they <strong>want</strong>.” (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 <strong>unique</strong>, tailored 

experience that the cus<strong>to</strong>mer receives. You aim <strong>to</strong> reach large numbers of cus<strong>to</strong>mers but 

simultaneously treat them as individuals (Davis 1996), whilst aiming <strong>to</strong> maintain the 

efficiency of mass production (Pine et al 1993; Piller 2003). The other perhaps more 

realistic and practical definition offered by Hart is 


2006 

13

“The use of flexible process and organizational structures <strong>to</strong> produce varied and often 

individually cus<strong>to</strong>mized <strong>products</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> produce 

anything a cus<strong>to</strong>mer may desire but introducing flexibility, variety and where 

possible individualisation <strong>to</strong> the experience. Note that this definition does suggest the 

possibility <strong>to</strong> “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 <strong>to</strong> overplay the need for MC 

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

cus<strong>to</strong>mer involvement that is the fundamental principal of MC (Piller et al 2004). The 

experience itself more than what is created provides the <strong>unique</strong> value for each 

individual (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). The key differences between MC and 

MP are highlighted below in Table 1 


2006 

14

Table 1: Description of Production methods 

Method Quantity Produced Cus<strong>to</strong>mer Involvement 

Mass Production The Cus<strong>to</strong>mer is broken in<strong>to</strong> broad Involvement is limited <strong>to</strong> 

segments. The aim is <strong>to</strong> develop a product market research aiming <strong>to</strong> 

or service suited <strong>to</strong> the average user in each establish which product 

segment (Franke & Hippel 2002) 

attributes have the widest 

appeal (Duray et al 2000) 

Niche/Craft Production More categories and varieties <strong>to</strong> fit the Cus<strong>to</strong>mer involvement is 

needs of smaller, more specific segments usually higher than in Mass 

of buyers (Lee et al 1999) 

Production but limited <strong>to</strong> the 

same market research methods. 

Build-<strong>to</strong>-order Using standard modules allowing Cus<strong>to</strong>mer gets <strong>to</strong> configure their 

configuration at a late stage in the offering from a pre-defined 

manufacturing process. (Economist 2001) array of available components 

This is the model made famous by Dell. (Brand 2004). 

Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation Each cus<strong>to</strong>mer is their own segment Comprehensive cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

(Bardacki & Whitelock 2003), the aim <strong>to</strong> interaction is essential here, 

tailor the product/service <strong>to</strong> fit exactly the with the cus<strong>to</strong>mer actually 

needs of each individual consumer. initiating the interaction by 

sharing 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 <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> better meet the needs of cus<strong>to</strong>mers (Alford et al 2000). 

It is only when we consider the cus<strong>to</strong>mer involvement in each model that MC can be seen 

as a more fundamental shift in the manufacturing and marketing mindset from lean, niche 

or mass production shown in figure 1. 


2006 

15

Figure 1: Production Methods - Comparison between Cus<strong>to</strong>mer 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 <strong>to</strong> get greater cus<strong>to</strong>mer involvement, earlier. This changes the process from a 

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

than trying <strong>to</strong> sell a product you have already produced, you have already sold the 

product before you’ve created it (Rifkin 1994). As figure 1 shows the cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

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

The inherent complexity of combining the different approaches of “mass” and 

“cus<strong>to</strong>misation” in<strong>to</strong> one profitable and successful business model may explain why MC 

has not had business impact that was anticipated (Lee et al 1999) since the ideas 

conception more than 25 years ago, with many business “failing miserably <strong>to</strong> get the 

balance right” (Kotler and Armstrong 1999). 


2006 

16

Lampel and Mintzberg’s (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 <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> decide which approach best 

compliments the needs of their cus<strong>to</strong>mers and the capabilities of their business. Dells 

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

Applied <strong>to</strong> the Lampel & Mintzberg framework Dells approach it is not “pure” or even 

“tailored cus<strong>to</strong>misation” but “cus<strong>to</strong>mised standardisation” allowing the consumer <strong>to</strong> 

select not from limitless options but from a pre-defined array of components (Brand 

2004). This highlights how even the MC success s<strong>to</strong>ries infrequently achieved a MC 

scale <strong>to</strong> the right of the centre of Lampel & Mintzbergs approaches. 


2006 

17

With an overview of the his<strong>to</strong>ry and principles of MC now complete, the next section 

will look <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong>pic worthy of 

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

everything you make, mass cus<strong>to</strong>misation is irrelevant”. This like Harts visionary 

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

reality it is flawed. While <strong>to</strong>day a business may sell everything that it produces, only in a 

market monopoly are sales liable <strong>to</strong> be static and not subject <strong>to</strong> competition from rival 

businesses. While <strong>to</strong>day you may sell everything you make, a competi<strong>to</strong>r moving <strong>to</strong> MC 

and offering the cus<strong>to</strong>mer increased choice may irreversibly change this. Just because 

you are selling you may not be satisfying cus<strong>to</strong>mers or selling profitably and fast enough 

<strong>to</strong> reduce potential revenue sitting in s<strong>to</strong>ck. It also doesn’t address the fact that by 

utilising MC you are co-<strong>design</strong>ing with the consumer which will allow you <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> the literature a business’ choice not <strong>to</strong> pursue MC and encourage cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

involvement may be diminishing. Cus<strong>to</strong>mers now appear <strong>to</strong> be demanding more 

influence (Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004) with an “uninterrupted trend <strong>to</strong>wards 


2006 

18

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 

<strong>to</strong> pick from a range of uniform, average <strong>products</strong> (Lee et al 2000). Once the cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

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

becomes impervious <strong>to</strong> competi<strong>to</strong>rs (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 <strong>to</strong> entry for competi<strong>to</strong>rs (Peppers et al 1999). However, 

for the relationship <strong>to</strong> be considered impervious there would have <strong>to</strong> be a link between 

satisfaction and loyalty (repurchase intention). While the focus of this paper is not <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> 

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 client’s loyalty 

is multifaceted with manufacturer responsiveness being just one fac<strong>to</strong>r. 

To the cus<strong>to</strong>mer when asked if they are interested in MC, the idea of getting <strong>to</strong> produce 

exactly what they <strong>want</strong>, would no doubt be a tempting proposition. Problems arise when 

its time <strong>to</strong> create this product and articulate <strong>to</strong> the manufacturer their individual 


2006 

19

specification. Online the process is often simplified using online Configura<strong>to</strong>rs or 

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

as 

“Technology that allows users <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong> a novel product by trial-and-error 

experimentation, and delivers immediate (simulated) feedback on their <strong>design</strong> ideas.” 

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

outsourcing most of the process <strong>to</strong> the cus<strong>to</strong>mer (Piller 2002). However, the problem is 

that when faced with an online <strong>to</strong>olkit, multiple or even unlimited configuration options 

does the cus<strong>to</strong>mer know what they <strong>want</strong>? If they do know are they able <strong>to</strong> articulate it? 

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

user is overwhelmed by the number of <strong>design</strong> choices available <strong>to</strong> them. It is suggested 

that mass confusion is one of the major explana<strong>to</strong>ry fac<strong>to</strong>r 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 cus<strong>to</strong>misation options <strong>consumers</strong> didn’t <strong>want</strong> 

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

2.2 MC & the Manufacturer 

For the manufacturer MC offers cost saving potential through better forecasting and 

reduced wastage. Estimates suggest the apparel industry alone loses over $300bn every 

year due <strong>to</strong> erroneous forecasting, heavy inven<strong>to</strong>ry and lost profits as a result of 


2006 

20

necessary discounting <strong>to</strong> reduce s<strong>to</strong>ck levels (Sanders 2001). The key difference with MC 

is that <strong>consumers</strong> are incorporated in<strong>to</strong> the <strong>design</strong> process, and <strong>design</strong> the exact product 

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

they may theoretically be able <strong>to</strong> keep smaller inven<strong>to</strong>ries of finished goods. Heavy 

discounts and promotions <strong>to</strong> move less popular <strong>products</strong> out of warehouses may become 

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

1999). Whilst potential lowering s<strong>to</strong>cks 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 <strong>to</strong> be held <strong>to</strong> help support uncertain, fluctuating demand which could 

send inven<strong>to</strong>ry costs out of control (Lee et al 1999). 

This loss of certainty is offset by the possibility of charging more for cus<strong>to</strong>mised items. 

Just how much, if any, of a price premium a cus<strong>to</strong>mer is willing <strong>to</strong> pay is still open <strong>to</strong> 

debate with contradic<strong>to</strong>ry studies in the literature. Some research has suggested that 

cus<strong>to</strong>mer’s <strong>want</strong> and are willing <strong>to</strong> pay more for cus<strong>to</strong>mized or non-standard <strong>products</strong> 

(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 <strong>to</strong> unrealistic results as <strong>consumers</strong> have an imagination about cus<strong>to</strong>misation, 

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

respondents in these studies had no previous experience cus<strong>to</strong>mising <strong>products</strong>. Pine 

(1994; 14) suggests that in fact “Cus<strong>to</strong>mers don’t <strong>want</strong> choice. They <strong>want</strong> exactly, what 

they <strong>want</strong>”. Leaving aside the idea that any of us actually know what we <strong>want</strong>, it is 


2006 

21

unsurprising that many <strong>consumers</strong> would say they would be prepared <strong>to</strong> pay a premium 

for this experience. However, without experience in <strong>design</strong>ing <strong>products</strong> online cus<strong>to</strong>mers 

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

suggest on the whole <strong>consumers</strong> find it almost impossible <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> cus<strong>to</strong>mise a product, the 

number of people who said they would be interested and prepared <strong>to</strong> pay a premium 

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

manufacturer <strong>to</strong> provide the technical information in a format understandable <strong>to</strong> the 

cus<strong>to</strong>mer (sticky information, see Von Hippel 1998 for an overview), the consumer is 

able <strong>to</strong> produce something that meets their desires. As Expectation Disconfirmation 

theory suggests this is only made harder as increased cus<strong>to</strong>mers involvement will 

incrementally increase cus<strong>to</strong>mer expectations. It is for precisely these reasons that studies 

proclaiming cus<strong>to</strong>mers desire <strong>to</strong> MC and pay a premium for the privilege are met with 

skepticism. 

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

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

link between willingness <strong>to</strong> pay and cus<strong>to</strong>misation was Jiang (2002). This study looked at 

<strong>consumers</strong> willingness <strong>to</strong> pay a premium <strong>to</strong> cus<strong>to</strong>mise a lap<strong>to</strong>p computer. However in a 

market dominated by Dell which offers advanced cus<strong>to</strong>misation as standard why would a 

consumer be willing <strong>to</strong> pay more for the privilege? Cus<strong>to</strong>misation is no longer a 


2006 

22

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 <strong>to</strong> be able <strong>to</strong> conclude the long term effects of MC on an 

industry. 

2.3 Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation in the car industry 

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

potential of MC has been applied. One industry cited as being complimentary <strong>to</strong> a MC 

approach is that of the au<strong>to</strong>mobile industry. This is said <strong>to</strong> have the demand 

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

Whitelock 2003; Pine 1993; Cusumano 1994). It’s suggested that Vehicle Manufacturers 

(VMs) must aim for mass cus<strong>to</strong>misation so that everyone can find what they <strong>want</strong> at a 

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

markets and sophisticated cus<strong>to</strong>mers (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 <strong>to</strong> go through two radical shifts in 

manufacturing mindset as it has adapted <strong>to</strong> Mass Production pioneered by Ford and in 

more recent times <strong>to</strong>wards Lean Production pioneered by Toyota (Bardacki & Whitelock 

2004). The problem in the au<strong>to</strong>motive industry is that with a complicated manufacturing 

process it is generally accepted that adding variety results in additional operational costs 


2006 

23

(Brabazon & McCarthy 2004). Whilst the manufacturer might <strong>want</strong> <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> deliver the right level of variety. In this example common platforms can given the 

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

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

Instead of MC, VMs have due largely <strong>to</strong> the size of the industry been able <strong>to</strong> give the 

illusion of MC. Exploiting the Internet <strong>to</strong> find the whereabouts of a car that matches the 

cus<strong>to</strong>mers personal requirements somewhere within the existing manufacturing process 

or distribution system, often called Virtual Build <strong>to</strong> Order (VBTO) or locate <strong>to</strong> order 

(Brabazon & MacCarthy 2004). “VBTO exploits the variety that exists in au<strong>to</strong>motive 

pipelines […] easing the way for cus<strong>to</strong>mers <strong>to</strong> buy from future s<strong>to</strong>ck rather than from 

finished s<strong>to</strong>ck” (Economist 2001). In the au<strong>to</strong>motive industry it seems that, cus<strong>to</strong>mers 

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

Alford (2000) summarised the three commonly used MC approaches for VMs and these 

are outlined below in Figure 3. 


2006 

24

Figure 3: MC approaches used by VMs 

The reason for highlighting this industry is that despite attempts <strong>to</strong> incorporate MC in<strong>to</strong> 

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 <strong>to</strong>p end of market where it is 

available <strong>to</strong> cus<strong>to</strong>mers willing <strong>to</strong> pay a high price premium one example is BMWs 

“Individual Program” (Piller 2002). While this might be close <strong>to</strong> meeting the original aim 

of “anything the cus<strong>to</strong>mer <strong>want</strong>s, when they <strong>want</strong> it” this is unlikely <strong>to</strong> be “at the price 

that they can afford”. The car industry has realised that at present a “pure mass 


2006 

25

cus<strong>to</strong>misation” (Lampel & Mintzberg 1996) strategy is not applicable for this industry 

due <strong>to</strong> technological challenges and the realization that <strong>consumers</strong> <strong>want</strong> choice and 

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

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

system which offers a trade-off, allowing cus<strong>to</strong>mer involvement and utilising 

telecommunications technology <strong>to</strong> overcome manufacturing difficulties. Finding an 

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

2.4 Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation & 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 <strong>to</strong> reduce the often difficult and costly process of transferring a cus<strong>to</strong>mers <strong>want</strong>s 

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

suggest that mass cus<strong>to</strong>mization is a “post fac<strong>to</strong> reaction made possible by the 

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

cus<strong>to</strong>mized goods, Internet technology facilitates the personalisation of cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

relationships (Piller 2002). Amazons sophisticated recommendation and account system 

is an excellent example of this. Offering a tailored user experience <strong>to</strong> every cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

based on their interest areas and previous purchasing behaviour. One area that has 


2006 

26

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

cus<strong>to</strong>mising cus<strong>to</strong>mers can improve their MC experience. One internet technology which 

can facilitate this collaboration amongst <strong>consumers</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> have a significant impact on commercial 

companies fundamentally changing how they develop, price and promote their <strong>products</strong> 

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

(2000): 

“The union between individuals or organizations using electronic media <strong>to</strong> 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 isn’t scope in this research <strong>to</strong> cover them and explore the 

suitability of each type for innovative activity (for further discussion on this see Jeppesen 

& Frederiksen 2004). The main types of VC are shown below in Table 2, Threadless’ 

main community interaction takes the form of a Messageboard. 


2006 

27

VC Mediums Description 

Table 2: Mediums for VC communication 

Communication Type 

Chat Room Online conversation in close <strong>to</strong> real-time. 

Usually no record of communication kept. 

Synchronous 

Message/Bulletin Allow the user <strong>to</strong> post content which other Asynchronous 

Boards 

users may reply <strong>to</strong>, usually communication 

is kept for a long period of time and the 

community can browse this. 

News Groups Usually in the form of a Message or Bulletin 

board which requires specialist software <strong>to</strong> 

connect the user <strong>to</strong> the news server <strong>to</strong> 

view/contribute <strong>to</strong> users posts. Often the 

News Group is formed around a specific 

<strong>to</strong>pic. 

Asynchronous 

E-mail Group Often referred <strong>to</strong> as Listserv groups, this is a 

community centered on e-mail 

communication using one e-mail address 

which users use <strong>to</strong> post. These tend <strong>to</strong> have 

higher levels of moderation and more 

focused specialized communication. 


Instant Messaging Examples of this are MSN or AOL Synchronous 

(IM) 

Messenger, these enable you <strong>to</strong> build lists of 

your online friends and communicate 

directly with them. The emphasis here is 

often more on meeting people you already 

know than meeting new people as in a chat 

room. 

Wikis Pioneered by the online encyclopaedia 

“Wikipedia”. Community is usually built 

around a shared interest area in which all 

users have the same right <strong>to</strong> alter community 

generated content. 


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

mechanism <strong>to</strong>: 

- Facilitate a stronger relationship between the firm and its cus<strong>to</strong>mers (Brown et al 

2002; Hagel and Armstrong 1997) 

- Generate rapid-response and instantaneous feedback concerning different innovation 

projects throughout the entire innovation process (Ernst and Gulati 2003). 


2006 

28

- Access a communities’ publicly available knowledge base containing information 

detailing their likes, dislikes or demographics (Ridings et al 2002). 

Obviously before the consumer will be willing <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> contribute and the knowledge sharing potential between organisations 

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

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

and <strong>design</strong>s. 

Online communities have been found <strong>to</strong> be highly innovative and can be found for almost 

every product or service (Fuller & Hienerth 2004), with research suggesting that many 


2006 

29

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

Piller & Walcher 2005). 

Collaborative <strong>design</strong> is of interest as it may support MC using a community <strong>to</strong> encourage 

creativity and assist cus<strong>to</strong>mers in making better choices than if they are left <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong> 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 s<strong>to</strong>pping consumer specifying an individualized solution that 

corresponds <strong>to</strong> their desires. 

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

communities in<strong>to</strong> product development empowers peripheral players, giving them the 

right <strong>to</strong> contribute their own experience and individual knowledge <strong>to</strong> the final output. 

Each consumer can add <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> create software applications superior <strong>to</strong> 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. 


2006 

30

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 in<strong>to</strong> just how much help community members give each 

other and what motivates them <strong>to</strong> support and share ideas with each other has ultimately 

formed this thesis and research outlined below. Trust is expected <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> 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-collabora<strong>to</strong>rs should increase. The consumer 

becomes a virtual co-innova<strong>to</strong>r, with strong ties <strong>to</strong> the company and new product (Fuller 

et al 2004). 


2006 

31

2.5 Threadless - The future of Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation? 

Instead of thinking of opposites this thesis suggests that it’s the <strong>to</strong>wards the centre of the 

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

best fit for <strong>consumers</strong> and manufacturers. It’s suggested that conceptual polarization has 

lead management thinkers <strong>to</strong> ignore strategies which combine these logics (Lampel & 

Mintzberg 1996). One company which on the surface seems <strong>to</strong> 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 cus<strong>to</strong>misation & cus<strong>to</strong>mer input occurs at the earliest possible point in 

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

Figure 4. 

Figure 4: “The Threadless Business Model” 


2006 

32

In this approach the cus<strong>to</strong>mer is in almost complete control over <strong>design</strong>ing the product 

and determining what is <strong>to</strong> be manufactured. Every cus<strong>to</strong>mer 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 <strong>design</strong>s which the rest can comment and score 

from 1-5. The <strong>to</strong>p scoring <strong>design</strong>s are usually then manufactured (Threadless have the 

final say and consider fac<strong>to</strong>rs such as technical difficulty, number of colours etc) and sold 

in limited quantities on the site. The winning <strong>design</strong>er receives $2000 in exchange for the 

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

an approach which had only cus<strong>to</strong>misation at the <strong>products</strong> conception and <strong>design</strong> 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 Cus<strong>to</strong>misation. This thesis would like <strong>to</strong> show, contradic<strong>to</strong>ry 

<strong>to</strong> 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 cus<strong>to</strong>mers with similar 

requirements and interests in<strong>to</strong> niches, unifying a fragmented and heterogeneous market. 

All the idea generation and <strong>design</strong>s are created and approved by the Virtual Community 

with little involvement by Threadless. Only those <strong>products</strong> (t-shirt <strong>design</strong>s in this case) 

that have enough support and interest from the community make it in<strong>to</strong> production. In 


2006 

33

order <strong>to</strong> offer cus<strong>to</strong>mers exclusivity the t-shirts are manufactured in small batch 

quantities and some <strong>design</strong>s never printed more than once. In Threadless’ case this has 

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

This research aims <strong>to</strong> look more closely at why the Threadless model is successful and 

what motivates <strong>consumers</strong> <strong>to</strong> participate in this VC. The specific research areas can be 

found later in the Research 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 <strong>to</strong> 

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 cus<strong>to</strong>mers would probably rather create a <strong>unique</strong> offering <strong>to</strong> match their 

needs. Today’s business climate does not seem <strong>to</strong> offer this, so at present there is 

believed <strong>to</strong> be a disconnect between the cus<strong>to</strong>mers desire for involvement and 

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

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

number of shared fac<strong>to</strong>rs which reduce the attractiveness of MC <strong>to</strong> both the consumer 

and manufacturer. The framework outlines this perceived disconnect and recaps some 

points from the literature which encapsulate this. 


2006 

34

Figure 5: “Conceptual framework showing a MC disconnect between Cus<strong>to</strong>mers 

and Manufacturers” 


2006 

35

Chapter 3 

Research Strategy, Methodology and Approach 

“Even if the content of the new theory is about cus<strong>to</strong>mization, our thinking 

remains standardized” 

(Lampel & Mintzberg 1996:29) 


2006 

36

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 <strong>to</strong> try and answer the following 

research questions in relation <strong>to</strong> Threadless and its VC. 

1. How much collaboration is there between <strong>design</strong>ers and the rest of community 

prior <strong>to</strong> submitting <strong>design</strong>s? 

1.1 Do all community members submit <strong>design</strong>s? If not, what fac<strong>to</strong>rs s<strong>to</strong>p 

members submitting <strong>design</strong>s? 

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 in<strong>to</strong> product development empowers peripheral 

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

3.1 Research Justification 

Threadless has been chosen as the focus of my research has it has an interesting and 

<strong>unique</strong> business model, which could be said <strong>to</strong> contradict some of the MC literature. In 

the Threadless model the <strong>consumers</strong> supply the cus<strong>to</strong>misation, collaboratively, while the 


2006 

37

manufacturer handles the mass. If it is <strong>to</strong> be believed that <strong>consumers</strong> don’t <strong>want</strong> choice, 

they <strong>want</strong> exactly what they <strong>want</strong> (Pine 1994) then they would have little reason <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> upload their <strong>design</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> pure MC identified in the literature or 

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

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

study for what might happen when future technology removes the barriers <strong>to</strong> using close 

<strong>to</strong> “pure” MC (see Lampel & Mintzberg 1996) in more complex <strong>products</strong>/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 <strong>to</strong> gain a deeper 

insight in<strong>to</strong> a relatively unexplored phenomenon (Jeppesen & Frederiksen 2004). The 

research uses different research methods <strong>to</strong> enhance the precision of conclusions by using 

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

comprised a questionnaire completed online amongst community members and two 

different participant observations of the community. 

A questionnaire was used as it allowed for further exploration of the emergent themes of 

the action research but allows for drawing a broader consensus from the community in 


2006 

38

general. It can help <strong>to</strong> understand the meanings they attribute <strong>to</strong> their acts and <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> gather data on a specific 

<strong>to</strong>pic (<strong>to</strong> help answer the Research Questions), whilst also having questions which are 

more open in nature, complimenting the explora<strong>to</strong>ry nature of this study. Question 

branching was used in the questionnaire <strong>to</strong> separate users that submit <strong>design</strong>s and those 

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

A link <strong>to</strong> the questionnaire was posted on the Threadless “Blog Forum” which is a public 

messageboard. Prior agreement had been received from Threadless <strong>to</strong> post the message 

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

respondents <strong>to</strong> complete the questionnaire and raise its profile amongst the community. A 

prize draw was offered for those participants taking part <strong>to</strong> 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 s<strong>to</strong>pped this type of behaviour. 

The second piece of research was a participant observation, moni<strong>to</strong>ring and classifying 

all communication on Threadless’ messageboard called the “Blog Forum”. This 

observation lasted for seven days from the 1 st – 8 th March 2006. Further analysis and 

classification of the comments posted below the first ten <strong>design</strong> submissions mentioned 

on the “blog forum” during this time was also completed. 


2006 

39

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

researcher immersing themselves in the research setting, <strong>to</strong> sharing in the subject’s lives. 

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

community’s lives and understand how the community members interact and what 

encourages users <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> the text were recorded. Only 

communication deemed relevant <strong>to</strong> this research was viewed & categorized. Observation 

was preferred over active participation <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong>pics were viewed & classified, 

those relevant <strong>to</strong> the study (related <strong>to</strong> submissions or the process of <strong>design</strong>ing) also had 

their responses classified on a similar scale. 


2006 

40

3.3 Research Methodology 

It is suggested that Threadless is a <strong>unique</strong> community of co-<strong>design</strong> and it is proposed that 

by adopting an idiographic approach, it may help <strong>to</strong> highlight as many of the <strong>unique</strong> 

features of this community as possible (Bryman & Bell 2003). Yin (1984) notes that a 

case studies goal is <strong>to</strong> understand complex social phenomena that it is believed the 

Threadless community represents. The research view was essentially constructivist, while 

critics may argue that participant observation in this way lacks reliability and may lead <strong>to</strong> 

bias this is accepted, the Threadless VC is not an absolute reality where scientific and 

elaborate measurement may occur. A naturalist approach was adopted using just 

observation, this approach aims <strong>to</strong> study the social world in as close <strong>to</strong> its natural state as 

possible. The research questions are <strong>design</strong>ed <strong>to</strong> be explora<strong>to</strong>ry. With such little prior 

research in this type of collaboration, the behavior and motivation of the Threadless 

community is largely unknown. These research questions represent areas for research 

rather than hypothesis for testing. 

Adopting this single case study approach is often argued will create results that are not 

generalisable. In principal this is not disputed; however this Interpretivist approach may 

suggest the existence of some key motiva<strong>to</strong>rs or enablers which may exist in a number of 

different Virtual Communities. The goal is purely <strong>to</strong> seek a degree of theoretical 

generalisability from the results. This research is only meant <strong>to</strong> be explora<strong>to</strong>ry, 

highlighting the experiences and motivations of this one community. Ultimately we are 

looking at what is <strong>unique</strong> about this case and community <strong>to</strong> help generate a wider 


2006 

41

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

communities and the opportunity <strong>to</strong> gain a deeper insight in<strong>to</strong> Threadless (Jeppesen & 

Frederiksen 2004). 

All the research <strong>to</strong>ok place in a short time period of time (March – April) as it was 

deemed important as this research is did not attempt <strong>to</strong> 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. 


2006 

42

Chapter 4 

Findings & Discussion 

“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. 

(Franke & Shah 2002:158) 


2006 

43

4.0 Findings & Discussion 

Due <strong>to</strong> the explora<strong>to</strong>ry nature of this research there are no firm hypotheses <strong>to</strong> test, 

what follows is an outline of the findings from the empirical research addressing each 

of the research questions in turn. The chapter concludes with further discussion 

placing these findings in the context of the wider literature in this area before 

addressing the limitations inherent within the research. 

In <strong>to</strong>tal the questionnaire was completed by 204 visi<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> the Threadless “Blog 

Forum” (the Threadless name for the public messageboard, the two will be used 

interchangeably). As all site visi<strong>to</strong>rs regardless of whether they are guests or 

community members have the ability <strong>to</strong> view the Threadless “Blog Forum” the 

population is impossible <strong>to</strong> quantify. The “Blog Forum” is separate from the more 

common activities of rating, submitting or purchasing <strong>design</strong>s so is unlikely <strong>to</strong> be 

viewed by a large number of site visi<strong>to</strong>rs. In <strong>to</strong>tal 191 of these responses were 

deemed usable for this survey, the other 13 contained incomplete information. In <strong>to</strong>tal 

219 users started the questionnaire giving an 88% (approx) started/completed rate, 

this high completion rate suggests that the questionnaire was of an acceptable length 

and held respondents interest enough <strong>to</strong> progress them through <strong>to</strong> completion. 

Over the seven day participant observation a <strong>to</strong>tal of 422 messageboard threads 

(threads begin with a single member posting a title and message which other 

members may reply <strong>to</strong>) were viewed and had their <strong>to</strong>pic category logged. Table 3 


2006 

44

shows the different categories and the <strong>to</strong>tal number of individual threads in each. 

Thread types 3a-3e were deemed relevant <strong>to</strong> this study and likely <strong>to</strong> return data which 

would help answer the research questions. 

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

N. of 

Thread Type 

Threads 

1. Social - not T-shirt related 197 

2. T-shirt related - not Threadless 6 

3a Design help 

3b Request by <strong>design</strong>er for feedback on an Initial <strong>design</strong> 

8 

(before the submission stage) 17 

3c Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed scoring 

3d Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed scoring (by 

10 

the <strong>design</strong>er) 

3e Vote request for T-shirt undergoing scoring (by the 

24 

<strong>design</strong>er) 8 

4 Discussing of a winning (printed) T-shirt 59 

5. Discussing Threadless (The company)/Talking <strong>to</strong> Threadless 28 

6. Requesting a reprint of a sold out <strong>design</strong> 9 

7. Suggestions of what Threadless should do next 5 

8. Request for help (general not Threadless related) 20 

9. Street Team (a Threadless loyalty scheme) 16 

10. Sponsor Post (Post from Threadless) 2 

11. Discussion of recent Purchase/What <strong>to</strong> Purchase 15 

Total 424 

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

type’s 3a-e (67 in <strong>to</strong>tal) were considered of interest <strong>to</strong> this research and had their 

replies recorded and categorized <strong>to</strong> get a picture of the collaborative communication 

used on the Blog Forum. In <strong>to</strong>tal 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 

therefore the type of each reply was also recorded and categorised using a similar 

classification scale shown below in Figure 6, the number of replies by category is 

also shown. It may seem like only a small amount of all communication was 


2006 

45

categorised. It was a surprise <strong>to</strong> the researcher just how social the Blog Forum was, 

with the vast majority of <strong>to</strong>pics started (over 80%) having nothing <strong>to</strong> do with 

Threadless or <strong>design</strong> in general. While showing how close the community is and just 

how much of their day <strong>to</strong> day lives they shared with other members, off-<strong>to</strong>pic 

subjects such as “Which superhero are you?” or “I’m 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 <strong>to</strong> look at the category of 

communication used in the comments section below each submitted <strong>design</strong>. The 

submissions chosen were the first 10 submitted <strong>design</strong>s mentioned on the “Blog Forum” 

during the first stage of the participant observation. In <strong>to</strong>tal over the ten <strong>design</strong>s 589 

comments were posted and these were all categorised. Table 4 shows that the most 


2006 

46

commonly posted comments were giving positive feedback or making a suggestion <strong>to</strong> the 

<strong>design</strong>er, both considered collaborative. 

Table 4: Submission Comments Categories and Frequencies 

Comment Categories N. Comments 

1 General Conversation - not T-shirt related 55 

2 Designer discussing <strong>design</strong> 24 

3a Making a <strong>design</strong> suggestion e.g. reduce text 

size 114 

3b Giving <strong>design</strong> feedback - positive 332 

3c Giving <strong>design</strong> feedback - negative 30 

3d Giving <strong>design</strong> feedback - mixed 28 

3e Designer talking about incorporating 

responses 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 <strong>to</strong>pic 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 <strong>to</strong>o, and you have a 5” (Comment on Submission ID:3) 

The data collected from this research will now be used <strong>to</strong> help answer the research 

questions. 


2006 

47

4.1 Is there any collaboration between <strong>design</strong>ers and the rest of community prior 

<strong>to</strong> submitting <strong>design</strong>s? 

Results suggest that a considerable amount of support is available <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong>ers 

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

said they <strong>design</strong> on their own, shown below in Figure 7. 

37% 

Q17 - Do you <strong>design</strong> on your own? 

Figure 7: Responses <strong>to</strong> Q.17 <strong>“Do</strong> you <strong>design</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> 

ambiguity in the question. The failure on the part of the researcher <strong>to</strong> clarify what 

specifically constitutes <strong>design</strong>ing on your own versus collaboration undermines the 

strength of any conclusions which can be drawn from this section of the 

questionnaire. One user may consider the feedback they receive when another 


2006 

63% 

Yes 

No 

48

community member adds a comment below their submitted <strong>design</strong> 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 <strong>design</strong>s, shown below in figure 8. This suggests that 

<strong>design</strong>ers believed there <strong>to</strong> be a difference between collaboration and receiving 

feedback. 

Figure 8: Responses <strong>to</strong> Q.18 <strong>“Do</strong> you ask for feedback before you submit your 

<strong>design</strong>” 

In <strong>to</strong>tal 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 <strong>design</strong>ers that wish <strong>to</strong> use it. 

Q14 

Table 5: Responses <strong>to</strong> Q.14 “Did you receive a response…” 

Did you receive a response from other members offering <strong>to</strong> help? 

Yes 61 96.83% 

No 2 3.17% 

Not Sure 0 0.00% 

Total 63 


2006 

49

When asked the question “Have you found feedback on your <strong>design</strong>s 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 

<strong>design</strong>er <strong>to</strong>o, 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 <strong>design</strong> process from rough 

idea <strong>to</strong> submitted <strong>design</strong>. In <strong>to</strong>tal there were 57 specific threads started by <strong>design</strong>ers 

about their <strong>design</strong>s. Of these 25 <strong>to</strong>pics were for <strong>design</strong>s still in development and had 

<strong>to</strong>pic titles such as “Opinions Before Sub (submission)” and others shown below in 

Table 6. 

Table 6: Examples of Collaborative Thread Topics 

Thread N. Topic Title Date N. of Replies 

359 (sic) Villians Submission Preview "6th March" 20 

401 Samurai are dead (<strong>design</strong> help?) "6th March" 8 

413 The Bird Tree - Feedback Wanted! "3rd March" 12 

418 Opinions Before Sub "3rd March" 23 

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

community gave <strong>design</strong>ers asking for help. In this instance the <strong>to</strong>pic author had 

posted an early draft of one of their <strong>design</strong>s. 


2006 

50

“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 

<strong>design</strong> submissions. Of the 589 <strong>to</strong>tal comments posted, 114 comments suggested 

potential revisions or alterations <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>design</strong> evolution in which the community is developing <strong>to</strong>gether a 

product <strong>to</strong> match a subset of the communities needs or <strong>want</strong>s. Often these suggestions 

were acknowledge by the submissions author and included in later submission 


2006 

51

“Thanks <strong>to</strong> everyone who (sic) leave the comments. See you on the resub (sic) this 

<strong>design</strong> soon.” (Design Author, Submission ID 1) 

4.2 Do all community members submit <strong>design</strong>s? If not, what fac<strong>to</strong>rs s<strong>to</strong>p 

members submitting <strong>design</strong>s? 

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

considering the frequency of visits <strong>to</strong> the site suggests that the primary reason for 

using the site is not <strong>to</strong> submit <strong>design</strong>s. Question 23 asked respondents that had not 

submitted a <strong>design</strong> what was s<strong>to</strong>pping them, the results are shown below in Figure 9 

Figure 9: Responses <strong>to</strong> Q.24 reasons for not submitting a <strong>design</strong> 

Here the community and rating of other peoples <strong>design</strong>s provides an activity for the 

users that feel they don’t have the ability <strong>to</strong> submit a <strong>design</strong>. Designing a t-shirt is a 

relatively simple task yet 30% of respondents who had not submitted a <strong>design</strong> said 

they felt they lacked the artistic ability <strong>to</strong> submit. Some respondents who selected 


2006 

52

“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 <strong>design</strong>s that is greater than what I can 

produce myself.” (Respondent n.65) 

“I don't know how <strong>to</strong> use any <strong>design</strong>ing programs!” 

(Respondent n.47) 

“I hold threadless <strong>design</strong>s <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> the belief that their <strong>design</strong>s do not meet the 

standard required <strong>to</strong> win the competition, however there is no way from this 

questionnaire of knowing whether or not they would still produce that <strong>design</strong> for their 

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

also not be simplified through the use of a dedicated <strong>to</strong>olkit which if used may have 

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

asking for technical <strong>design</strong> help usually for a specific application such as Thread 351 

entitled “PSP7 HELP PLEASE” shown below 

“is there a way <strong>to</strong> smooth lines on Paint Shop Pro 7??” (Thread Author) 

“Smooth lines? what are you using right now? Smudge usually works, but it can 

depend on what <strong>to</strong>ol you're using, like pen <strong>to</strong>ol or just the paintbrush. “ 

(Respondent) 


2006 

53

It was expected that this figure would have been higher but that may be due <strong>to</strong> 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 

<strong>design</strong> and this support the notion that some <strong>consumers</strong> lack the technical skills <strong>to</strong> 

articulate their ideas and <strong>want</strong>s. 

4.3 What aspects of the Threadless business model do its community members 

consider the most important? 

When asked <strong>to</strong> prioritise from 1-7 the most important reasons why they purchased 

from Threadless the <strong>to</strong>p four variables cited 1-3 in importance as shown below in 

Table 7. 

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

Voted Voted 

Total 1-3 

cotes for that 

Voted 1 2 3 category. Ranking 

Innovative <strong>design</strong>s 

Exclusivity of <strong>design</strong>s 

(short run production 

51.83% 15.18% 6.28% 73.30% 1 

cycles) 

Involvement in the <strong>design</strong> 

9.42% 28.80% 15.18% 53.40% 2 

process 7.33% 16.75% 20.94% 45.03% 3 

Price 

The Threadless ethos and 

10.47% 10.47% 20.94% 41.88% 4 

brand 5.76% 11.52% 14.14% 31.41% 5 

Sizing and colour ranges 3.66% 12.04% 15.18% 30.89% 6 

Delivery times 11.52% 5.24% 7.33% 24.08% 7 


2006 

54

Surprisingly and contradic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>to</strong> the wider MC literature it was not involvement 

which scored highest, instead it was “Innovative <strong>design</strong>s”. In fact the results 

suggested that Involvement only ranked 3 rd in importance. Cus<strong>to</strong>mers liked the 

exclusivity offered by Threadless’ limited batch production. Perhaps in a market 

dominated by large multinational brands Threadless offers an opportunity <strong>to</strong> purchase 

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

respondent n.146 said “Uniqueness, that’s all I <strong>want</strong> and search (sic) from these 

shirts, it makes me feel as a single individual that doesn’t follow the clothing trends 

that are made popular <strong>to</strong>day.” Respondent n.164 agreed and said “I feel the greatest 

reason people buy from threadless.com is the short runs of <strong>unique</strong>, clever <strong>design</strong>s.” 

In this case the quality of the <strong>design</strong> might be far greater than they feel they can have 

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

<strong>design</strong>. So it’s suggested that the community is being asked <strong>to</strong> make a trade off 

between the losses in <strong>unique</strong>ness (compared <strong>to</strong> pure MC) for the increase in the 

<strong>design</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> simplify the cost of 

aggregating user’s requirements. The ratings system acts as a form of online market 

research gauging demand for an as yet un-manufactured product. During the research 

other examples of this aggregation were also observed. The participant observation of 


2006 

55

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

certain <strong>design</strong>s which were not popular enough <strong>to</strong> be put in<strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>design</strong> was very popular here on the blogs, but it did poorly out in the real 

world, and threadless has <strong>to</strong>ld us they don't <strong>want</strong> <strong>to</strong> print it. the question becomes, do 

we <strong>want</strong> <strong>to</strong> print it ourselves? if enough people are interested, i'll have the shirt 

printed up on my buck and sell it for cost here on the site...” 

(Reply on Thread ID:422) 

“Thanks for all the positive feedback everyone! (sic) and if this doesn't get picked, I 

will be printing it for my own company.” 

(Comment on Submission ID:10) 

While not authorised by Threadless this shows that even sub-groups of community 

members can use the functionality provided by Threadless <strong>to</strong> find other users with 

similar <strong>design</strong> tastes. These groups may not be large enough <strong>to</strong> warrant Threadless 

manufacturing the product but this showcases user led aggregation which may lead <strong>to</strong> 

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

Threadless.. 


2006 

56

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

communities in<strong>to</strong> product development empowers peripheral players”, how 

much evidence of this can be found within the community of Threadless? 

The answer <strong>to</strong> this question is dependent on who is judged <strong>to</strong> be the “peripheral 

players” within the Threadless community. If we consider that essential Threadless is 

running a non s<strong>to</strong>p competition then the key ac<strong>to</strong>rs are Threadless and the people that 

submit <strong>design</strong>s. Without these there is no venue, competition or manufacturer. With 

over 60% of respondents having never submitted a <strong>design</strong> this leaves the majority of 

our sample as so called “peripheral players”. If we compare their behaviour <strong>to</strong> those 

that have actually submitted a <strong>design</strong> <strong>to</strong> the competition, the results are surprising. 

Non-<strong>design</strong>ers reported higher overall satisfaction, rated more <strong>design</strong>s, were more 

likely <strong>to</strong> post or reply <strong>to</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> submit a <strong>design</strong> they are needed 

by the <strong>design</strong>ers <strong>to</strong> improve the ratings of their <strong>design</strong>s. The result of this is that in the 

observation period 17 different threads asked for their (and the community in 

generals) feedback on <strong>design</strong>s before submission and 24 during the ratings process. 

This supports Sawhney and Prandelli (2000) showing that a strength in the Threadless 

business model seems <strong>to</strong> be in the way that it offers different ways for peripheral 

players <strong>to</strong> become involved, as one questionnaire respondent said “we get <strong>to</strong> become 

a part of the t-shirt <strong>design</strong> we are helping somebody with… Involvement is a big 

fac<strong>to</strong>r. (Respondent n. 58) 


2006 

57

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

MC from the Literature review which was “Aim <strong>to</strong> reach large numbers of cus<strong>to</strong>mers 

but simultaneously treat them as individuals (Davis 1996)”. The Threadless model 

seems <strong>to</strong> achieve this, the experience is different for every person visiting the site as 

they decide what <strong>to</strong> rate, how <strong>to</strong> rate it and what feedback <strong>to</strong> leave, this experience 

offers the <strong>unique</strong> value which Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) suggested MC 

provides. The actual t-shirt purchased is not <strong>unique</strong> but because <strong>design</strong>s are limited 

the likelihood of seeing somebody else in the <strong>design</strong> is small. Small batch production 

over one off one off items should help the manufacturer <strong>to</strong>wards 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 <strong>to</strong> increase the likelihood whilst reducing the cost of finding multiple 

<strong>consumers</strong> 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 

<strong>unique</strong>ness. Instead of thinking that MC “is the capability <strong>to</strong> offer individually 

tailored <strong>products</strong> or services” (Zipkin 2001), instead the ideal as suggested from the 

Threadless research maybe closer <strong>to</strong> a limited (but not <strong>unique</strong>) product with the usual 

high cus<strong>to</strong>mer involvement. While the homogenous market may be in decline the 

internet offers an opportunity <strong>to</strong> find cus<strong>to</strong>mers with homogenous requirements. 

Piller and Walcher (2005:7) said that “The Internet provides an efficient platform <strong>to</strong> 

reduce the often difficult and costly process of transferring need information from 


2006 

58

cus<strong>to</strong>mers <strong>to</strong> a manufacturer.” Threadless seems <strong>to</strong> show that it also provides an 

efficient platform for cus<strong>to</strong>mers <strong>to</strong> transfer need information <strong>to</strong> other cus<strong>to</strong>mers 

supporting an aggregation of users requirements. Community members were 

observed explicitly stating what would have needed <strong>to</strong> be changed <strong>to</strong> unsuccessful 

<strong>design</strong>s in order that they would receive a better rating such as “I love the image, but 

I’m 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 <strong>to</strong>. 

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

“Heavy discounts and promotions <strong>to</strong> move less popular <strong>products</strong> 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 <strong>to</strong> MC, it delivers 

cus<strong>to</strong>mer involvement but minimises most of the challenges that reduce manufacturer 

satisfaction with MC. Lee et al (1999) said that for the manufacturer keeping large 

quantities and varieties of raw materials with uncertain, fluctuating demand could 

send inven<strong>to</strong>ry costs out of control. For Threadless they only need <strong>to</strong> purchase raw 


2006 

59

materials when they decide which t-shirt they <strong>want</strong> <strong>to</strong> produce. The community 

provides data <strong>to</strong> help gauge demand. Production complexity is reduced somewhat as 

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

of uniform, “average” <strong>products</strong> (Lee et al 1999). The research also seems <strong>to</strong> 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. 


2006 

60

Figure 10: Adapted Conceptual Framework 


2006 

61

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

form: 

• The majority of users did not submit <strong>design</strong>s but still showed high 

involvement and higher satisfaction scores than <strong>design</strong>ers. This supports 

• Supporting the idea that consumer have difficulty articulating what they <strong>want</strong>, 

the most popular reason for not submitting a <strong>design</strong> was “Lack of Artistic 

Ability”. 

• The primary reason for purchasing from Threadless was “Innovative 

Designs”. Exclusivity was considered more important in the purchasing 

decision than involvement. 

• A large amount of support was available <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong>ers and they showed a 

willingness <strong>to</strong> collaborate. Users provided feedback and suggestions <strong>to</strong> 

<strong>design</strong>ers at every <strong>design</strong> stage. Community members who felt they lack the 

artistic ability <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong> could perform other functions in the <strong>design</strong> process. 


2006 

62

Chapter 5 

“Armed with new connective <strong>to</strong>ols, <strong>consumers</strong> <strong>want</strong> <strong>to</strong> interact and co-create value, not 

just with one firm but with whole communities of professionals, service providers, and 

other cus<strong>to</strong>mers. “ 

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

Conclusion, Research Conclusions & Limitations, Reflective Critique of the 

Research Process and Recommendations 


2006 

63

5.0 Conclusion 

This thesis has extended the current MC and cus<strong>to</strong>mer collaboration literature by looking 

at a <strong>unique</strong> business model offered by Threadless which has both characteristics. While 

the literature is concerned with promoting the idea of offering cus<strong>to</strong>mers <strong>unique</strong> <strong>products</strong> 

from <strong>unique</strong> experiences, this thesis challenges the assumption that <strong>consumers</strong> <strong>want</strong> and 

can realistically achieve this <strong>unique</strong>ness. Utilising a multi-part participant observation 

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

approach <strong>to</strong> MC. 

This explora<strong>to</strong>ry research aimed <strong>to</strong> find out why a consumer would buy a limited product 

from Threadless when rival companies can offer them the chance <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong> a <strong>unique</strong> 

product. It also tests literary assumptions that cus<strong>to</strong>mers lack the knowledge <strong>to</strong> 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. 


2006 

64

5.1 Research Conclusions & Limitations 

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

production, giving cus<strong>to</strong>mers a <strong>unique</strong> experience but asking them <strong>to</strong> agree collectively 

on which product best suits their needs. This aggregation allows the manufacturer <strong>to</strong> 

produce in small batches instead of producing one off <strong>unique</strong> items. This approach is 

further supported by the results of the questionnaire in which respondents placed 

“innovative <strong>design</strong>s” over involvement in the <strong>design</strong> process as the key reason they buy 

from Threadless. 

The first key finding was that <strong>consumers</strong> in this case seemed willing <strong>to</strong> make the trade off 

between creating a <strong>unique</strong> product <strong>to</strong> receive a product that many suggested was of a 

higher standard that they would have been able <strong>to</strong> produce. This has potential impact for 

those business’ considering MC and offering a fully cus<strong>to</strong>mised product. 

The second key finding observed in the participant observation was the willingness of the 

VC <strong>to</strong> support each other and offer help and advice throughout the <strong>design</strong> process. This 

support can help overcome the problems that cus<strong>to</strong>mers have during the MC process and 

reduce the support the manufacturer has <strong>to</strong> provide. 

The final conclusion drawn from this research is that while technology is cited as 

removing communication barriers between manufacturers and cus<strong>to</strong>mers, making it 

easier <strong>to</strong> receive <strong>want</strong> information, it is also suggested that this same technology 

facilitated the sharing of <strong>want</strong> information amongst cus<strong>to</strong>mers. Threadless has developed 


2006 

65

a mechanism <strong>to</strong> aggregate this information and let its cus<strong>to</strong>mers decide collaboratively 

the <strong>products</strong> which best meet their aggregated needs. It’s proposed that this reduces the 

current disconnect between a manufacturers desire for production efficiency and reliable 

demand and a cus<strong>to</strong>mers desire for involvement and <strong>unique</strong> (or at least limited) <strong>products</strong>. 

This may have implications for manufacturers trying fruitlessly <strong>to</strong> offer the <strong>unique</strong>ness 

that the MC literature proclaims cus<strong>to</strong>mers <strong>want</strong>, when an equally effective albeit less 

radical approach may be available. 

5.2 Reflective Critique of the Research Process 

It is felt that this thesis has achieved its initial aim of prompting further discussion about 

the underlying assumptions within MC. However, there were some mistakes in the data 

collection process. While these haven’t undermined the generalisability of the results, 

they do represent missed opportunities. The original plan for the research was <strong>to</strong> conduct 

another questionnaire with the VC of another make-your-own t-shirt manufacturer. 

Finding a company with a VC comparable <strong>to</strong> Threadless’ did not prove possible with 

another questionnaire returning just 30 responses. The research was always supposed <strong>to</strong> 

be cross-sectional, but with a need for further research <strong>to</strong> back up the results of the 

Threadless Questionnaire, the participant observation was conducted late in the thesis 

process and would really have benefited from being conducted for a longer period than 

seven days. It is felt that as the results can only show one side of the s<strong>to</strong>ry and that this 

reduces the impact of the conclusions. The following recommendations recognise these 

shortcomings but also that this thesis represents an excellent starting point for further 

research. 


2006 

66

5.3 Recommendations 

The most obvious criticism that can be leveled at this research is that the relatively 

simple task of <strong>design</strong>ing a t-shirt is what accounts for the unexpected results. The 

importance of task complexity in determining the support offered by a community and 

the cus<strong>to</strong>mers preference for innovation over involvement need <strong>to</strong> be tested further by 

picking a community centered on a more complicated <strong>design</strong>. Further research is needed 

<strong>to</strong> see if this model could be applied <strong>to</strong> the creation of other <strong>products</strong> and services with 

higher “sticky” information levels or specialist knowledge requirements. 

In keeping with the original research plan it would be beneficial <strong>to</strong> compare the results 

here with similar research at a VC of a pure mass cus<strong>to</strong>misation t-shirt manufacturer such 

as Spreadshirt. A contrast could then be made of the behaviour reported here <strong>to</strong> that of 

other VCs. As only one case has been studied it is difficult <strong>to</strong> gauge the generalisability 

of these results and further research would help. 

If this user centered model of innovation is shown <strong>to</strong> be successful elsewhere, further 

research on the role of the sponsor would be beneficial. How does a business go about 

creating and supporting a community like this? At present very little research exists on 

this <strong>to</strong>pic. Is the sponsor role <strong>to</strong> govern the community, or more organically, let it govern 

itself, what effect would this have on the innovative activity that happens there? Also 

further research in<strong>to</strong> the frequency and quality of the innovative activity and the type of 

<strong>to</strong>olkit used may generate some guidelines for business looking at using this model for 

NPD. 


2006 

67

A further variable which was intended <strong>to</strong> address in the questionnaire but was omitted 

due <strong>to</strong> researcher error was <strong>to</strong> address the importance of branding. What effect does 

brand perception have on the willingness of <strong>consumers</strong> <strong>to</strong> MC and collaborate with other 

users? 

The research hinted at a potential link between involvement and purchase intention. 

Though not enough evidence was available <strong>to</strong> warrant including this in the results 

section it would be interesting for further research either with Threadless or another 

VC for user innovation <strong>to</strong> try and find a link between involvement in the innovation 

process and likelihood of purchase. It seems probable that after contributing <strong>to</strong> the 

innovation process a consumer would <strong>want</strong> <strong>to</strong> purchase the fruits of their labour, but 

little empirical evidence exists <strong>to</strong> test this when the innovation occurs within a VC. A 

majority of respondents felt that simply rating a <strong>design</strong> regardless of the rating given 

increased the chance that they would purchase it. Respondent 11 said that they felt 

they got “Way better scores when people feel they helped decide the final product...” 

This could have important implications as it may mean that regardless of the quality 

of the output simply being involved in the process might strengthen the likelihood of 

purchase. Expectation Disconfirmation theory (see Selnes 1998 for an overview) 

suggests that increased involvement raises consumer’s expectations, so there is an 

interesting potential paradox between these two ideas which would benefit from 

further research. 


2006 

68

Chapter 6 

References & Appendices 

“As electronic markets continue <strong>to</strong> evolve, along with their infrastructure and 

communication models, so will the complexity and importance of the social structures 

which attach themselves <strong>to</strong> these markets. The understanding of these social structures 

will be the key <strong>to</strong> <strong>design</strong>ing a socially and technically efficient market space” Pg. 1954 

(Schubert & Koch 2002:1954) 


2006 

69

6.0 References 

Agrawal, M. Kumaresh, V. Mercer, G. (2001) “The false promise of mass 

cus<strong>to</strong>mization” The McKinsey Quarterly, 2001, N.3 

Alford , D. Sackett, P. & Nelder, G. (2000) “Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation – an au<strong>to</strong>motive 

perspective”. International Journal of Production Economics 65 (2000) 99-110 

Armstrong, A. & Hagel, J. (1995) “Real Profits from Virtual Communities.” 

McKinsey Quarterly; 1995 Issue 3, p126-141. 

Armstrong, J & Over<strong>to</strong>n, T (1977). “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.” 

Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (August), 396-402. 

Bardacki, A. & Whitelock, J. (2004) “How “ready” are cus<strong>to</strong>mers for mass 

cus<strong>to</strong>misation. An explora<strong>to</strong>ry investigation”. Emerald Journal of Marketing Vol.38, 

n.11/12, pg.1396-1416. 

Brabrazon, P. & MacCarthy, B. (2004) “Giving cus<strong>to</strong>mers the car they <strong>want</strong>” IEE 

Manufacturing Engineer, Feb/March 2004 

Berger, C. Moslein, K. Piller, F. & Reichwald, R. (2005) “Designing modes of cooperation 

at the cus<strong>to</strong>mer interface: learning from explora<strong>to</strong>ry research.” European 

Management Review (2005) 2, 70-87. 

Brand, R. (2004) “The Citizen-Innova<strong>to</strong>r” Working Paper available at 

http://home.arcor.de/brandrg/data/citizen-innova<strong>to</strong>r.pdf [last accessed 1 st April 2006] 

Brown, S.L., Til<strong>to</strong>n, A. & Woodside, D (2002) “The case for on-line communities.” 

The Mckinsey Quarterly, 1. 

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2003) “Business Research Methods.” Oxford University 

Press: Oxford 

Collin, S (1999) <strong>“Do</strong>ing Business on the Internet”. 3 rd Edition, Kogan Page; London 

Cusumano, M (1994) “The Limits of lean” Sloan Management Review 35 (4) pg27- 

32 

Davis, S. (1996) “Future Perfect” Addison-Wesley;Reading 

Dellbridge, R. & Kirkpatrick, I. (1994) “Theory and practice for participant 

observation” in Saunders et al (2003) “Research Methods for Business” (3 rd edn) 

Pearson Education:Harlow 

Dholakia, U. Bagozzi, R. Pearo, L. (2004) “A social influence model of consumer 


2006 

70

participation in network and small group based virtual communities” International 

Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (2004) 241-263. 

Economist (2001) “Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation: A long March” The Economist Online 

Available from 

http://www.economist.com/business/displays<strong>to</strong>ry.cfm?s<strong>to</strong>ry_id=691227 [last 

accessed 20 th March] 

Ernst, H. & Gulati, R. (2003) “Virtual Cus<strong>to</strong>mer Integration – Bringing the Cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

back in<strong>to</strong> the Organisation”. In Fuller et al (2004) 

Franke, N. & Shah, S. (2002) “How communities support innovative activities: an 

exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users.” Research Policy 32; 157-178 

Franke, N. & Von Hippel, E. (2003) “Satisfying Heterogeneous User Needs via 

Innovation Toolkits: The case of the Apache Security Software” Research Policy 32, 

no.7: 1199-1215 

Fuller, J. & Hienerth, C. (2004) “Engaging the creative consumer.” European 

Business Forum (EBF); issue 19, autumn 2004. 

Fuller, J. Bartl, M. Holger, E. & Muhlbacher, H. (2004) “Community Based 

Innovation: A Method <strong>to</strong> Utilize the Innovative Potential of Online Communities” 

Proceedings from the 37 th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences 

2004. Available at 

http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/07/205670195c.pdf [last 

accessed 10 th Sept 2005] 

Hagel & Armstrong (1997) “Net Gain: Expanding markets through virtual 

communities.” Bos<strong>to</strong>n, MA: Harvard Business School Press 

Hart, C. (1995) “Mass cus<strong>to</strong>mization: conceptual underpinnings, opportunities and 

limits” International Journal of Service Industry Management Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 36- 

45 

Hosmer, L.T. (1995) “Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and 

philosophical ethics.” Academy of Management Review 20 (2), 379-403 

Iacobucci, D. Grayson, K. & Ostrom, A. (1994) “Cus<strong>to</strong>mer Satisfaction Fables.” 

Sloan Management Review, Summer 1994. 

Jick, D. (1979) “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in 

Action.” Administrative Science Quarterly, v24 n4 p602-11 Dec 1979. [Cited in 

Jeppesen & Frederiksen 2004] 


2006 

71

Jeppesen, L. & Frederiksen, L. (2004) “Why firm-established user communities work 

for innovation: The personal attributes of innovative users in the case of computercontrolled 

music instruments” Working paper available at 

http://ideas.repec.org/p/ivs/iivswp/04-02.html [Accessed 10 th March 2006] 

Jiang, P. (2002) “Exploring <strong>consumers</strong>' willingness <strong>to</strong> pay for online cus<strong>to</strong>misation 

and its marketing outcomes.” Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for 

Marketing; Vol. 11, 168-183 

Kamali, N. & Loker, S. (2002) “Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>mization: On-line Consumer Involvement 

in Product Design.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 7; n.4. 

Lampel, J. & Mintzberg, H. (1996) “Cus<strong>to</strong>mizing Cus<strong>to</strong>mization” Sloan Management 

Review, Fall 1996, pp. 21-30 

Lee, S.E. & Chen, J. (1999) “Mass-cus<strong>to</strong>mization Methodology for an Apparel 

Industry with a Future” Journal of Industrial Technology, vol.16, n.1 Nov 1999 – Jan 

2000 

Lee, S. Barua, A. Whins<strong>to</strong>n, B. (1999) “The complementary of Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>mization 

and Electronic Commerce.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 9, 

No. 2, March 2000, pp. 81-109 

Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (1999) “Principles of Marketing” 2 nd European Edition 

London:Prentice-Hall Europe 

Oon, Y and Khalid, H (2001) “How does web site <strong>design</strong> and usability of online 

configura<strong>to</strong>rs user satisfaction and site efficiency in supporting <strong>design</strong> activity?” 

[Cited in Tseng & Piller (2003)] 

Peppers, D. Rogers, M. & Dorf, B. (1999) “Is Your Company Ready For One-To- 

One Marketing?” Harvard Business Review, January 1, 1999, Vol. 77, Issue 1. 

Paccagnella, L. (1997) “Getting the Seat of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for 

Ethnographic Research on Virtual Communities.” Journal of Computer-Mediated 

Communication, Vol.3, Issue 1. 

Piller, F. (2002) “Cus<strong>to</strong>mer interaction and digizability - a structured approach <strong>to</strong> 

mass cus<strong>to</strong>mization.” Working Paper, Available at http://www.masscus<strong>to</strong>misation.de/download/pil2002-2.pdf 

[Accessed 05th Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2005.] 

Piller, F. & Berger, C. (2003) “Cus<strong>to</strong>mers as Co-Designers.” IEE Manufacturing 

Engineer. August/Sept 2003 

Piller, F. Moeslein, K. & S<strong>to</strong>tko, C. (2004) <strong>“Do</strong>es mass cus<strong>to</strong>mization pay? An 

economic approach <strong>to</strong> evaluate cus<strong>to</strong>mer integration.” Production Planning & 


2006 

72

Control. Vol. 15, N.4, June 2004, 435-444 

Piller, F. & Muller, M. (2004) “A New Marketing Approach <strong>to</strong> Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation.” 

Int J. of Computer Integrated manufacturing. Oct/Nov 2004, Vol. 17, N.7, 583-593. 

Available at http://www.mass-cus<strong>to</strong>mization.de/download/ijcim04.pdf. [last accessed 

1st Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2005] 

Piller, F. Schubert, P. Koch, M. Moslein, K. (2005) “Overcoming Mass Confusion: 

Collaborative cus<strong>to</strong>mer co-<strong>design</strong> in online communities.” Journal of Computer- 

Mediated Communication, 10 (2005) 4. Available from 

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/piller.html [last accessed 10th Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2005] 

Piller, F. Walcher, D. (2006): “Toolkits for Idea Competitions: A Novel Method <strong>to</strong> 

Integrate Users in New Product Development”, Journal of R&D Management. 

Pine, J. (1993) “Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>mization: The new frontier in business competition.” 

Harvard Business School Press; Bos<strong>to</strong>n 

Pine, J. Vic<strong>to</strong>r, B and Boyn<strong>to</strong>n, C. (1993) "Making Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>mization Work" 

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, September-Oc<strong>to</strong>ber, 1 

1993, pp. 108-111. 

Pine, J. (1994) “Cus<strong>to</strong>mers don’t <strong>want</strong> choice”, Managers Journal, Wall Street 

Journal, 18 th April, p.A14 

Pine, J. (1998) “Welcome <strong>to</strong> the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business 

Review, Jul/Aug98, Vol. 76 Issue 4. 

Porter, M. (2001) “Strategy and the Internet” Harvard Business Review, Vol.79, Iss.3, 

pp. 62 -79. 

Prahalad, C. Ramaswamy, V (2004) “The Future of Competition: Co-Creating 

Unique Value with Cus<strong>to</strong>mers” Massachusetts:Harvard Business School Press 

Rainie, L., & Packel, D. (2001) “More online, doing more.” Pew Internet & 

American Life Project. [online] Available from 

http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/vf_pew_internet_community.pdf 

[last accessed 14th December 2005] 

Rheingold, H. (2000) “The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic 

Frontier.” MIT Press; Available at http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/intro.html 

[last accessed 30th November 2005] 

Ridings, M. Gefen, D & Arinze, B. (2002) “Some antecedents and effects of trust in 

virtual communities.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11; 271-295 


2006 

73

Rifkin, G. (1994) “Digital blue jeans pour data and legs in<strong>to</strong> cus<strong>to</strong>mized fit” New 

York Times, Nov 8 1994, p. A1. [Cited in Lee et al 1999] 

Sanders, H. (2001) “Financial rewards of mass cus<strong>to</strong>mization.” MCPC 2001, 

Proceedings of the 2001 World Congress on Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>mization and 

Personalization, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. [online] 

available at http://www.sanders.ch/2000-02- 

23,%20Mass%20Cus<strong>to</strong>mization%20(New%20York%20speech).pdf 

[last accessed 15 th March] 

Saunders et al (2003) “Research Methods for Business” (3 rd edn) Pearson 

Education:Harlow 

Selnes, F. (1998) “Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyerseller 

relationships” European Journal of Marketing, Apr 1998 Vol.32 Iss.3/4 pp. 305 

- 322 

Sawhney, M. & Prandelli, E. (2000)“Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent 

Markets.” California Management Review, Summer 2000; Vol. 42, Issue 4. 

Schubert, P. & Ginsburg, M. (2000) “Virtual Communities of Transaction: The Role 

of Personalization in Electronic Commerce.” Electronic Markets 

Schubert, P. & Koch, M. (2002) “The Power Of Personalization: Cus<strong>to</strong>mer 

Collaboration and Virtual Communities.” Eighth Americas Conference on 

Information Systems 

Seiders, K. Voss, G. Grewal, D. Godfrey, A. (2005) <strong>“Do</strong> Satisfied Cus<strong>to</strong>mers Buy 

More? Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context.” Journal of 

Marketing, vol. 69 (Oct 2005) pp26-43 

Sudweeks, F. & Rafaeli, S. (1995) “How do you get a hundred strangers <strong>to</strong> agree? 

Computer-mediated communication and collaboration.” In Harrison, M & Stephen, D 

(1996) ”Computer networking and Scholarship in the 21st Century University” 

SUNY Press, pp.115-136. [Cited in Paccagnella 1997] 

Teresko, J. (1994) “Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>mization or Mass Confusion.” Industry Week, June 

20, 1994 

Thomsen, S. Straubhaar, D. Boyland, D. (1998) “Ethnomethodology and the study of 

online communities: exploring the cyber streets.” Information Research, Vol. 4, N.1, 

July 1998 

Tseng, M. & Piller, F. (2003) The Cus<strong>to</strong>mer Centric Enterprise. New York: Springer. 


2006 

74

Von Hippel, E. (1986) “Lead users: a source of novel product concepts.” 

Management Sciences 32 (7), 791-805 

Von Hippel E. & Tyre, M. (1995) "How "Learning by Doing" is Done: Problem 

Identification in Novel Process Equipment." Research Policy, (January) p. 1-12. 

Von Hippel, E. (1998) “Economics of Product Development by Users: Impact of 

"Sticky" Local Information.” Management Science, vol 44, n.5 (May) p. 629-644 

Von Hippel, E. (2005) “Democratizing Innovation.” MIT Press accessed. Available 

at http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/ [Accessed 1 st Oct] 

Wellman, B. (1999) “Networks in the global village: Life in the contemporary 

communities.” [Cited in Dholakia et al (2004)] 

Yin, K. (1984) “Case study research: Design and methods” Newbury Park:CA. 

Zipkin, P. (2001) “The Limits of Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>mization.” MIT Sloan Management 

Review; Spring 2001, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p81-87 


2006 

75

6.1 Appendices 

Appendix A – Example Questionnaire 

The questions are shown below are in the exact order they appear <strong>to</strong> the respondents. 

Branching was used on the questionnaire so a respondent would only see questions 

relevant <strong>to</strong> them based on their previous responses (the question numbering was 

handled by the questionnaire management software and as a result is a little illogical, 

the respondents did not see the question number in this way). 

1. How old are you? 

1. Under 10 years 

2. 10-19 years 

3. 20-29 years 

4. 30-39 years 

5. 40+ years 

2. How many t-shirts have you purchased from Threadless.com in the past year? 

1. 0 

2. 1 

3. 2-5 

4. 6-10 

5. 10-15 

6. 15+ 

Branching = If answer is “1. 0” move <strong>to</strong> question 4. 

3. Since your first purchase from Threadless.com, what percentage of ALL your tshirt 

purchases (including purchases from both online retailers and traditional offline 

s<strong>to</strong>res) have come from Threadless.com. For example, Paul has brought 10 t-shirts 

since his first purchase, 5 of which were from Threadless so he would answer 50%. 

1. 10% 

2. 20% 

3. 30% 

4. 40% 

5. 50% 

6. 60% 

7. 70% 

8. 80% 

9. 90% 

10. 100% 

11. Not sure 

4. How many times a week do you visit the Threadless.com website? 


2006 

76

1. Less than once a week 

2. Once or twice a week 

3. Every other day 

4. Every day 

5. Several times a day 

5. Do you rate potential <strong>design</strong>s at Threadless.com? 

1. Never 

2. Once or Twice 

3. Occasionally 

4. Often 

5. Most times I go on the site. 

6. Do you think it is more likely that you will buy a t-shirt that you have rated? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 

7. Do you think it is more likely that you will buy a t-shirt that you have rated highly 

(given a rating of 3 or more), than one you have rated 2 or less? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 

8. Have you ever looked at the Threadless.com Blog Forum (the public 

messageboard)? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 

Branching = If answer is “2. No” or “3. Not Sure” move <strong>to</strong> question 15. 

9. How often do you view it? 

1. Less than once a month 

2. Once or twice a month 

3. Once or twice a week 

4. Every other day 

5. Every day 

6. Several times a day 

10. How often do you post or reply <strong>to</strong> messages? 

1. Never 

2. Once or Twice 

3. Occasionally 

4. Often 


2006 

77

11. Have you ever responded <strong>to</strong> anyone posting, asking for <strong>design</strong> assistance? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 

Branching = If answer is “2. No” or “3. Not Sure” move <strong>to</strong> question 13 

12. Approximately how many times have you responded offering assistance? 

1. 1 

2. 2-3 

3. 4-5 

4. 5-10 

5. 10+ 

6. Not Sure 

13. Have you ever posted requesting <strong>design</strong> assistance on the blog forum? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 


14. Did you receive a response from other members offering <strong>to</strong> help? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 

15. How many <strong>design</strong>s have you submitted <strong>to</strong> Threadless.com? 

1. 0 

2. 1 

3. 2-3 

4. 4-5 

5. 6-7 

6. 8-9 

7. 10+ 

Branching = If answer is 1. “0” move <strong>to</strong> question 23 

16. How many of these have been selected for production? 

1. 0 

2. 1 

3. 2-3 

4. 4-5 

5. 6-7 

6. 8-9 

7. 10+ 


2006 

78

17. Do you <strong>design</strong> on your own? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

18. Do you ask for feedback (on or offline) from anyone before you submit your 

<strong>design</strong>s? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

19. Have you found feedback on your <strong>design</strong>s from other members useful (this 

feedback could have been from direct contact or from messages posted below your 

<strong>design</strong>)? Please also elaborate why you have answered this way. 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Never Received Any 

Branching = If answer equals 3. “Never Received Any” move <strong>to</strong> question 24. 

20. Why was this feedback useful/not useful? 

21. Have you incorporated any of the feedback in re-submissions of that <strong>design</strong>? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. I have not resubmitted any <strong>design</strong>s 

22. In your opinion did incorporating the changes recommended in feedback from 

other users, result in a better overall <strong>design</strong> submission? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 

23. If you haven’t submitted a <strong>design</strong>, why not? (Tick as many of the below as you 

agree with) 

1. No interest in <strong>design</strong>ing 

2. Lack of artistic ability 

3. Complexity of submission requirements 

4. Shortage of free time <strong>to</strong> produce <strong>design</strong>s 

5. Others (Please Specify) 

_________________________________________________________________ 

__________ 


2006 

79

24. If there was an option for you <strong>to</strong> suggest <strong>design</strong> ideas <strong>to</strong> someone else who would 

create them, would you be interested in this? 

1. Yes (Depending on how the prize funds/<strong>design</strong> rights were allocated) 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 

25. Please list any other fac<strong>to</strong>rs you consider important, indicating which ranking 

you would have given <strong>to</strong> them, had they been in the original 1-7 list. Please list the 

responses and then the ranking in brackets e.g. T-shirt Quality (1) Reward/Street 

Team (2) 

26. Do you feel that you are part of a wider Threadless.com Virtual Community? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 


27. Do you feel a sense of attachment <strong>to</strong> this community? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

3. Not Sure 

28. Below are several reasons why you might buy from Threadless.com. Please rate 

their level of importance from 1-7 (1 being the most important and 7 the least) 

• Involvement in the <strong>design</strong> process 

• Innovative Designs 

• Exclusivity of Designs (limited quantities) 

• The Threadless ethos and brand. 

• Price 

• Delivery Times 

• Sizing & Colour Options 

29. Please list any other fac<strong>to</strong>rs you consider important, indicating which ranking 

you would have given <strong>to</strong> them, had they been in the original 1-7 list. Please list the 

responses and then the ranking in brackets e.g. T-shirt Quality (1) Reward/Street 

Team (2) 


2006 

80

30. Please rate from 1-10 (10 being highly satisfied, 1 being very unsatisfied) your 

satisfaction with the overall Threadless.com experience. 

1. 10 (Highly Satisfied) 

2. 9 

3. 8 

4. 7 

5. 6 

6. 5 

7. 4 

8. 3 

9. 2 

10. 1 (Highly Unsatisfied) 

31. If you wish <strong>to</strong> enter the prize draw please leave your e-mail address below (this 

will not be shared with anyone and only used for this prize draw) 


2006 

81

Appendix B – Excerpt from the Blog Forum Observation Results 

(x denotes removed personal data e.g. name) 

Thread 

Msg N. of 

N. Message Title Date Type Replies 1 2 3 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 3g 4 5 6 7 8 

345 I will Love you all forever... "6th March" 9 0 

346 nora est une CHIPIE! et <strong>to</strong>i? "6th March" 1 20 

347 wtf?? "6th March" 11 4 

348 screensavers "6th March" 1 3 

349 My Shot At Another Design: "6th March" 3c 10 1 2 1 2 1 2 

350 Shakespearian Love! "6th March" 3b 1 1 

351 PSP7 HELP PLEASE 

x WINS!! --- but i need ur streetteam 

"6th March" 3 21 6 8 4 

352 link thing "6th March" 9 53 

353 What's with all the Jesus shirts? "6th March" 4 79 

354 Go me! "6th March" 4 7 

355 Reprint!! "6th March" 6 4 

356 Cold, clammy, and cuddly "6th March" 3c 3 1 1 1 

357 I love this, but I refuse <strong>to</strong> buy it. 

The Evolution of you...as seen 

"6th March" 4 12 

358 through [objects] "6th March" 1 3 

359 Villians Submission Preview "6th March" 3a 20 5 1 4 1 10 

360 Size "6th March" 4 0 

361 Untitled 

im trying <strong>to</strong> get myself a new shirt, 

"6th March" 11 0 

362 help me you can "6th March" 9 17 

363 Green Computing... reducing the "6th March" 1 6

The Virtual Community of Threadless.com and their attitudes <strong>to</strong> Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation, Mass Production and Collaborative Design 

enviromental impact of your 

computer usage. 

364 belle & sebastian! [updated: pics!] "6th March" 1 23 

365 Oh man. "6th March" 1 8 

366 I MISSED IT! "6th March" 4 57 

367 

Final Day, all rides FREE! plus, 

we'll throw in a funnel cake. "6th March" 3d 30 15 1 1 7 2 

Key 

Type of Post Type of Reply 

1. Social - not T-shirt related 1. Social - not T-shirt related 

2. T-shirt related - not Threadless 2. T-shirt related - not Threadless 

3. Design help 3a What do you think of my <strong>design</strong> 

3a What do you think of my <strong>design</strong> 3b Discussion of t-shirt undergoing scoring (by the <strong>design</strong>er) 

3b Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed 3c Vote request for T-shirt undergoing scoring (by the 

scoring 

3c Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed 

<strong>design</strong>er) 

scoring (by the <strong>design</strong>er) 

3d Vote request for T-shirt undergoing scoring (by 

3d Making a <strong>design</strong> suggestion eg reduce text size 

the <strong>design</strong>er) 

3e Vote request for T-shirt undergoing scoring (not 

3e Designer discussing incorporating <strong>design</strong> suggestions. 

by the <strong>design</strong>er) 3h Giving <strong>design</strong> feedback - positive 

4 Discussing a winning T-shirt 

5. Discussing Threadless (The company)/Talking <strong>to</strong> 

3i Giving <strong>design</strong> feedback - negative 

Threadless 4. Thanking responses 

6. Requesting a reprint 5. Feedback <strong>to</strong> Threadless 

7. Suggestions of what Threadless should do next 6. Help (general not <strong>design</strong> related) 

8. General Help not Threadless related 

9. Street Team 

10. Sponsor Post 

11. Purchase/What <strong>to</strong> Purchase 

8. Discussion of a Winning Design 

____________________________________________________________________ 

- 83 -

The Virtual Community of Threadless.com and their attitudes <strong>to</strong> Mass Cus<strong>to</strong>misation, Mass Production and Collaborative Design 

Appendix C – Excerpt from the Results of the comments placed below Submissions. 

Sub. 

N. of 

Key 

ID Submission Title Score Winner? Comments 1 2 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 4 

Type of Reply 1 Loyalty 2271 No 6 11 3 15 31 12 10 3 

1. General Conversation - not T- 

I <strong>want</strong> you <strong>to</strong> hit me as 

shirt related 2 hard as you can 1929 No 113 8 2 9 76 1 4 1 2 

2 Designer discussing <strong>design</strong> 

3 Making a <strong>design</strong> suggestion eg 

3 The Sun Catcher 1973 No 41 2 7 29 3 5 

reduce text size 

3b Giving <strong>design</strong> feedback - 

4 Jollier Roger 1990 No 33 8 6 7 6 7 2 

positive 5 Devil's Most Wanted 1984 No 37 6 3 16 10 5 3 

3c Giving <strong>design</strong> feedback - 

negative 6 Misplaced Things 1777 Yes 65 5 1 14 49 1 1 0 0 

3d Giving <strong>design</strong> feedback - mixed 7 Never 806 No 37 5 1 9 22 1 1 

3e Talking about incorporating 

responses in future sub 8 Designer Voodoo 432 No 26 2 1 2 21 

4 Designer thanking members for 

comments 9 Hipster Doll 

Migra<strong>to</strong>ry Patterns of the 

2596 Yes 84 5 4 27 49 1 1 2 2 

10 Popsicle 2039 Yes 57 5 1 8 39 1 2 

____________________________________________________________________ 

- 84 -

“Do consumers want to design unique products on the internet? A ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?