Adam Fletcher: Adam Fletcher - Do Consumers Want To Design Unique Product On The Internet. 2006 1

“Do consumers want to design unique products on the
internet? A study of the online Virtual Community of

Threadless.com and their attitudes to Mass
Customisation, Mass Production and Collaborative
Design”.
Adam Fletcher
This Dissertation is submitted in part-fulfillment of the degree of

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Business Information Systems
Nottingham Trent University, 2006
Adam Fletcher – Do consumers want to design unique product on the internet. 1

2006
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 topics in this field of interest.

I'd be really happy to offer (mostly bad) advice to 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
Abstract
Mass Customisation 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 customisation is difficult with few success
stories. This thesis presents the results of a case study undertaken with the online t-
shirt manufacturer Threadless and its Virtual Community. The literary assumption
that consumers want unique products, following recent renewed interest in Mass
Customisation has prompted this research. The aim of this study was to look at an
industry where it is technically possible to deliver a “pure” Mass Customisation
experience. Threadless’ business model instead aggregates user’s opinions of user
submitted designs and manufacturers the most popular. This studies looks at why this
model is an attractive proposition for customers and for Threadless. The secondary
focus of this study was to see how much collaboration occurred within Threadless’
Virtual Community, relating this back to the broader User Innovation & Mass
Customisation 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 to (not as the literature would have predicted) willing purchase a product which
was not unique even when other companies offered the opportunity to create a unique
product. This was because of the innovative nature of the products design. The
community valued this innovation over involvement in the design process. This thesis
proposes that as the literature suggests the Internet eases the process for receiving
information from customers on their wants and needs. This supports the 1-1 customer
and supplier relationship needed for Mass Customisation. However it proposes that
this same technology also facilitates communication between customers and
aggregation of their needs. This can help overcome some manufacturer inefficiencies
in Mass Customisation, however, it also suggests that a model combining the
individualisation of Mass Customisation and the personalisation of Mass or Niche
Production with high customer involvement may better suit both parties.

2006
Contents
Abbreviations
BTO – Build to Order
LP – Lean Production
MC – Mass Customisation
NPD – New Product Development
VC – Virtual Community
Figures & Tables
Figure 1: Production Methods - Comparison between Customer Involvement & Quantity

Produced............................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2 “A continuum of Strategies” adapted from Lampel & Mintzberg (1996)....................... 16
Figure 3: MC approaches used by VMs ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 4: “The Threadless Business Model” ..................................................................................... 32
Figure 5: “Conceptual framework showing a MC disconnect between Customers and

Manufacturers” ................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 6: Frequency of Responses for Topics 3a-3e ......................................................................... 46
Figure 7: Responses to Q.17 “Do you design on your own”............................................................. 48
Figure 8: Responses to Q.18 “Do you ask for feedback before you submit your design” ............. 49
Figure 9: Responses to Q.24 reasons for not submitting a design ................................................... 52
Figure 10: Adapted Conceptual Framework .................................................................................... 60
Table 1: Description of Production methods..................................................................................... 14
Table 2: Mediums for VC communication ........................................................................................ 27
Table 3: Number of Threads by Topic observed on the “Blog Forum” ......................................... 45
Table 4: Submission Comments Categories and Frequencies ......................................................... 47
Table 5: Responses to 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
Chapter 1
Introduction, Term Definition, Context and Justification
“The business opportunity of the next millennium” (referring to Mass

Customisation)
(Hart 1995:1)
1.0 Introduction
This dissertation will investigate consumers attitudes to Mass Customisation (MC) and
collaboration for new product design conducted within a Virtual Community (VC).
Research in this thesis is centered on the online virtual community of the online t-shirt
business Threadless.com. Threadless is an ongoing design competition in which users are
invited to submit a t-shirt design to the Virtual Community. Any registered members can
rate the design out of five and can also provide qualitative feedback to the designer,
usually in the form of modification suggestions or positive/negative written feedback. A
number of the highest rated t-shirts are then produced in short production runs and sold
on the site.
To follow is a critique of available literature in this area, followed by a discussion of the
findings from a questionnaire completed by members of the Threadless VC and
ethnographic research of messageboard communication. Conclusions are followed by
recommendations for further research in this area.
1.1 Mass Customisation (MC)
The definition of MC adopted by this paper is Hart (1995) who said MC was:
“The use of flexible process and organizational structures to produce varied and
often individually customized products and services at the low cost of a standardized,

2006
mass produced system.”
(Pg. 1)
In short, increasing variety and involvement for every customer without losing
manufacturing efficiency. Despite being cited as not having had the business impact that
was anticipated (Lee et al 1999), MC can be seen in a wide variety of products/services
and industries. In the apparel sector Spreadshirt the online design your own t-shirt
business allows anyone to design their own t-shirt produced and dispatched within 48hrs.
Lego now actively engage their customer base in new product developments and allow
users to design their own Lego sets online (for more about the Lego Factory see Berger et
al 2005). In the footwear industry most of the major trainer manufacturers allow for
custom designing (such as Reebok “CUSTomer” or Nike through “NikeID”) and some
offer completely custom products exactly molded to fit the customers foot (such as
Adidas’ “miAdidas” service, see Berger et al 2005). Other MC products include Wine
(Elite Vintners), Cameras (Leica) or the extremely successful build to order model used
by Dell. Levi offer over 4,224 combinations of its customised jeans (Rifkin 1994), while
11 million bicycle variations are available from the National Bicycle Industrial
Companies made-to-order system. In other markets you can see the affects of a trend
towards individualization and flexibility. The financial services sector allows you to
almost pick your own loan interest rate at Prosper.com or odds for gambling at
Betfair.com. These are just some of the many examples of a shift to towards customer
involvement and empowerment.

2006
One common feature in all the examples above are that they use the Internet as the key
enabler, with which to interact with their customers. Advances in Information
Technology in recent years in particular e-commerce, the Internet and the creation of
what is now a global marketplace are recognized as the key enabler for adoption of MC
(Piller 2002, Von Hippel 1998, Schubert and Koch 2002, Pine et al 1993, Fuller and
Hienerth 2004)
MC is a fundamental shift away from the teachings of Mass Production (MP) which
focused on standardized products produced in high volumes. This approach is often
attributed to the work of Henry Ford and the model T Ford back in the 1920’s. Mass
Customization is concerned with creating unique products or services using the efficiency
of Fords MP.
1.2 The Virtual Community (VC)
This paper will look at how a VC can support MC activity. To date there is no one
definition that has been adopted by the academic community for a VC, developing on
definitions from Schubert & Ginsburg (2000) and Sawhney & Prandelli (2000) we
propose that Virtual Communities are:
“The union between individuals or organizations using electronic media to communicate
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
The Internet itself could be viewed as one large VC. The first example of what is now
referred to as the Internet, “Arpanet”, was designed as a community to share scientific
research (for more information see Rheingold (2000)). Today what was one VC has
become many thousands devoted to almost any imaginable niche, from the huge
community building the online encyclopedia “Wikipedia” (www.wikipedia.com) to the
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 customer designing a product or service
was not a new concept even then, instead writings on MC were commenting on an
increasing shift away from Mass Production towards individualised products increasingly
designed with input from customers.
The Internet has the potential to change the way we buy and sell, empowering small
businesses to sell on a global platform as if they were a multinational (Collin 1999),
reducing barriers of entry (Porter 2001). The internet facilitates direct and rich interaction
with customers (Piller & Walcher 2005), allowing customers to give feedback and
collaborate on new products. Internet sites such as MySpace or Ebay have shown that the
power of the Internet lies in uniting individuals, developing a VC to support your
business.

2006
The proposed benefit of MC is that consumers are incorporated into the design process,
designing the exact product or service they require. This will allow a business to develop
a 1:1 relationship with their customers, understanding their exact requirements, helping
to build a relationship with them which is impervious to competitors (Pine et al 1993).
1.4 Justification of Topic Area
Why should we care about Mass Customisation? Mass Customisation is an important
topic worthy of discussion for a number of reasons. It is the focus of a large quantity of
academic interest and research in the past few years (Tseng & Piller 2003). Future
businesses adopting this business approach may be influenced after reading that they are
faced with an “uninterrupted trend towards individualization” (Piller & Muller 2004:1).
Mass Customisation has been described as the “business opportunity of the next
millennium” (Hart 1995;1) for businesses willing to recognise that “the traditional system
is becoming obsolete” (Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004:9), with “homogeneous markets
increasingly a thing of the past (Hart 1995:38). This thesis looks to address these
assertions head on and critically analyse and re-evaluate MC.
Growth of technologies in manufacturing such as Computer Aided Design (CAD) as well
as the Internet have led to a resurgence in interest in MC, it is estimated that of the 2700
plus English language articles on MC 60% have been published since 2001 (Tseng &
Piller 2003). It is suggested that now more than ever, is the time that we should reassess
MC. Unlike at the ideas conception, today the tools needed to make it a successful
proposition with the advent of e-commerce and internet are available (Lee et al 1999).

2006
With this renewed interest and optimism there is a need to re-evaluate the original
proposal in today’s business environment. This thesis will look to re-assess the business
potential of MC and customer collaboration on the Internet.
Research from the academic literature suggests that MC represents a huge potential
opportunity for businesses. Studies such as Berger et al 2005; Kamali and Loker 2002
have shown consumer dissatisfaction with standard products and a strong interest in
customisation, along with studies which suggest that consumers are willing to pay more
for a product or services if they are involved in the design process (Oon and Khalid 2001;
Piller et al 2004; Berger et al 2005). There is also a body of literature suggesting
innovation maybe accelerated through collaboration (see Jeppesen and Frederiksen 2004
for an overview), when combined these suggest the business implications of the MC
approach are vast.

2006
Chapter 2
Literature Review & Conceptual Framework
“There is nothing simple about MC”
(Hart 1995:1)

2006
2.0 Literature Review (5000)
This chapter will begin with an explanation of MC, followed by an overview of the
history of the term. What follows is a critical re-examination of the underlying
assumptions behind MC. This aims to show that the current academic thinking regarding
MC may be incorrect. This is followed by the presentation of an alternative approach to
MC adopted by the online retailer Threadless and discussion of how this model might
better support MC & innovative activities such as NPD.
This paper takes the view of Hart (1995) who suggests that there are two different ways
of defining and conceptualising Mass Customisation. The first visionary definition is
“the ability to provide your customers with anything they want profitably, any time they
want it, anywhere they want it, any way they want.” (Hart 1995:1)
While this is only meant as a “transcendent, absolute idea that exists solely in the ideal”
(Hart 1995:1), it best describes the basic principal and inherent complexity of MC. The
key difference between MC and the traditional one size fits all, any colour as long as its
black approach of Mass Production made famous by Fordism is the unique, tailored
experience that the customer receives. You aim to reach large numbers of customers but
simultaneously treat them as individuals (Davis 1996), whilst aiming to maintain the
efficiency of mass production (Pine et al 1993; Piller 2003). The other perhaps more
realistic and practical definition offered by Hart is

2006
“The use of flexible process and organizational structures to produce varied and often
individually customized products and services at the low cost of a standardized, mass
produced system.” (Hart 1995:1)
The key difference in this second definition is the idea of not promising to produce
anything a customer may desire but introducing flexibility, variety and where
possible individualisation to the experience. Note that this definition does suggest the
possibility to “maintain the efficiency of mass production” (Pine et al 1993; Piller
2003). Research suggests that in most industries this is at present unrealistic, even
with advances in manufacturing (such as CAD) and telecommunications (e-
commerce etc) technologies reducing the trade-off between variants and production
cost (Piller 2003) at present adding variety results in additional operational costs
(Brabazon and McCarthy 2004).
Davis (1996) suggests that as technology advances markets become ever increasingly
differentiated. The ultimate form of this differentiation he suggests is the idea of
“markets of one”, where an individuals needs are met with mass efficiency.
Definitions of MC in the academic literature have tended to overplay the need for MC
to create a unique product or service. This paper rejects this and suggests that its
customer involvement that is the fundamental principal of MC (Piller et al 2004). The
experience itself more than what is created provides the unique value for each
individual (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). The key differences between MC and
MP are highlighted below in Table 1

2006
Table 1: Description of Production methods
Method Quantity Produced Customer Involvement

Mass Production The Customer is broken into broad Involvement is limited to
segments. The aim is to develop a product market research aiming to
or service suited to 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 to fit the Customer involvement is
needs of smaller, more specific segments usually higher than in Mass
of buyers (Lee et al 1999) Production but limited to the
same market research methods.
Build-to-order Using standard modules allowing Customer gets to 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 Customisation Each customer is their own segment Comprehensive customer
(Bardacki & Whitelock 2003), the aim to interaction is essential here,
tailor the product/service to fit exactly the with the customer 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 to Lean Production (LP) made famous by Toyota in
Japan, the early mover competitive advantage from LP would have diminished. MC may
have been a natural shift, seeking extra value from lean production systems through
finding ways to better meet the needs of customers (Alford et al 2000).
It is only when we consider the customer involvement in each model that MC can be seen
as a more fundamental shift in the manufacturing and marketing mindset from lean, niche
or mass production shown in figure 1.

2006
Figure 1: Production Methods - Comparison between Customer Involvement & Quantity
Produced
MP was focused on creating economies of scale by standardising manufacturing, in LP
these economies came from streamlining the production process with suppliers. MC
however is not insular or internally focused along the value chain, instead it looks
externally to get greater customer involvement, earlier. This changes the process from a
production-push to a demand-pull (Economist 2001; Agrawal et al 2001) market. Rather
than trying to sell a product you have already produced, you have already sold the
product before you’ve created it (Rifkin 1994). As figure 1 shows the customer
involvement is greatly increased while the quantity produced is often just one unit.
The inherent complexity of combining the different approaches of “mass” and
“customisation” into 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 to get the
balance right” (Kotler and Armstrong 1999).

2006
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 to draw a picture of two opposing and distinct strategies and mindsets
(Lampel & Mintzberg 1996). In reality as suggested by this framework there is a
continuum of strategies and it is the task of industry to decide which approach best
compliments the needs of their customers and the capabilities of their business. Dells
build to order model is often thought of as a MC showcase (Piller & Walcher 2006).
Applied to the Lampel & Mintzberg framework Dells approach it is not “pure” or even
“tailored customisation” but “customised standardisation” allowing the consumer to
select not from limitless options but from a pre-defined array of components (Brand
2004). This highlights how even the MC success stories infrequently achieved a MC
scale to the right of the centre of Lampel & Mintzbergs approaches.

2006
With an overview of the history and principles of MC now complete, the next section
will look to critically evaluate the proposed benefits of MC cited in the literature.
2.1 Why MC?
If there really is nothing simple about MC (Hart 1995) then why is this topic worthy of
such academic and business interest? Teresko (1994:46) believes “If you can sell
everything you make, mass customisation is irrelevant”. This like Harts visionary
definition may be correct in an absolute, transcendent and idealistic way however in
reality it is flawed. While today a business may sell everything that it produces, only in a
market monopoly are sales liable to be static and not subject to competition from rival
businesses. While today you may sell everything you make, a competitor moving to MC
and offering the customer increased choice may irreversibly change this. Just because
you are selling you may not be satisfying customers or selling profitably and fast enough
to reduce potential revenue sitting in stock. It also doesn’t address the fact that by
utilising MC you are co-designing with the consumer which will allow you to always sell
everything that you make and as suggested by empirical research (see Piller et al 2004 for
an overview), sell at a premium price.
According to the literature a business’ choice not to pursue MC and encourage customer
involvement may be diminishing. Customers now appear to be demanding more
influence (Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004) with an “uninterrupted trend towards

2006
individualization” (Piller & Muller 2004:1) which is making the homogeneous market a
thing of the past (Hart 1995).
MC supports heterogeneity of requirements by allowing the consumer a tailored
experience and where possible a tailored product or service. The consumer does not have
to pick from a range of uniform, average products (Lee et al 2000). Once the customer
has seen just how responsive a manufacturer can be, the relationship it is suggested
becomes impervious to competitors (Pine 1993; Teresko 1994). It is acknowledged that
information acquired by the supplier during the MC experience when used correctly will
represent a considerable barrier to entry for competitors (Peppers et al 1999). However,
for the relationship to be considered impervious there would have to be a link between
satisfaction and loyalty (repurchase intention). While the focus of this paper is not to test
that particular assumption it is worth mentioning that this is still an assumption and the
strength of the link between satisfaction and repurchase intention/loyalty is still open to
debate (see Seiders et al (2005) for more background on this or Iacobucci et al (1994) for
an interesting discussion of this as one of the many “satisfaction fables”). For this reason
statements about an impervious relationship are met with scepticism. Just as, at a time of
limited resources a manufacturer may opt for a more profitably client, the client’s loyalty
is multifaceted with manufacturer responsiveness being just one factor.
To the customer when asked if they are interested in MC, the idea of getting to produce
exactly what they want, would no doubt be a tempting proposition. Problems arise when
its time to create this product and articulate to the manufacturer their individual

2006
specification. Online the process is often simplified using online Configurators or
Toolkits (see Von Hippel (2005) for an extensive review of these). Toolkits are defined
as
“Technology that allows users to design a novel product by trial-and-error
experimentation, and delivers immediate (simulated) feedback on their design ideas.”
These technologies are great for the manufacturer as they reduce the cost of MC,
outsourcing most of the process to the customer (Piller 2002). However, the problem is
that when faced with an online toolkit, multiple or even unlimited configuration options
does the customer know what they want? If they do know are they able to articulate it?
Too many options and they may suffer “Mass Confusion” (Teresko 1994). This is when a
user is overwhelmed by the number of design choices available to them. It is suggested
that mass confusion is one of the major explanatory factor for the delay in adoption of
MC by business (Piller et al 2005). Striking the correct balance between utility and
complexity will greatly increase the success of the MC experience, for example Nissan
found that although they offered advanced customisation options consumers didn’t want
to 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 to erroneous forecasting, heavy inventory and lost profits as a result of

2006
necessary discounting to reduce stock levels (Sanders 2001). The key difference with MC
is that consumers are incorporated into the design process, and design the exact product
or service they require. As manufacturers no longer have to predict demand for a product
they may theoretically be able to keep smaller inventories of finished goods. Heavy
discounts and promotions to move less popular products out of warehouses may become
a thing of the past achieving both manufacturer and consumer satisfaction (Lee & Chen
1999). Whilst potential lowering stocks of finished goods, MC may have a negative
effect on other areas of the manufacturing process. Large quantities and varieties of raw
materials will need to be held to help support uncertain, fluctuating demand which could
send inventory costs out of control (Lee et al 1999).
This loss of certainty is offset by the possibility of charging more for customised items.
Just how much, if any, of a price premium a customer is willing to pay is still open to
debate with contradictory studies in the literature. Some research has suggested that
customer’s want and are willing to pay more for customized or non-standard products
(Piller and Berger 2003; Piller and Muller 2004; Franke and Von Hippel 2003, see Piller
and Muller 2004 for an overview of research conducted). The problem with this research
is that it is often undertaken using a questionnaire. Measuring WTP using a questionnaire
may leads to unrealistic results as consumers have an imagination about customisation,
but no experience of it (Piller & Muller 2004). It is worth noting that a large number of
respondents in these studies had no previous experience customising products. Pine
(1994; 14) suggests that in fact “Customers don’t want choice. They want exactly, what
they want”. Leaving aside the idea that any of us actually know what we want, it is

2006
unsurprising that many consumers would say they would be prepared to pay a premium
for this experience. However, without experience in designing products online customers
may not be aware of the challenges in articulating what they want, a number of sources
suggest on the whole consumers find it almost impossible to do this (Berger et al 2005;
Zipkin 2001; Von Hippel 2005). They may also be unaware of the amount of time and
involvement required in this process (Piller & Muller 2003). It is suggested that if these
respondents were asked again after they had attempted to customise a product, the
number of people who said they would be interested and prepared to pay a premium
would be reduced. There is no guarantee that even with additional help provided by the
manufacturer to provide the technical information in a format understandable to the
customer (sticky information, see Von Hippel 1998 for an overview), the consumer is
able to produce something that meets their desires. As Expectation Disconfirmation
theory suggests this is only made harder as increased customers involvement will
incrementally increase customer expectations. It is for precisely these reasons that studies
proclaiming customers desire to MC and pay a premium for the privilege are met with
skepticism.
The willingness to pay a premium will also be dependent on the type of industry and
product. It’s not overly surprising that the one study which did not find any evidence of a
link between willingness to pay and customisation was Jiang (2002). This study looked at
consumers willingness to pay a premium to customise a laptop computer. However in a
market dominated by Dell which offers advanced customisation as standard why would a
consumer be willing to pay more for the privilege? Customisation is no longer a

2006
significant value add or a way of gain competitive advantage through differentiation.
Further research on the longevity of any potential competitive advantage is necessary and
missing from the literature to be able to conclude the long term effects of MC on an
industry.
2.3 Mass Customisation in the car industry
Perhaps it will be easier to conceptualise MC if we look to an industry to see how the
potential of MC has been applied. One industry cited as being complimentary to a MC
approach is that of the automobile industry. This is said to have the demand
fragmentation and market saturation that might compliment a MC approach (Bardacki &
Whitelock 2003; Pine 1993; Cusumano 1994). It’s suggested that Vehicle Manufacturers
(VMs) must aim for mass customisation so that everyone can find what they want at a
price that they can afford (Cusumano 1994), particularly as they are saturated home
markets and sophisticated customers (Alford 2000).
Vehicle manufacturers have found that progress implementing MC, despite a Mckinsey
report estimating a potential cost savings of $80bn, has been slow with MC still
representing the illusive Holy Grail (Economist 2001). What is also interesting is how
this industry perhaps more than most has already had to go through two radical shifts in
manufacturing mindset as it has adapted to Mass Production pioneered by Ford and in
more recent times towards Lean Production pioneered by Toyota (Bardacki & Whitelock
2004). The problem in the automotive industry is that with a complicated manufacturing
process it is generally accepted that adding variety results in additional operational costs

2006
(Brabazon & McCarthy 2004). Whilst the manufacturer might want to offer unlimited
variety, complicated manufacturing processes prohibit this. Instead scale economies may
be possible by creating common platforms, as reducing investment in body fabrication
processes can save a significant proportion of new vehicle costs (Alford 2000). The
successful Ford Puma for example is based on the Fiesta platform, delivered in just
seventeen months illustrates how derivatives for profitable niche markets can be rapidly
produced from a high-volume vehicle (Alford 2000). This example shows how
complimentary manufacturing approaches (in this case combining mass & niche) can be
used to deliver the right level of variety. In this example common platforms can given the
illusion of choice allowing many models to be produced from a core design, this sort of
modularity is an important part of Dells success in the PC market.
Instead of MC, VMs have due largely to the size of the industry been able to give the
illusion of MC. Exploiting the Internet to find the whereabouts of a car that matches the
customers personal requirements somewhere within the existing manufacturing process
or distribution system, often called Virtual Build to Order (VBTO) or locate to order
(Brabazon & MacCarthy 2004). “VBTO exploits the variety that exists in automotive
pipelines […] easing the way for customers to buy from future stock rather than from
finished stock” (Economist 2001). In the automotive industry it seems that, customers
can only get close to a pure MC experience if they are prepared to pay a high premium.
Alford (2000) summarised the three commonly used MC approaches for VMs and these
are outlined below in Figure 3.

2006
Figure 3: MC approaches used by VMs
The reason for highlighting this industry is that despite attempts to incorporate MC into
the business model there has been limited success. Instead the industry has adapted levels
of MC, often supporting existing manufacturing processes. Although MC beyond simply
configuring modules may be available, it is only at the very top end of market where it is
available to customers willing to pay a high price premium one example is BMWs
“Individual Program” (Piller 2002). While this might be close to meeting the original aim
of “anything the customer wants, when they want it” this is unlikely to be “at the price
that they can afford”. The car industry has realised that at present a “pure mass

2006
customisation” (Lampel & Mintzberg 1996) strategy is not applicable for this industry
due to technological challenges and the realization that consumers want choice and
involvement but not “eighty-seven different types of steering wheel” (Lampel &
Mintzberg 1996). It’s worth noting how here the car industry has in VBTO adopting a
system which offers a trade-off, allowing customer involvement and utilising
telecommunications technology to overcome manufacturing difficulties. Finding an
appropriate trade-off in this manner will feature throughout this thesis.
2.4 Mass Customisation & the Virtual Community.
In recent times there has been a resurgence of interest in MC. As previously mentioned
Piller & Tseng (2003) estimate that of the 2700 plus English language articles on MC
60% have been published since 2001. This renewed interest it is suggested is because of
the introduction of new technologies in particular the Internet, which is widely cited as
the key enabler of the adoption of MC (Piller 2002, Von Hippel 1998, Schubert & Koch
2002, Pine et al 1993, Fuller & Hienerth 2004). The Internet provides an efficient
platform to reduce the often difficult and costly process of transferring a customers wants
or needs to a manufacturer (Piller & Walcher 2005). Lee et al (1999) goes as far as to
suggest that mass customization is a “post facto reaction made possible by the
introduction of electronic commerce”. As well as facilitating the efficient production of
customized goods, Internet technology facilitates the personalisation of customer
relationships (Piller 2002). Amazons sophisticated recommendation and account system
is an excellent example of this. Offering a tailored user experience to every customer
based on their interest areas and previous purchasing behaviour. One area that has

2006
received less focus in the literature is how encouraging collaboration amongst mass
customising customers can improve their MC experience. One internet technology which
can facilitate this collaboration amongst consumers is a Virtual Community.
Despite that lack of consensus in what exactly constitutes a VC, they have existed online
in various forms for approximately 30 years (Ridings et al 2002). Today there are
thousands of these communities and a recent report found that 79% of Internet users
identified at least one community with which they maintained regular online contact
(Rainie & Packel, 2001). They are expected to have a significant impact on commercial
companies fundamentally changing how they develop, price and promote their products
(Hagel & Armstrong 1997). The definition adopted for this thesis is Sawhney & Prandelli
(2000):
“The union between individuals or organizations using electronic media to communicate
within a shared semantic space on a regular basis. The communities provide sociability,
support, information, a sense of belonging, and social identity. This community is usually
but not exclusively created around shared values or interests”.
The VC can take many forms each with their own characteristics (Wellman 1999,
Dholakia et al 2004). There isn’t scope in this research to 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
Table 2: Mediums for VC communication
VC Mediums Description Communication Type
Chat Room Online conversation in close to real-time. Synchronous
Usually no record of communication kept.
Message/Bulletin Allow the user to post content which other Asynchronous
Boards users may reply to, 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 Asynchronous
board which requires specialist software to
connect the user to the news server to
view/contribute to users posts. Often the
News Group is formed around a specific
topic.
E-mail Group Often referred to as Listserv groups, this is a Asynchronous
community centered on e-mail
communication using one e-mail address
which users use to post. These tend to 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 to 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 Asynchronous
“Wikipedia”. Community is usually built
around a shared interest area in which all
users have the same right to alter community
generated content.
It is suggested in the literature that VCs are attractive to businesses as they provide a
mechanism to:
- Facilitate a stronger relationship between the firm and its customers (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
- 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 to openly share information and ideas
there is a need for trust in the community, trust that the community hosts will not exploit
information on the members, perhaps selling their contact details or ideas.
Trust is defined as an implicit set of beliefs that the other party will refrain from
opportunistic behavior and take advantage of the situation (Hosmer 1995). Online
however trust is multi-faceted. A member may only be communicating directly with one
other member, however if this communication is viewable by other members, then it is
not only the trust that the two directly communicating members have with each other, but
their level of trust in the community as a whole, and with the communities provider
which will shape their communication (Ridings et al 2002). Repeated interactions can
help to build a culture of trust and commitment which only encourage further innovation
and involvement (Fuller and Heinerth 2004; Fuller et al 2004). Without this trust users
may be reluctant to contribute and the knowledge sharing potential between organisations
and the community is lost. Threadless helps to build this trust by having a clear privacy
and usage policy with explicitly states the rights it has over community generated content
and designs.
Online communities have been found to be highly innovative and can be found for almost
every product or service (Fuller & Hienerth 2004), with research suggesting that many

2006
innovations originate in the user rather than the manufacturer domain (Von Hippel 1988;
Piller & Walcher 2005).
Collaborative design is of interest as it may support MC using a community to encourage
creativity and assist customers in making better choices than if they are left to design in
isolation, selecting from a large variety of choices (Von Hippel & Tyre, 1995; Franke &
Shah, 2003; Piller et al 2005). This support should help provide the knowledge that
Berger et al (2005) said was stopping consumer specifying an individualized solution that
corresponds to their desires.
Sawhney & Prandelli (2000) concluded that a business model that combined
communities into product development empowers peripheral players, giving them the
right to contribute their own experience and individual knowledge to the final output.
Each consumer can add to the collective knowledge of the community from their
experiences. This collaborative method of innovation has gained momentum and interest
in recent times because of the open source software movement, which has shown that
self-organised groups are able to create software applications superior to commercial
offerings (Fuller & Hienerth 2004). Jeppesen & Molin (2003) believe that this user
creation and development results in a longer product life and greater sales of the basic
product.

2006
Some studies have proven that often without conscious effort from the community
sponsor collaborative activity is already taking place. Franke & Shahs (2003) research
concluded that
“Without exception, the innovating community members we surveyed do not innovate in
isolation or secrecy; they receive important advice and assistance from other community
members” (Pg. 158).
The little academic research into just how much help community members give each
other and what motivates them to support and share ideas with each other has ultimately
formed this thesis and research outlined below. Trust is expected to be even more
important here than in a normal VC environment, as community members are sharing
more than just communication on a shared interest, but plans ideas and innovations.
There will need to be a system for managing the intellectual property (IP) that these
members create (Sawhney and Prandelli 2000) and clear documentation on the rights of
the community host or sponsor on how this IP will be managed and utilized. Over time
trust and commitment in the sponsor and co-collaborators should increase. The consumer
becomes a virtual co-innovator, with strong ties to the company and new product (Fuller
et al 2004).

2006
2.5 Threadless - The future of Mass Customisation?
Instead of thinking of opposites this thesis suggests that it’s the towards the centre of the
continuum between MP & MC or Standardisation & Individualisation that may offer the
best fit for consumers and manufacturers. It’s suggested that conceptual polarization has
lead management thinkers to ignore strategies which combine these logics (Lampel &
Mintzberg 1996). One company which on the surface seems to combine these two
strategies well and will be the focus of this papers research is the online t-shirt
manufacturer Threadless. Threadless’ business model cannot be categorised under
Lampel & Mintzbergs framework as it has one fundamental difference from all the
approaches, the customisation & customer input occurs at the earliest possible point in
the value chain, at the conception stage. Threadless’ business model is outlined below in
Figure 4.
Figure 4: “The Threadless Business Model”

2006
In this approach the customer is in almost complete control over designing the product
and determining what is to be manufactured. Every customer has a say and equal input
but collectively they decide which product moves down the activity chain where the
manufacturer handles the fabrication, assembly and distribution. In Threadless’ case
members of the community submit t-shirt designs which the rest can comment and score
from 1-5. The top scoring designs are usually then manufactured (Threadless have the
final say and consider factors such as technical difficulty, number of colours etc) and sold
in limited quantities on the site. The winning designer receives $2000 in exchange for the
rights to the design. If we think why Lampel and Mintzbergs framework did not include
an approach which had only customisation at the products conception and design stage, it
might have been because the paper was written in 1996. The Internet, e-commerce and
Virtual Communities existed then but were still in their infancy. Since the widespread
adoption of the internet and subsequently e-commerce there has been an evolution in the
thinking concerning Mass Customisation. This thesis would like to show, contradictory
to the focus of the most of the literature (the exceptions being Lampel & Mintzberg 1996
and Piller & Walcher 2006) and with the help of Threadless and its VC that these
enabling technologies while reducing the cost of individualisation may also reduce the
cost of aggregation. The Threadless model works by grouping customers with similar
requirements and interests into niches, unifying a fragmented and heterogeneous market.
All the idea generation and designs are created and approved by the Virtual Community
with little involvement by Threadless. Only those products (t-shirt designs in this case)
that have enough support and interest from the community make it into production. In

2006
order to offer customers exclusivity the t-shirts are manufactured in small batch
quantities and some designs never printed more than once. In Threadless’ case this has
resulted in most t-shirts selling out almost immediately after production.
This research aims to look more closely at why the Threadless model is successful and
what motivates consumers to participate in this VC. The specific research areas can be
found later in 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 to
the other and ignoring strategies combining both these logics (Lampel & Mintzberg
1996). The fundamental assumption of MC is that with no obstacles, challenges or
inconveniences customers would probably rather create a unique offering to match their
needs. Today’s business climate does not seem to offer this, so at present there is
believed to be a disconnect between the customers desire for involvement and
individualization, and the manufacturers desire for economies of scale and predictable,
manageable demand. Co-creation with consumers is not simplistic and as such there are a
number of shared factors which reduce the attractiveness of MC to both the consumer
and manufacturer. The framework outlines this perceived disconnect and recaps some
points from the literature which encapsulate this.

2006
Figure 5: “Conceptual framework showing a MC disconnect between Customers
and Manufacturers”

2006
Chapter 3
Research Strategy, Methodology and Approach
“Even if the content of the new theory is about customization, our thinking
remains standardized”
(Lampel & Mintzberg 1996:29)

2006
3.0 Research Strategy & Methodology (1000)
This section will outline the primary research methods and the philosophy and strategy
that underpin their use. The aim of this research is to try and answer the following
research questions in relation to Threadless and its VC.
1. How much collaboration is there between designers and the rest of community
prior to submitting designs?
1.1 Do all community members submit designs? If not, what factors stop
members submitting designs?
2. What is it that keeps community members visiting and interacting with
Threadless and its VC?
2.1 Does this business model support aggregation of user requirements? If
so, how?
2.2 Sawhney and Prandelli (2000) believe that “a business model that
combines communities into product development empowers peripheral
players”, how much evidence of this can seen at Threadless?
3.1 Research Justification
Threadless has been chosen as the focus of my research has it has an interesting and
unique business model, which could be said to contradict some of the MC literature. In
the Threadless model the consumers supply the customisation, collaboratively, while the

2006
manufacturer handles the mass. If it is to be believed that consumers don’t want choice,
they want exactly what they want (Pine 1994) then they would have little reason to use
Threadless. There are a large number of make-your-own t-shirt providers such as
“Spreadshirt” (www.spreadshirt.com) or “t-shirt.com” (www.t-shirt.com) allowing the
users to upload their design and specify shirt colour, size etc. These cost the same or
fractionally more than Threadless t-shirts and in the case of Spreadshirt are dispatched
within 48hrs. The majority of barriers to pure MC identified in the literature or
conceptual framework have minimal impact in the t-shirt market, so why is Threadless
able to operate profitably and successfully? This its is suggested makes it an ideal case
study for what might happen when future technology removes the barriers to using close
to “pure” MC (see Lampel & Mintzberg 1996) in more complex products/services.
3.2 Research Approach
To research Threadless a case study approach was adopted. While only focusing and
researching one community a case study approach offers an opportunity to gain a deeper
insight into a relatively unexplored phenomenon (Jeppesen & Frederiksen 2004). The
research uses different research methods to enhance the precision of conclusions by using
different data, but data related to the same phenomenon (Jick 1979). The research
comprised a questionnaire completed online amongst community members and two
different participant observations of the community.
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
general. It can help to understand the meanings they attribute to their acts and to the acts
of others (Bryman and Bell 2003). It also has the advantage of generating a large number
of responses in a short space of time. It can also be tailored to gather data on a specific
topic (to help answer the Research Questions), whilst also having questions which are
more open in nature, complimenting the exploratory nature of this study. Question
branching was used in the questionnaire to separate users that submit designs and those
that do not, before further in-depth questioning occurs.
A link to the questionnaire was posted on the Threadless “Blog Forum” which is a public
messageboard. Prior agreement had been received from Threadless to post the message
and link, to get their permission to use the forum. It was felt that this would encourage
respondents to complete the questionnaire and raise its profile amongst the community. A
prize draw was offered for those participants taking part to encourage participation, it is
noted that this could have resulted in repeat submission (these were removed by the
questionnaire software) and resulted in respondents only motivated by the prize and not
comprehensively or truthfully completing the questionnaire. The prize was only one t-
shirt which has a $15 value which should have stopped this type of behaviour.
The second piece of research was a participant observation, monitoring and classifying
all communication on Threadless’ messageboard called the “Blog Forum”. This
observation lasted for seven days from the 1st – 8th March 2006. Further analysis and
classification of the comments posted below the first ten design submissions mentioned
on the “blog forum” during this time was also completed.

2006
Delbridge and Kirkpatrick (1994:37) suggest that participant observation involves the
researcher immersing themselves in the research setting, to sharing in the subject’s lives.
It is felt that this method was applicable as the aim of the research was to share in the
community’s lives and understand how the community members interact and what
encourages users to share, critique and collaborate.
Participant Observation in this unobtrusive manner does raise a question of ethics
(Paccagnella 1997). In this case all the data analysed is public discourse. The view taken
by this researcher is that while the communication may be deeply personal it is not
private (Sudweeks & Rafaeli 1995). To respect the privacy of the community members
no names of community members or links back to the text were recorded. Only
communication deemed relevant to this research was viewed & categorized. Observation
was preferred over active participation to reduce the likelihood that the presence of a
researcher may modify the phenomena being studied (Paccagnella 1997). A mixture of
quantitative & qualitative analysis was adopted. A purely quantitative approach might
have missed the subtle nuances of interaction that can meaningfully describe the
interactions of a community (Thomsen et al 1998). All topics were viewed & classified,
those relevant to the study (related to submissions or the process of designing) also had
their responses classified on a similar scale.

2006
3.3 Research Methodology
It is suggested that Threadless is a unique community of co-design and it is proposed that
by adopting an idiographic approach, it may help to highlight as many of the unique
features of this community as possible (Bryman & Bell 2003). Yin (1984) notes that a
case studies goal is to 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 to
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 to study the social world in as close to its natural state as
possible. The research questions are designed to be exploratory. 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 motivators or enablers which may exist in a number of
different Virtual Communities. The goal is purely to seek a degree of theoretical
generalisability from the results. This research is only meant to be exploratory,
highlighting the experiences and motivations of this one community. Ultimately we are
looking at what is unique about this case and community to help generate a wider

2006
hypothesis. In this case there is a willing trade off between studying multiple
communities and the opportunity to gain a deeper insight into Threadless (Jeppesen &
Frederiksen 2004).
All the research took place in a short time period of time (March – April) as it was
deemed important as this research is did not attempt to be longitudinal, with the ever
changing nature of VCs the gap between research methods kept as short as possible
offering a cross-section snapshot of the community at the time of research.

2006
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
4.0 Findings & Discussion
Due to the exploratory nature of this research there are no firm hypotheses to 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 total the questionnaire was completed by 204 visitors to the Threadless “Blog
Forum” (the Threadless name for the public messageboard, the two will be used
interchangeably). As all site visitors regardless of whether they are guests or
community members have the ability to view the Threadless “Blog Forum” the
population is impossible to quantify. The “Blog Forum” is separate from the more
common activities of rating, submitting or purchasing designs so is unlikely to be
viewed by a large number of site visitors. In total 191 of these responses were
deemed usable for this survey, the other 13 contained incomplete information. In total
219 users started the questionnaire giving an 88% (approx) started/completed rate,
this high completion rate suggests that the questionnaire was of an acceptable length
and held respondents interest enough to progress them through to completion.
Over the seven day participant observation a total of 422 messageboard threads
(threads begin with a single member posting a title and message which other
members may reply to) were viewed and had their topic category logged. Table 3

2006
shows the different categories and the total number of individual threads in each.
Thread types 3a-3e were deemed relevant to this study and likely to return data which
would help answer the research questions.
Table 3: Number of Threads by Topic observed on the “Blog Forum”

N. of
Thread Type Threads
1. Social - not T-shirt related 197
2. T-shirt related - not Threadless 6
3a Design help 8
3b Request by designer for feedback on an Initial design
(before the submission stage) 17
3c Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed scoring 10
3d Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed scoring (by
the designer) 24
3e Vote request for T-shirt undergoing scoring (by the
designer) 8
4 Discussing of a winning (printed) T-shirt 59
5. Discussing Threadless (The company)/Talking to Threadless 28
6. Requesting a reprint of a sold out design 9
7. Suggestions of what Threadless should do next 5
8. Request for help (general not Threadless related) 20
9. Street Team (a Threadless loyalty scheme) 16
10. Sponsor Post (Post from Threadless) 2
11. Discussion of recent Purchase/What to Purchase 15
Total 424
Although all initial posts that started each thread were viewed and categorised, only
type’s 3a-e (67 in total) were considered of interest to this research and had their
replies recorded and categorized to get a picture of the collaborative communication
used on the Blog Forum. In total 6751 replies occurred in all threads over the seven
days. Of these 794 (11.6%) were in the threads categorized as 3a-3e on figure 6 and
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
categorised. It was a surprise to the researcher just how social the Blog Forum was,
with the vast majority of topics started (over 80%) having nothing to do with
Threadless or design in general. While showing how close the community is and just
how much of their day to day lives they shared with other members, off-topic
subjects such as “Which superhero are you?” or “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 to look at the category of
communication used in the comments section below each submitted design. The
submissions chosen were the first 10 submitted designs mentioned on the “Blog Forum”
during the first stage of the participant observation. In total over the ten designs 589
comments were posted and these were all categorised. Table 4 shows that the most

2006
commonly posted comments were giving positive feedback or making a suggestion to the
designer, both considered collaborative.
Table 4: Submission Comments Categories and Frequencies
Comment Categories N. Comments

1 General Conversation - not T-shirt related 55
2 Designer discussing design 24
3a Making a design suggestion e.g. reduce text
size 114
3b Giving design feedback - positive 332
3c Giving design feedback - negative 30
3d Giving design 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 topic and either giving positive feedback such as “I
LOVE the drawing and the idea” (Comment on Submission ID:1) or making a suggestion
e.g.
“The grey/neutral one is my favourite. But I love the placement of the kelley green one.
Combine those too, and you have a 5” (Comment on Submission ID:3)
The data collected from this research will now be used to help answer the research
questions.

2006
4.1 Is there any collaboration between designers and the rest of community prior
to submitting designs?
Results suggest that a considerable amount of support is available to designers
wishing to use it. However of the 73 respondents who had submitted a design, 63%
said they design on their own, shown below in Figure 7.
Q17 - Do you design on your own?
37%
Yes
No
63%
Figure 7: Responses to Q.17 “Do you design on your own”
The figure of 36% who responded “no” suggests that there is some collaboration
within the community but the specific nature of this collaboration is unclear due to
ambiguity in the question. The failure on the part of the researcher to clarify what
specifically constitutes designing 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
community member adds a comment below their submitted design as collaboration
and therefore answer “no” while another may not. The following questions further
highlighted this ambiguity in which 60% of respondents said they did ask for
feedback before submitting designs, shown below in figure 8. This suggests that
designers believed there to be a difference between collaboration and receiving
feedback.
Figure 8: Responses to Q.18 “Do you ask for feedback before you submit your
design”
In total 63 respondents (32%) said they had asked for help on the Blog Forum with
over 96% shown below in Table 5 indicated they received it. This suggests that while
not that commonly used there is supporting available for designers that wish to use it.
Table 5: Responses to Q.14 “Did you receive a response…”

Q14
Did you receive a response from other members offering to help?
Yes 61 96.83%
No 2 3.17%
Not Sure 0 0.00%
Total 63

2006
When asked the question “Have you found feedback on your designs from other
members useful”, 82% of those users that had received feedback said they found it
useful. Respondent n.118 said that they felt “It has helped me become a better
designer too, I've learned and picked up styles from those around me.”
The participant observation however found community communication involving the
critiquing and suggesting revisions at every stage of the design process from rough
idea to submitted design. In total there were 57 specific threads started by designers
about their designs. Of these 25 topics were for designs still in development and had
topic titles such as “Opinions Before Sub (submission)” and others shown below in
Table 6.
Table 6: Examples of Collaborative Thread Topics

Thread N. Topic Title Date N. of Replies
359 (sic) Villians Submission Preview "6th March" 20
401 Samurai are dead (design 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 designers asking for help. In this instance the topic author had
posted an early draft of one of their designs.

2006
“This is pretty rough right now, but what do you think of my absinthe induced green
fairy...” (Thread Author, MsgID 196)
“if you go absinthe - go all out. Have the filter spoon, the sugar cubes.”
(Respondent, MsgID 196)
“What should (sic) i do with her? Have her coming out of a bottle of absinthe?
Anyone have any good ideas?” (Thread Author, MsgID 196)
“Decent idea, but the drawing needs work. Maybe put a green bottle behind it or have
it holding a cocktail glass and a spoon.” (Respondent, MsgID 196)
Further examples of this were found from the observation of comments placed below
design submissions. Of the 589 total comments posted, 114 comments suggested
potential revisions or alterations to the submission, some examples are shown below
“The grey placement is what I (sic) recommend, because it is very balanced, unlike
the green. I love the art style, and I'm giving it a 5.” (Respondent, Submission ID 3)
“I think you should get rid of the sun and then re-center the image.”
(Respondent, Submission ID 3)
Whilst not collaboration in the sense of dividing up the illustrative tasks this shows
evidence of a design evolution in which the community is developing together a
product to match a subset of the communities needs or wants. Often these suggestions
were acknowledge by the submissions author and included in later submission

2006
“Thanks to everyone who (sic) leave the comments. See you on the resub (sic) this
design soon.” (Design Author, Submission ID 1)
4.2 Do all community members submit designs? If not, what factors stop
members submitting designs?
Surprisingly 118 respondents (61%) had not submitted a design to the site, which
considering the frequency of visits to the site suggests that the primary reason for
using the site is not to submit designs. Question 23 asked respondents that had not
submitted a design what was stopping them, the results are shown below in Figure 9
Figure 9: Responses to Q.24 reasons for not submitting a design
Here the community and rating of other peoples designs provides an activity for the
users that feel they don’t have the ability to submit a design. Designing a t-shirt is a
relatively simple task yet 30% of respondents who had not submitted a design said
they felt they lacked the artistic ability to submit. Some respondents who selected

2006
“other” also responded in a way which suggested a lack of technical knowledge or
artistic ability such as
“I expect a level of quality in the printed designs that is greater than what I can
produce myself.” (Respondent n.65)
“I don't know how to use any designing programs!”
(Respondent n.47)
“I hold threadless designs to a high standard, when I create something I think is worth
printing, the threadless name, and $1,000 - i'll submit it” (Respondent n.21)
Part of this reluctance might be due to the belief that their designs do not meet the
standard required to win the competition, however there is no way from this
questionnaire of knowing whether or not they would still produce that design for their
own consumption, using a make-your-own manufacturer. The submission task has
also not be simplified through the use of a dedicated toolkit which if used may have
simplified the process. Over the observation period there were 8 specific threads
asking for technical design help usually for a specific application such as Thread 351
entitled “PSP7 HELP PLEASE” shown below
“is there a way to smooth lines on Paint Shop Pro 7??” (Thread Author)
“Smooth lines? what are you using right now? Smudge usually works, but it can
depend on what tool you're using, like pen tool or just the paintbrush. “
(Respondent)

2006
It was expected that this figure would have been higher but that may be due to the
fact that the applications mentioned will most likely have their own support sites. In
conclusion it is surprising that so many community members have never submitted a
design and this support the notion that some consumers lack the technical skills to
articulate their ideas and wants.
4.3 What aspects of the Threadless business model do its community members
consider the most important?
When asked to prioritise from 1-7 the most important reasons why they purchased
from Threadless the top four variables cited 1-3 in importance as shown below in
Table 7.
Table 7: Responses most often voted 1-3 in importance
Total 1-3
Voted Voted cotes for that
Voted 1 2 3 category. Ranking
Innovative designs 51.83% 15.18% 6.28% 73.30% 1
Exclusivity of designs
(short run production
cycles) 9.42% 28.80% 15.18% 53.40% 2
Involvement in the design
process 7.33% 16.75% 20.94% 45.03% 3
Price 10.47% 10.47% 20.94% 41.88% 4
The Threadless ethos and
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
Surprisingly and contradictory to the wider MC literature it was not involvement
which scored highest, instead it was “Innovative designs”. In fact the results
suggested that Involvement only ranked 3rd in importance. Customers liked the
exclusivity offered by Threadless’ limited batch production. Perhaps in a market
dominated by large multinational brands Threadless offers an opportunity to purchase
a limited although not exclusive item. Verbatim feedback also supported this,
respondent n.146 said “Uniqueness, that’s all I want and search (sic) from these
shirts, it makes me feel as a single individual that doesn’t follow the clothing trends
that are made popular today.” Respondent n.164 agreed and said “I feel the greatest
reason people buy from threadless.com is the short runs of unique, clever designs.”
In this case the quality of the design might be far greater than they feel they can have
produced which is perhaps why 60% of the community have never submitted a
design. So it’s suggested that the community is being asked to make a trade off
between the losses in uniqueness (compared to pure MC) for the increase in the
design quality of what is produced.
4.4 Does this business model support aggregation of user requirements? If so
how?
The strength of this type of NPD is in how it uses technology to simplify the cost of
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
the Blog Forum highlighted several examples of small groups being formed around
certain designs which were not popular enough to be put into manufacturing but were
liked by a subset of the community. Thread ID:422 and a comment on Submission
ID:10 are an example of this
“The design was very popular here on the blogs, but it did poorly out in the real
world, and threadless has told us they don't want to print it. the question becomes, do
we want to print it ourselves? if enough people are interested, i'll have the shirt
printed up on my buck and sell it for cost here on the site...”
(Reply on Thread ID:422)
“Thanks for all the positive feedback everyone! (sic) and if this doesn't get picked, 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 to find other users with
similar design tastes. These groups may not be large enough to warrant Threadless
manufacturing the product but this showcases user led aggregation which may lead to
t-shirts being manufactured in smaller quantities for groups of users who meet on
Threadless..

2006
4.5 Sawhney and Prandelli (2000) state that “a business model that combines
communities into product development empowers peripheral players”, how
much evidence of this can be found within the community of Threadless?
The answer to this question is dependent on who is judged to be the “peripheral
players” within the Threadless community. If we consider that essential Threadless is
running a non stop competition then the key actors are Threadless and the people that
submit designs. Without these there is no venue, competition or manufacturer. With
over 60% of respondents having never submitted a design this leaves the majority of
our sample as so called “peripheral players”. If we compare their behaviour to those
that have actually submitted a design to the competition, the results are surprising.
Non-designers reported higher overall satisfaction, rated more designs, were more
likely to post or reply to messages on the Blog Forum and had also brought more t-
shirts in the past year. They have the same voting rights as everyone else and
although they may be lacking the technical skills to submit a design they are needed
by the designers to improve the ratings of their designs. The result of this is that in the
observation period 17 different threads asked for their (and the community in
generals) feedback on designs before submission and 24 during the ratings process.
This supports Sawhney and Prandelli (2000) showing that a strength in the Threadless
business model seems to be in the way that it offers different ways for peripheral
players to become involved, as one questionnaire respondent said “we get to become
a part of the t-shirt design we are helping somebody with… Involvement is a big
factor. (Respondent n. 58)

2006
If we compare the Threadless business model against the original aim definition of
MC from the Literature review which was “Aim to reach large numbers of customers
but simultaneously treat them as individuals (Davis 1996)”. The Threadless model
seems to achieve this, the experience is different for every person visiting the site as
they decide what to rate, how to rate it and what feedback to leave, this experience
offers the unique value which Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) suggested MC
provides. The actual t-shirt purchased is not unique but because designs are limited
the likelihood of seeing somebody else in the design is small. Small batch production
over one off one off items should help the manufacturer towards another MC goal -
maintaining the efficiency of mass production (Pine et al 1993; Piller 2003).
Hart (1995) suggested that the homogeneous market was a thing of the past. The
Threadless model contradicts this, the internet represents a global marketplace which
seems to increase the likelihood whilst reducing the cost of finding multiple
consumers with the same needs. It is believed that this highlights a potential gap in
the MC literature which has over emphasised the value consumer place on
uniqueness. Instead of thinking that MC “is the capability to offer individually
tailored products or services” (Zipkin 2001), instead the ideal as suggested from the
Threadless research maybe closer to a limited (but not unique) product with the usual
high customer involvement. While the homogenous market may be in decline the
internet offers an opportunity to find customers with homogenous requirements.
Piller and Walcher (2005:7) said that “The Internet provides an efficient platform to
reduce the often difficult and costly process of transferring need information from

2006
customers to a manufacturer.” Threadless seems to show that it also provides an
efficient platform for customers to transfer need information to other customers
supporting an aggregation of users requirements. Community members were
observed explicitly stating what would have needed to be changed to unsuccessful
designs in order that they would receive a better rating such as “I love the image, but
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 to.
Lee & Chen (1999:2) said that MC would mean that
“Heavy discounts and promotions to move less popular products out of warehouses
may become a thing of the past achieving both manufacturer and consumer
satisfaction”
This we suggest is the key difference in the Threadless approach to MC, it delivers
customer involvement but minimises most of the challenges that reduce manufacturer
satisfaction with MC. Lee et al (1999) said that for the manufacturer keeping large
quantities and varieties of raw materials with uncertain, fluctuating demand could
send inventory costs out of control. For Threadless they only need to purchase raw

2006
materials when they decide which t-shirt they want to produce. The community
provides data to help gauge demand. Production complexity is reduced somewhat as
your not producing one off items. The consumer does not have to pick from a range
of uniform, “average” products (Lee et al 1999). The research also seems to suggest
that this business model helps overcome some of the other MC challenges cited in the
literature review, this is represented by Figure 10 below which adapts the original
conceptual framework in light of these new findings.

2006
Figure 10: Adapted Conceptual Framework

2006
The most relevant findings from this section are now summarized below in bullet
form:
• The majority of users did not submit designs but still showed high
involvement and higher satisfaction scores than designers. This supports
• Supporting the idea that consumer have difficulty articulating what they want,
the most popular reason for not submitting a design was “Lack of Artistic
Ability”.
• The primary reason for purchasing from Threadless was “Innovative
Designs”. Exclusivity was considered more important in the purchasing
decision than involvement.
• A large amount of support was available to designers and they showed a
willingness to collaborate. Users provided feedback and suggestions to
designers at every design stage. Community members who felt they lack the
artistic ability to design could perform other functions in the design process.

2006
Chapter 5
“Armed with new connective tools, consumers want to interact and co-create value, not
just with one firm but with whole communities of professionals, service providers, and
other customers. “
(Prahalad, C. Ramaswamy, V 2004:5)
Conclusion, Research Conclusions & Limitations, Reflective Critique of the

Research Process and Recommendations

2006
5.0 Conclusion
This thesis has extended the current MC and customer collaboration literature by looking
at a unique business model offered by Threadless which has both characteristics. While
the literature is concerned with promoting the idea of offering customers unique products
from unique experiences, this thesis challenges the assumption that consumers want and
can realistically achieve this uniqueness. Utilising a multi-part participant observation
and a questionnaire this research highlights some the strengths of the Threadless
approach to MC.
This exploratory research aimed to find out why a consumer would buy a limited product
from Threadless when rival companies can offer them the chance to design a unique
product. It also tests literary assumptions that customers lack the knowledge to specify
their desired solution (Berger et al 2005), and if so can they may be supported through
collaboration with their peers in a VC setting?
The remainder of the chapter presents the final conclusions from the research. This is
followed by suggestions for recommendations for future research in this area. The
thesis concludes with a final critique of the process taken when conducting the
primary research and in the creation of this thesis.

2006
5.1 Research Conclusions & Limitations
Results showed that Threadless offers an interesting balance of MC and niche
production, giving customers a unique experience but asking them to agree collectively
on which product best suits their needs. This aggregation allows the manufacturer to
produce in small batches instead of producing one off unique items. This approach is
further supported by the results of the questionnaire in which respondents placed
“innovative designs” over involvement in the design process as the key reason they buy
from Threadless.
The first key finding was that consumers in this case seemed willing to make the trade off
between creating a unique product to receive a product that many suggested was of a
higher standard that they would have been able to produce. This has potential impact for
those business’ considering MC and offering a fully customised product.
The second key finding observed in the participant observation was the willingness of the
VC to support each other and offer help and advice throughout the design process. This
support can help overcome the problems that customers have during the MC process and
reduce the support the manufacturer has to provide.
The final conclusion drawn from this research is that while technology is cited as
removing communication barriers between manufacturers and customers, making it
easier to receive want information, it is also suggested that this same technology
facilitated the sharing of want information amongst customers. Threadless has developed

2006
a mechanism to aggregate this information and let its customers decide collaboratively
the products 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 customers desire for involvement and unique (or at least limited) products.
This may have implications for manufacturers trying fruitlessly to offer the uniqueness
that the MC literature proclaims customers want, 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 to conduct
another questionnaire with the VC of another make-your-own t-shirt manufacturer.
Finding a company with a VC comparable to Threadless’ did not prove possible with
another questionnaire returning just 30 responses. The research was always supposed to
be cross-sectional, but with a need for further research to 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 story 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
5.3 Recommendations
The most obvious criticism that can be leveled at this research is that the relatively
simple task of designing 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 customers preference for innovation over involvement need to be tested further by
picking a community centered on a more complicated design. Further research is needed
to see if this model could be applied to the creation of other products and services with
higher “sticky” information levels or specialist knowledge requirements.
In keeping with the original research plan it would be beneficial to compare the results
here with similar research at a VC of a pure mass customisation t-shirt manufacturer such
as Spreadshirt. A contrast could then be made of the behaviour reported here to that of
other VCs. As only one case has been studied it is difficult to gauge the generalisability
of these results and further research would help.
If this user centered model of innovation is shown to 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 topic. Is the sponsor role to 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 into the frequency and quality of the innovative activity and the type of
toolkit used may generate some guidelines for business looking at using this model for
NPD.

2006
A further variable which was intended to address in the questionnaire but was omitted
due to researcher error was to address the importance of branding. What effect does
brand perception have on the willingness of consumers to MC and collaborate with other
users?
The research hinted at a potential link between involvement and purchase intention.
Though not enough evidence was available to warrant including this in the results
section it would be interesting for further research either with Threadless or another
VC for user innovation to try and find a link between involvement in the innovation
process and likelihood of purchase. It seems probable that after contributing to the
innovation process a consumer would want to purchase the fruits of their labour, but
little empirical evidence exists to test this when the innovation occurs within a VC. A
majority of respondents felt that simply rating a design regardless of the rating given
increased the chance that they would purchase it. Respondent 11 said that they felt
they got “Way better scores when people feel they helped decide the final product...”
This could have important implications as it may mean that regardless of the quality
of the output simply being involved in the process might strengthen the likelihood of
purchase. 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
Chapter 6
References & Appendices
“As electronic markets continue to evolve, along with their infrastructure and
communication models, so will the complexity and importance of the social structures
which attach themselves to these markets. The understanding of these social structures
will be the key to designing a socially and technically efficient market space” Pg. 1954
(Schubert & Koch 2002:1954)

2006
6.0 References
Agrawal, M. Kumaresh, V. Mercer, G. (2001) “The false promise of mass

customization” The McKinsey Quarterly, 2001, N.3
Alford , D. Sackett, P. & Nelder, G. (2000) “Mass Customisation – an automotive

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 & Overton, T (1977). “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.”

Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (August), 396-402.
Bardacki, A. & Whitelock, J. (2004) “How “ready” are customers for mass
customisation. An exploratory investigation”. Emerald Journal of Marketing Vol.38,
n.11/12, pg.1396-1416.
Brabrazon, P. & MacCarthy, B. (2004) “Giving customers the car they want” IEE
Manufacturing Engineer, Feb/March 2004
Berger, C. Moslein, K. Piller, F. & Reichwald, R. (2005) “Designing modes of co-

operation at the customer interface: learning from exploratory research.” European
Management Review (2005) 2, 70-87.
Brand, R. (2004) “The Citizen-Innovator” Working Paper available at

http://home.arcor.de/brandrg/data/citizen-innovator.pdf [last accessed 1st April 2006]
Brown, S.L., Tilton, 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) “Doing Business on the Internet”. 3rd 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” (3rd edn)
Pearson Education:Harlow
Dholakia, U. Bagozzi, R. Pearo, L. (2004) “A social influence model of consumer

2006
participation in network and small group based virtual communities” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (2004) 241-263.
Economist (2001) “Mass Customisation: A long March” The Economist Online

Available from
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=691227 [last
accessed 20th March]
Ernst, H. & Gulati, R. (2003) “Virtual Customer Integration – Bringing the Customer
back into the Organisation”. In Fuller et al (2004)
Franke, N. & Shah, S. (2002) “How communities support innovative activities: an

exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users.” Research Policy 32; 157-178
Franke, N. & Von Hippel, E. (2003) “Satisfying Heterogeneous User Needs via
Innovation Toolkits: The case of the Apache Security Software” Research Policy 32,
no.7: 1199-1215
Fuller, J. & Hienerth, C. (2004) “Engaging the creative consumer.” European

Business Forum (EBF); issue 19, autumn 2004.
Fuller, J. Bartl, M. Holger, E. & Muhlbacher, H. (2004) “Community Based

Innovation: A Method to Utilize the Innovative Potential of Online Communities”
Proceedings from the 37th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences
2004. Available at
http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/07/205670195c.pdf [last
accessed 10th Sept 2005]
Hagel & Armstrong (1997) “Net Gain: Expanding markets through virtual
communities.” Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
Hart, C. (1995) “Mass customization: conceptual underpinnings, opportunities and

limits” International Journal of Service Industry Management Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 36-
45
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) “Customer 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
Jeppesen, L. & Frederiksen, L. (2004) “Why firm-established user communities work
for innovation: The personal attributes of innovative users in the case of computer-
controlled music instruments” Working paper available at
http://ideas.repec.org/p/ivs/iivswp/04-02.html [Accessed 10th March 2006]
Jiang, P. (2002) “Exploring consumers' willingness to pay for online customisation

and its marketing outcomes.” Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for
Marketing; Vol. 11, 168-183
Kamali, N. & Loker, S. (2002) “Mass Customization: On-line Consumer Involvement

in Product Design.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 7; n.4.
Lampel, J. & Mintzberg, H. (1996) “Customizing Customization” Sloan Management

Review, Fall 1996, pp. 21-30
Lee, S.E. & Chen, J. (1999) “Mass-customization Methodology for an Apparel

Industry with a Future” Journal of Industrial Technology, vol.16, n.1 Nov 1999 – Jan
2000
Lee, S. Barua, A. Whinston, B. (1999) “The complementary of Mass Customization

and Electronic Commerce.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 9,
No. 2, March 2000, pp. 81-109
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (1999) “Principles of Marketing” 2nd European Edition

London:Prentice-Hall Europe
Oon, Y and Khalid, H (2001) “How does web site design and usability of online
configurators user satisfaction and site efficiency in supporting design 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) “Customer interaction and digizability - a structured approach to

mass customization.” Working Paper, Available at http://www.mass-
customisation.de/download/pil2002-2.pdf [Accessed 05th October 2005.]
Piller, F. & Berger, C. (2003) “Customers as Co-Designers.” IEE Manufacturing

Engineer. August/Sept 2003
Piller, F. Moeslein, K. & Stotko, C. (2004) “Does mass customization pay? An

economic approach to evaluate customer integration.” Production Planning &

2006
Control. Vol. 15, N.4, June 2004, 435-444
Piller, F. & Muller, M. (2004) “A New Marketing Approach to Mass Customisation.”

Int J. of Computer Integrated manufacturing. Oct/Nov 2004, Vol. 17, N.7, 583-593.
Available at http://www.mass-customization.de/download/ijcim04.pdf. [last accessed
1st October 2005]
Piller, F. Schubert, P. Koch, M. Moslein, K. (2005) “Overcoming Mass Confusion:

Collaborative customer co-design in online communities.” Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 10 (2005) 4. Available from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/piller.html [last accessed 10th October 2005]
Piller, F. Walcher, D. (2006): “Toolkits for Idea Competitions: A Novel Method to

Integrate Users in New Product Development”, Journal of R&D Management.
Pine, J. (1993) “Mass Customization: The new frontier in business competition.”

Harvard Business School Press; Boston
Pine, J. Victor, B and Boynton, C. (1993) "Making Mass Customization Work"

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, September-October, 1
1993, pp. 108-111.
Pine, J. (1994) “Customers don’t want choice”, Managers Journal, Wall Street
Journal, 18th April, p.A14
Pine, J. (1998) “Welcome to the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business

Review, Jul/Aug98, Vol. 76 Issue 4.
Porter, M. (2001) “Strategy and the Internet” Harvard Business Review, Vol.79, Iss.3,
pp. 62 -79.
Prahalad, C. Ramaswamy, V (2004) “The Future of Competition: Co-Creating

Unique Value with Customers” Massachusetts:Harvard Business School Press
Rainie, L., & Packel, D. (2001) “More online, doing more.” Pew Internet &
American Life Project. [online] Available from
http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/vf_pew_internet_community.pdf
[last accessed 14th December 2005]
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
Rifkin, G. (1994) “Digital blue jeans pour data and legs into customized fit” New
York Times, Nov 8 1994, p. A1. [Cited in Lee et al 1999]
Sanders, H. (2001) “Financial rewards of mass customization.” MCPC 2001,

Proceedings of the 2001 World Congress on Mass Customization and
Personalization, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. [online]
available at http://www.sanders.ch/2000-02-
23,%20Mass%20Customization%20(New%20York%20speech).pdf
[last accessed 15th March]
Saunders et al (2003) “Research Methods for Business” (3rd edn) Pearson

Education:Harlow
Selnes, F. (1998) “Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-

seller 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: Customer

Collaboration and Virtual Communities.” Eighth Americas Conference on
Information Systems
Seiders, K. Voss, G. Grewal, D. Godfrey, A. (2005) “Do Satisfied Customers 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 to 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 Customization 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 Customer Centric Enterprise. New York: Springer.

2006
Von Hippel, E. (1986) “Lead users: a source of novel product concepts.”
Management Sciences 32 (7), 791-805
Von Hippel E. & Tyre, M. (1995) "How "Learning by Doing" is Done: Problem
Identification in Novel Process Equipment." Research Policy, (January) p. 1-12.
Von Hippel, E. (1998) “Economics of Product Development by Users: Impact of

"Sticky" Local Information.” Management Science, vol 44, n.5 (May) p. 629-644
Von Hippel, E. (2005) “Democratizing Innovation.” MIT Press accessed. Available

at http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/ [Accessed 1st Oct]
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 Customization.” MIT Sloan Management

Review; Spring 2001, Vol. 42 Issue 3, p81-87

2006
6.1 Appendices
Appendix A – Example Questionnaire
The questions are shown below are in the exact order they appear to the respondents.
Branching was used on the questionnaire so a respondent would only see questions
relevant to 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 to question 4.
3. Since your first purchase from Threadless.com, what percentage of ALL your t-
shirt purchases (including purchases from both online retailers and traditional offline
stores) 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
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 designs 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 to 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 to messages?

1. Never
2. Once or Twice
3. Occasionally
4. Often

2006
11. Have you ever responded to anyone posting, asking for design assistance?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not Sure
Branching = If answer is “2. No” or “3. Not Sure” move to 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 design assistance on the blog forum?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not Sure
14. Did you receive a response from other members offering to help?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not Sure
15. How many designs have you submitted to 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 to 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
17. Do you design on your own?
1. Yes
2. No
18. Do you ask for feedback (on or offline) from anyone before you submit your
designs?
1. Yes
2. No
19. Have you found feedback on your designs from other members useful (this
feedback could have been from direct contact or from messages posted below your
design)? 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 to question 24.
20. Why was this feedback useful/not useful?
21. Have you incorporated any of the feedback in re-submissions of that design?
1. Yes
2. No
3. I have not resubmitted any designs
22. In your opinion did incorporating the changes recommended in feedback from
other users, result in a better overall design submission?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not Sure
23. If you haven’t submitted a design, why not? (Tick as many of the below as you
agree with)
1. No interest in designing
2. Lack of artistic ability
3. Complexity of submission requirements
4. Shortage of free time to produce designs
5. Others (Please Specify)
_________________________________________________________________
__________

2006
24. If there was an option for you to suggest design ideas to someone else who would
create them, would you be interested in this?
1. Yes (Depending on how the prize funds/design rights were allocated)
2. No
3. Not Sure
25. Please list any other factors you consider important, indicating which ranking
you would have given to 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 to 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 design process

• Innovative Designs
• Exclusivity of Designs (limited quantities)
• The Threadless ethos and brand.
• Price
• Delivery Times
• Sizing & Colour Options
29. Please list any other factors you consider important, indicating which ranking
you would have given to 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
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 to 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
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 toi? "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 "6th March" 3 21 6 8 4
x WINS!! --- but i need ur streetteam
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 to buy it. "6th March" 4 12
The Evolution of you...as seen
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 "6th March" 11 0
im trying to get myself a new shirt,
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 to Mass Customisation, 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
Final Day, all rides FREE! plus,
367 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 design
3a What do you think of my design 3b Discussion of t-shirt undergoing scoring (by the designer)
3b Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed 3c Vote request for T-shirt undergoing scoring (by the
scoring designer)
3c Discussion of t-shirt undergoing/completed
scoring (by the designer) 3d Making a design suggestion eg reduce text size
3d Vote request for T-shirt undergoing scoring (by
the designer) 3e Designer discussing incorporating design suggestions.
3e Vote request for T-shirt undergoing scoring (not
by the designer) 3h Giving design feedback - positive
4 Discussing a winning T-shirt 3i Giving design feedback - negative
5. Discussing Threadless (The company)/Talking to
Threadless 4. Thanking responses
6. Requesting a reprint 5. Feedback to Threadless
7. Suggestions of what Threadless should do next 6. Help (general not design related)
8. General Help not Threadless related 8. Discussion of a Winning Design
9. Street Team
10. Sponsor Post
11. Purchase/What to Purchase
____________________________________________________________________
- 83 -
The Virtual Community of Threadless.com and their attitudes to Mass Customisation, 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 want you to hit me as
shirt related 2 hard as you can 1929 No 113 8 2 9 76 1 4 1 2
2 Designer discussing design 3 The Sun Catcher 1973 No 41 2 7 29 3 5
3 Making a design suggestion eg
reduce text size 4 Jollier Roger 1990 No 33 8 6 7 6 7 2
3b Giving design feedback -
positive 5 Devil's Most Wanted 1984 No 37 6 3 16 10 5 3
3c Giving design feedback -
negative 6 Misplaced Things 1777 Yes 65 5 1 14 49 1 1 0 0
3d Giving design 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 2596 Yes 84 5 4 27 49 1 1 2 2
Migratory Patterns of the
10 Popsicle 2039 Yes 57 5 1 8 39 1 2
____________________________________________________________________
- 84 -

Adam Fletcher: Adam Fletcher - Do Consumers Want To Design Unique Product On The Internet. 2006 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adam Fletcher: Adam Fletcher - Do Consumers Want To Design Unique Product On The Internet. 2006 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Do consumers want to design unique products on the

internet? A study of the online Virtual Community of

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

Nottingham Trent University, 2006

Adam Fletcher – Do consumers want to design unique product on the internet. 1

About the Author

Adam Fletcher – adamfletcher@gmail.com

Tel: + 49 163 453 9016

I would be interested in participating in further research topics in this field of interest.

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

Adam Fletcher – Do consumers want to design unique product on the internet. 2

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

Adam Fletcher – Do consumers want to design unique product on the internet. 3

Figures & Tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 5: Responses to 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

Adam Fletcher – Do consumers want to design unique product on the internet. 4

Introduction, Term Definition, Context and Justification

“The business opportunity of the next millennium” (referring to Mass

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

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

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

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

ethnographic research of messageboard communication. Conclusions are followed by

recommendations for further research in this area.

1.1 Mass Customisation (MC)

Adam Fletcher – Do consumers want to design unique product on the internet. 6

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

involvement and empowerment.

Adam Fletcher – Do consumers want to design unique product on the internet. 7

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

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

1.2 The Virtual Community (VC)

propose that Virtual Communities are:

“The union between individuals or organizations using electronic media to communicate

but not exclusively created around shared values or interests”

Adam Fletcher – Do consumers want to design unique product on the internet. 8

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

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

children’s Lego robotics community the “First Lego League” (www.firstlegoleague.org).

designed with input from customers.

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

power of the Internet lies in uniting individuals, developing a VC to support your

Adam Fletcher – Do consumers want to design unique product on the internet. 9

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

1.4 Justification of Topic Area

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

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

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