Is Product 0240/Evonne Wilks' idea a Mantis line extension?

Edit Subject

If this is a line extension then you can't just ignore the original influencer's...

So is this a line extension? I see mini-mantis is in the community design phase.

IMO Quirky should be open to advancements on it's own products.

So, those submissions that propose advancements should be accepted, and those submitters rewarded - even to the point of Quirky considering it to be a separate product.

But Quirky also has to balance that with the fact that doing so creates competition for influence $ between the second product ideators and the first product ideators.
And while that will occur to some extent between many pairs of Quirky products, these types of situations are unique because, in most cases, the desire to even submit the second product is a direct result of the successful effort and insight of the ideators of the first product...
...meaning Quirky could be taking influence $ away from those who's input caused the sales $ to come to Quirky in the first place.

(For example, if I submit and win with the idea for a 7 outlet pivot power, buyers will be choosing between the original and mine. Every time they buy mine, I will have taken influence $ away from Jake [even if split 50-50] - who had the insight that led to the product, who's success led me to submit my idea in the first place.)

So, to keep Quirky's need to advance their products in balance with the need to reward the influential ideators, I propose that the submissions for the advancement of Quirky's own products meet a higher standard.

Specifically, I propose that, in order for a submission to be selected as a separate product instead of a line extension, the submitter must submit a product idea that is an innovative, useful, and non-obvious advancement of the Quirky product.

Quirky can do this by simply not moving submissions suggesting obvious advancements into UC.
Anytime a submission suggests a classic obvious change to a current Quirky product - color, size, or materials, etc. - it's automatically ignored.
And any other change is put through the gauntlet:
Is the change innovative?
Does it solve a problem the original product doesn't solve (useful)?
If you gave the design for the original product to the QDS and asked them to redesign it in order to solve the new problem, could they possibly come up with a similar change (non-obvious)?

(By the way, this will cut down on the torrent I think we're about to experience of submissions proposing minimal changes to Quirky products.)

For Quirky to select a submission like,
"This Quirky product is super successful. Let's make a version for me, so I can get big influence $ payouts too"
is a horrendous thought for us in the community - even if the QDS is looking for the opportunity to make a different version - ...
...but is also not far from the truth for many of these "new-version submissions" with minor advancements we're seeing move into UC.