Previous PreSales commitments & Influence

Edit Subject

One week down in the time to commit to Scribe for "presales influence"... can we PLEASE get some final details on this so we can confirm (or not) our orders?

Thank you!

As far as a product like Scribe - where pre-order happened under the old system, but confirmation will happen under the new system:

Quirky created the environment where early pre-orderers had a possibility of extra %.
Many quirkers then responded by behaving as Quirky intended.
Quirky received the benefit of the behavior, and, though that environment was created under the old system, it needs to follow through and honor the result.

We did not create that environment, Quirky did. It now needs to honor what that environment promised.
(To imply it, or to create the environment, is to promise it...just ask Ben about Radio Shack.)

Speaking in terms of risk and reward.

It is to Quirky's benefit for us to take risk...and the more we risk, the greater Quirky benefits.
(We risk that a product will sell well when we pre-order for the %. We risk more when we pre-order a product that does not already appear to be popular. Quirky and the product benefits when we thus "prime the pre-sale pump".)

So, in order to motivate us, Quirky has been correlating the risk and the reward.

Quirky benefits if it continues to motivate us by doing so.
If, instead, Quirky uses a flat reward regardless of the amount of risk, it will lose that benefit as we all simply wait to see if a product is popular, and only order the ones that are so.

Further, it seems out of balance for Quirky to lose that benefit in order to "not give unexpected influence"...especially when Quirky then plans to dispense the resulting extra by giving every other round "unexpected influence"!

"Unexpected influence" is going to end up going somewhere. Quirky showed great insight when it used the extra to its benefit instead of piddling it away among all the rounds.

I hope Quirky will continue to do so.

(Note: I rarely pre-order for influence. My argument is not for the benefit of those who do.
It is for the benefit of Quirky as it risks losing a benefit for a reason that doesn't make sense [namely: "(paraphrasing) We're going to award "unexpected influence" in order to avoid awarding "unexpected influence".]).

same here

So.. It's been over a week since this has been discussed. What's the final word on it or did I miss something? I'd like to know before the next product starts shipping.

No product ever sold out on it's first day. So who was ever excluded?
.
Quirky screwed over the community by closing off presales too early in some cases like Cush and Contour. And not even offering presales on Stem.
.
Quirky offered and took away the thresholds at their whim.
.
How many times has Quirky changed the rules midstream? 30% becomes 10%, becomes 10% of the wholesale price.....
.
Stick to the rules you made. Keep your commitment.

i'm pretty insulted by Conroy's post trying to make us (the current community members) look greedy --- when if fact this whole thread is about Quirky being greedy.
By Quirky trying to dilute the previously existing rules, that THEY put in place, Quirky is trying to use the efforts of the communities past work, to attract new community members, to better themselves --- all while blaming us.

So is the compromise being reconsidered or is it now Quirky gospel regardless of what the majority of us think?

BTW, In my mind "supporting the product", "pre-ordering for influence", and "making an investment" are phrases that all mean the same thing.
I do all of those for the same reason - to try to make money.

@Conroy,
Here's my suggestion.
At the end of the pre-sale period, simply split the pre-sale influence among the pre-ordered, paid for units - regardless of how many there are (no limit).
.
No need to consider any of the pre-sale influence as "extra", and no need to take it and add it to other rounds.

I think we're scratching our heads because you seem concerned that "we'll get more influence than we expected"...
...but then you're proposing that the fix to that "more influence than we expected" in the pre-sale round is to take it and give "more influence than we expected" to other rounds.

"More influence than we expected" is "more influence than we expected", regardless of which round it's in.
You can't delete the extra, so you might as well use it where it does Quirky the most good* - pre-sale purchases.
That's why Quirky has always actually gone a step further - taking any extra influence from other rounds and adding it to the 15%.

*The reason it does Quirky the most good here? Pre-sale is the only round where community members can choose how much influence they want, so it's the only round where more influence can effect their behavior.

@Conroy,
Instead of thinking of the split of the 15% pre-sale influence among fewer people as an unearned bonus, think of it as a reward that's proportional to the risk.

It's riskier for a community member to support an unpopular product...so it's appropriate for the reward to be greater if their support pays off.

Likewise, it's less risky to support a popular product...so it's appropriate for the reward to be less.

If the system is splitting the 15% between the number of confirmed units ordered, regardless of how many there are, then the reward will naturally be proportional to the risk.

By making the reward the same regardless of the risk, you create an artificial, disproportional situation.

Millions of financial transactions involving risk are conducted every day, and nearly every one of them has proportional reward. Why would you choose to be different than the rest of the world?

@Conroy, I'm curious about what your motivation might be.
It's not as if Quirky would be saving any money - it's all going to be paid out to the community one way or another.
So, why are you trying to change something that has obviously benefited Quirky in the past?

@Conroy,
"Essentially, if you committed to a product that was moved into production before hitting threshold (as many products have been), you will be getting an unexpected bonus for your early commitments if you follow-through on them when the time comes."

Quirky seemed to at least imply that this bonus was an intentional reward for those willing to put their money where their mouth was in support of a less than popular product.
So, it was not unexpected.

And, in fairness, it should be honored.

It should also be continued with new products.

(Don't forget that our perspective is different than yours. We are usually making and paying for those commitments without knowing if or who a retailer may be, etc. - so it's not an "automatic" money grab or anything.).

Since our blind support in a less than popular product is valuable to Quirky, encouraging us to do that by rewarding us with the bonus is beneficial to Quirky.

I guess what I'm saying is that, instead of thinking,
"Hey, wait, they shouldn't get extra just because they pre-ordered and followed through when so many others didn't",
you should be thinking,
"Hey, wait, it benefits us if they get extra because they pre-ordered and followed through when so many others didn't".

As Nicole said - we need real numbers. The actual percent of influence left over for each product AND the number of units committed to in presale.

@Conroy, can we get a list of all products this applies to, the remaining influence that's at stake for presales, and how many presale units were ordered? Will this be for all products prior to the Pricing Game or just ones that were already in Production?

When the time comes for these items to start shipping that information will be helpful since we no longer can see the threshold numbers or the lists of influencers and their %'s.

Thank you for thoroughly looking into all of this!

The comprise Q is trying to make is to honor what was said for the new system and the Pricing Game and take away from what was said in the old system. That doesn't make much sense to me.

How many products are we really talking about on those that were in production before the Pricing Game?

Let's compare that now to the quite larger number of products that were still not in production at this time.

I think the benefits of the larger number of products going forward are greater than hosing everyone else on the smaller number of products.

People should be getting the extra influence for commitments that are not fulfilled in the old system. The Pricing Game should not be included in these products. The rules should be changed for old commitments. Being fair, is following through on the rules / guidelines at that time. Some products went into production without meeting threshold therefore influence should be based on the number it was at, not the threshold number.

I did not commit to large quantities as others have, but I have committed to several products in the old system. I took the gamble to commit and would like to get what I thought I would be getting. I have always followed through and purchased what I committed to.

I appreciate Q seeing that a compromise is necessary and that people who made commitments and followed through are the ones that have helped Q grow.

i still think it's wrong that Q changes the rules mid game. (the acronym ROTD, should be an insult to Q --- that the community thinks they change the rules that offten....)
.
i think all previous products should finish presales just how the rules were before. If Q wants to re-open the presales, and wait for all of the thresholds to be met... then fine.
.
if Q doesn't like that.... then just kill all the products that are in dispute. that way, if the products don't make any $$ then Q doesn't owe anyone any $$, and there is nothing to give to the pricing game people anyway.
.
.
i don't feel there should be any compromise here.
.
if Q over committed % of influence.... then Q should take the hit, and raise the price of the unit to cover for the error, and give up some of their 70%. if my math is right... that would be 0.1% of Q's 70% should be equal to 5% of the communities 30%.
.
i don't not skip a payment on my mortgage because my girlfriend wants me to take her on a ski vacation. i don't think the bank will compromise with me on that. So why is Q trying to back up and renegotiate. hows that for a reductio ad ridiculum example.
.
.
.
change it to what ever you want from duo forward.

Thinking about it a bit more, to me, this new "compromise" just seems like a re-worded version of the original "compromise".

People who are spending actual money to buy the product and getting influence shafted? Check

People who do not financially show they believe in the product taking away from the people who do? Check

It's kind of Robin Hood-esque. Take from the people who have, and financially contribute to Quirky and give to the people who don't. Possibly good for government. Not for Quirky.

Conroy,

Your reply and proposed solution is a HUGE improvement over what you previously had stated would be the plan moving forward. Thank you for taking the time to listen to the community, compile their comments, and post such a thorough and thoughtful reply.

However, I still feel that you are missing the point (at least part of) the main point that the community has been stating in their replies. Allow me to elaborate...

Back in the era of when Cloak and Pivot Power were launched there were a fixed number of units to hit threshold. If you felt that the product was a sound bet you could choose to buy an unlimited number of units within the threshold amount. The stats are currently missing from the website but that guy who is the number 2 influencer on Cloak was THE REASON that Cloak made it into production and he was rewarded handsomely, something like 19% influence if I recall correctly.

If that era of "buy as many units as you wish" were still in effect than your proposed compromise would be pretty good. However soon after that time Quirky decided that one person buying products into production was not the best measure of actual popularity/indicator of true market success. Therefore Quirky then announced the 25 units per person rule. Even with this new rule what remained the same was the statement (I'll let Cody or MT dig that out of the archives) that if/when a retailer picks up a product then the amount of influence set aside for presales would be divided among those who had made presale commitments. The rule was NOT that people would receive "X" amount of influence per unit whether 100 units or 1000 units were committed to in presale.

The reason this is a critical distinction is that if Quirky were to assign "X" amount of influence per unit regardless of the number of units that were committed to then the chances are still slim to none that they will ever turn a profit. The breakout success stories where people say things like, "My wife was able to quit her job and be a full time stay at home mom!" only happens in instances where the community member earned 5% influence (or more) based on their bet to buy in presale working out when everyone else chose not to buy in presale.

Take the example of Bandits. With the exception of maybe 20 people all of the Quirky community committed to their preorders when Quirky announced that they would give you your order for free based on trying to do the right thing after cutting the units of Bandits in each box in half from what was previously advertised. I bought 25 units and earned 0.98% influence. That is how small influence becomes when you divide it by the total possible threshold. The purchase price was $225 and to date my 0.98% influence has made me less than $80. Generally speaking that would be considered a bad investment.

To summarize, the community has been complaining because they took the risk to buy in presale in hopes of turning a profit. Based on your new proposed solution of assigning "X" percent of influence per unit purchased and sharing the non-committed influence elsewhere - everyone who gambled in presales, still loses.

As always, thanks for your time.

JARED

@Conroy:
This is a great compromise!

I have only one question, just to be clear on that.
All of the presale influence is being rewarded to those who follow through with their commitment, if all who commtted follow through, right? Only the influence of those who don't follow through is being rewarded to othwr phases, right?

To make myself more clear: if a product had a threshold of 1000 and 20% influence left for presale, but there were only 200 commitments when the product went into production. Now all of those 200 commitments are being followed through, the 20% influence gets divided between those 200 units bought, right. Only if let's say, 150 units are being followed through, 5% of the "lost" influence goes to the pricing round, right?

I just want to make sure that you not only reward the influence that would be rewarded if the threshold was met, even though the product went into production way before the threshold was met!

This is very important, because the influence from those products that didn't met their threshold, but still went into production is the most interesting for us. Because more influence is being divided between less people.

Just making sure, so we do not have any misunderstanding about this issue again in the future!

I'd like to re-start this conversation with some shout-outs and appreciation for things you in the Quirky Community have said on this thread. I'd like to thank grangermdk for bringing this discussion into the public light with valid questions and concerns, and for the idea that the same percentage of influence and same rules should still be available for grandfathered commitments; Nichole for bringing up the metaphor of pie slices (mmm, pi...); J. Andre for the reductio ad ridiculum example of re-opening Presales; JARED JOYCE for confessing that Presales will no longer be worth his time or money; Joe Phillips for making plain how confusing our communication on this issue has been so far; Maria for pointing out that selfishness vs. fairness depends on your perspective; justin for proposing a compromise and looking at the long-term success of Quirky products; Michael Taylor for proposing a case-by-case solution instead of a one-size-fits-all; zymie for the hyperbolic term ROTD (Rule of the Day) which I like a lot; Cody for pointing out precedent for Quirky grandfathering Presale shipping costs; thundernumbers for both asking "why?" and for proposing the meet-half-way solution which is the cornerstone of this compromise; and to everyone as a whole for participating in this conversation and showing that you care about Quirky's past and our future. We've listened to your feedback and learned to see things a bit better from your perspective. We hope that you can approach this compromise with an open mind.

FACT: People who made Presales commitments did so either to show support for the product or to earn influence by investing in the product. For the latter group, they saw the product threshold, calculated the influence they would earn if that threshold was reached, gauged the potential of the product being a smashing success, considered the price, and decided to make a certain number of commitments. When Presales closed, participants trusted that they could expect x% influence at product launch based on their personal commitments, the total amount of commitments, and the amount of influence left over for that product. Decreasing their expected influence is not fair and is not going to be tolerated by the Quirky Community.

FACT: All products going in to or coming out of production since the introduction of the Pricing Game have been influenced by that phase to some degree; whether in deciding to produce it or in determining / sanity-checking the final sales price. People who played the Pricing Game therefore have participated and influenced those products to a non-trivial degree and deserve influence points for doing so.

FACT: Not all Presales commitments are fulfilled and converted into purchases. Normally, influence for non-fulfilled commitments is rolled back in to the Presales phase, but that is more of a guideline than a rule. Some products have relatively low commitment follow-throughs while others have very high. In either case, receiving any amount of influence above the expected x% (personal commitments over total commitments times leftover influence) is a bonus.

FACT: Influence for the Pricing Game and other future phases must come from somewhere in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. These post-Presales phases are important to improve the quality and success of Quirky Products. We have to find a way to prepare for and reward future participants while still being fair towards participants in past phases. Now for the fun part.

THE COMPROMISE: If people follow-through on their commitments, they will see the same influence they expected when they decided to make those commitments. If all commitments are fulfilled, the Pricing Game and future phases will have zero influence left over for that product. This is not ideal on our side, but it is the most fair thing to do for Presale participants. However, if not all commitments are converted into purchases after the regular time period, the un-claimed influence of people who made commitments but did not follow-through will be set aside for the Pricing Game and other future phases. First and foremost, this means that Presales participants can still expect their x% influence (personal commitments over total commitments times leftover influence) without it getting arbitrarily diluted by later phases. This also means that participants of the Pricing Game and other future phases will likely (but not necessarily) be able to receive at least some influence for participating, even if they do not get the full up-to-5% we have been considering.

This compromise is inspired by almost everybody on GS who said that we should "honour old commitments" and "grandfather" them in for products that have both Presales and later phases like the Pricing Game. I believe this system does just that: people can expect the same influence they would have available if everyone followed through on their commitments -- they just can't expect more. This compromise also helps Quirky be in the best position possible to reward participants in phases that come after Presales while not arbitrarily diluting commitment influence.

Thoughts?

P.S. When you read "FACT" you may choose to hear it like this: http://youtu.be/dVlaZfLlWQc?t=5m27s

Do what was done when free shipping stopped offered for presale commitments previously, grandfather it in for products that were already in presale and for all future products shipping would be charged. http://aquirkyblog.com/2010/06/pre-sa...

In the case of presale influence, have all presale influence stay the same for products that had a presale threshold and only go with the pricing game influence and new discounted purchasing influence for products that were released since the pricing game has started.

Hey folks. We're reading and considering all these comments. We're going to figure out a fair way to proceed. I'll make sure to keep you updated. Thanks and keep the conversation going.

I'll copy my forum post to this thread:

I don't think its fair at all.

Everyone that was originally participating had the opportunity to commit to presale purchase. Why should they now have the opportunity if the product does go into production?

Why should anyone that didn't commit to presales of Ventu, for example, be able to do it retroactively and take away from the influence of those that did commit?

Fair would be to leave the presale commitments intact for all items that had presale commitments before the pricing game.

This frustrates me very much and it takes a lot for something to really bother me. Seriously Quirky!?!??! How hard is it to honor and respect those that purchased products they believed in before the new rules are being rolled out. Here is my post from the forums:

Zymie, completely agree with you!

This is the kind of thing that I wish Q. would take more seriously. I think it warrants a blog post.

I am sure many will cancel commitments since the influence will be diluted so much :/

***Like Zymie says they need to honor the commitments that were placed before the pricing game, sounds selfish, but I see it as FAIR***

I don't like that people that did not believe in the product enough to commit to it now can partake :/ I did not believe in Cush (sorry Awasemo) but there were a few that did and they should be rewarded. I believed in Ventu and committed to a couple...well, you get the picture.

I don't like the fact that this thread is labeled as answered :/

I too am not happy to see Quirky cheating their long-time Quirky members out of presale influence. The right thing to do is simply honor all prior presale commitments and let the new rules apply to the new system that is now the pricing game.

So 1,500 people will be able to buy 25 units..... So the original 1200 threshold for influence could possibly grow to a threshold of 37,500 units for slice.
.
.
So for every dollar return I could have gotten before.... I'll now get 3.2% of that dollar or 3.2 cents.
.
.
If my math is right.... I'll cancel all my orders too.
Unless I'm not understanding something.

I the same as Cody, grandermdk & Michael Taylor bought products in large quantities in presales to gain influence. Why should we get "shafted" on older products when they start shipping? I know that splitting the pie into the smallest pieces is advantageous to Quirky but we were playing by your rules and they should be honored on older products. The new "rule" of influence for everyone who participated should only apply to products that happened after the Pricing Game started.

Cody,

Quirky should grandfather the old commitments, they were made under different conditions and rules, the original 15% influence should stand to the people that participated

it is one thing to proceed under new rules/terms from a certain cutoff point or product onward, then it is to change things up to existing commitments

This could hurt social sellers also. If someone now knows their influence will be diluted, they may back out of their large order.

Hey all, you do not need to wait. If you buy Stem before we send out the email,
your purchase still counts. The 2-week clock will start once the email
has been sent. We will be sending the email in the next day or two.

Update: We'll be sending an email soon. Anyone who participated in the development of the product (voting during eval, developing rounds, etc.) and buys a unit within two weeks will be eligible for influence. There will be a 25 unit limit for influence.

More information upcoming.