Loading Profile...
Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.
I’m
not paying you when you couldn't do it.
Quirky please drop the 10% thing when returning inventions to the inventor.
Could Quirky please drop the 10% thing when returning inventions back to the inventor? It will not be a good precedent and leave Q with bad P.R. It makes Q looks like an invention scam submission dream factory puppy mill. If you can not finish, sell, or pursue a picked idea......just say so and give it back. THE END. To expect 10% if WE end up doing something worthwhile with it ourselves or elsewhere when YOU could not...is not gonna fly. You will have a serious, serious backlash of bad publicity. Just sayin.....
Promoted
Responses
-
3I truly believe this 10% exit concept is the WORST decision Quirky has ever made.
****
First, Quirky takes an inventor and declares them a "Winner". They are ecstatic and they see the chances of a dream being fulfilled. Each stage (design, naming, etc) takes the ideator to a new level of excitement. Then, for some reason, nothing much seems to be happening.
****
As the months click by, it becomes evident that Quirky has lost faith in their ability to make it a successful product. For almost a year the ideator has been taken on an emotional roller-coaster, and then comes the devastating news - Quirky is no longer interested in making your dream come true - and you are getting your idea back.
****
Almost a year has gone by and a promising partnership has dissolved. Not quite the same as a divorce, but the emotional letdown is never-the-less devastating. Then Quirky reminds you, by the way, in case you happen to do what we could not do (that is, make the product successful) we get 10%. Ouch - its salt in the wound.
****
It may be legal - but its a crappy thing to do. Morally its another kick of sand in the face. Its HORRIBLE "PR" - and while the chances are slim of anyone being able to make the product work on their own - any profits made through the 10% will never make up for the bad publicity and bitter feelings it leaves with ideators who already feel like victims.
****
The truly gracious thing would be for Quirky to say - "Dear Partner, we're so sorry this didn't work out. We truly are. Please take these renderings as our farewell gift to you, and if you can make it work - we will rejoice and salute you! We wish you well!"
****
This is a time when Ben needs to stop listening to his legal and accounting department and stop doing what is legal, and focus on what is right. Grace - this is a time for it! -
5I agree this is a strike against submitting good ideas to Quirky before exhausting other options. Does Quirky want to be the last place people go? -
I’m
Whatever
3I think this would be very hard to make stick in law especially if you did not use Q's drawings or designs.
-
I’m
Whatever
3I think this would be very hard to make stick in law especially if you did not use Q's drawings or designs.
-
David Quirk February 08, 2012 00:46Right and I would never use their drawings or designs. Maybe if someone did there could be a fee or something worked out, but for people to just get their original ideas back and nothing from Q, that should be it imo. No 10%!EditDeleteRemove
-
-
justin February 09, 2012 14:19Michelle, right, and so the people who didn't follow the "rule" would probably be fine, and those who did (or were too scared of it to take their idea back) would be SOL.EditDeleteRemove
-
-
-
-
-
1I also think that most people do not want to be audited and will never use your designs...most don't even know how to run a business let alone pay someone out royalties...sorry, if you can't get it to market, you should drop it and give us that as a reward for taking our ideas and not producing them IMO!
-
-
CHAMP
2It depends on exactly what the inventor gets back but I understand why Quirky would want something in return. People come to Quirky primarily because they do not know how to do some aspect of it on their own, they don't know how, etc. Quirky takes the manpower/payroll to get it where it is, develop the real-like renders and whatnot which mean everything in getting a deal done, granted there are exceptions (i.e. Andrea) but it's not typical, at least from what I understand.
There are people who do renders out there for around $100 but not to the quality Quirky does.
Maybe 10% for a certain period of time or until $x amount paid instead of for life. Remember, 10% that is paid back to Quirky is shared with the original influencers as well.
90% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Would a deal be made without the stuff Quirky provides? Did the stuff Quirky provided make the deal? -
-
5I agree this is a strike against submitting good ideas to Quirky before exhausting other options. Does Quirky want to be the last place people go?
- view 2 more comments
-
-
-
Oh please you do whatever Mommy Z tells u to do Cody.
Anyway it's not only the Right thing to do........it's a helluva lot easier for both parties. I mean do you really want to deal with me later to get ur 10? Cmon now? -
-
Hey, mama Z knows best!! Just saying...anyway, the RIGHT thing to do is the BEST thing for everyone.
-
-
-
-
1Does 10% apply to the outcome (final product renderings) or the initial idea, or both? For example, if you make Hooks-on-a-roll elsewhere do you need to pay 10% to Quirky, or only in the case when you reproduce Links? -
-
I think a sliding scale is better to better reflect community input as well as Quirky staffs input. If a person is going to use their original idea and no way will use anything close to Quirky or community inputted information then maybe a couple percent at most should be charged since the community and staff did add to the design whether or not the person who came up with the idea believes they did or didn't.
If they use a Quirky design then maybe a standard 5-6% royalty. 10% is simply too high and not worth even pursuing unless you can manufacture it in your own facilities or can sell it for at least 6 times your cost versus the usual 5 times do to the Q tax.
Of course Q still has the rights to produce their version of the item later if they so decide.
I think the 10% was just a temporary fix to shut us all up back then when we wanted something to get our ideas back..-
NO way, it's not the fairest thing nor is great PR nor is it the RIGHT THING TO DO!!
-
-
I would comment on this however part of my Phase 2 is already enacted so I cannot.
-
-
-
-
-
3I truly believe this 10% exit concept is the WORST decision Quirky has ever made.
****
First, Quirky takes an inventor and declares them a "Winner". They are ecstatic and they see the chances of a dream being fulfilled. Each stage (design, naming, etc) takes the ideator to a new level of excitement. Then, for some reason, nothing much seems to be happening.
****
As the months click by, it becomes evident that Quirky has lost faith in their ability to make it a successful product. For almost a year the ideator has been taken on an emotional roller-coaster, and then comes the devastating news - Quirky is no longer interested in making your dream come true - and you are getting your idea back.
****
Almost a year has gone by and a promising partnership has dissolved. Not quite the same as a divorce, but the emotional letdown is never-the-less devastating. Then Quirky reminds you, by the way, in case you happen to do what we could not do (that is, make the product successful) we get 10%. Ouch - its salt in the wound.
****
It may be legal - but its a crappy thing to do. Morally its another kick of sand in the face. Its HORRIBLE "PR" - and while the chances are slim of anyone being able to make the product work on their own - any profits made through the 10% will never make up for the bad publicity and bitter feelings it leaves with ideators who already feel like victims.
****
The truly gracious thing would be for Quirky to say - "Dear Partner, we're so sorry this didn't work out. We truly are. Please take these renderings as our farewell gift to you, and if you can make it work - we will rejoice and salute you! We wish you well!"
****
This is a time when Ben needs to stop listening to his legal and accounting department and stop doing what is legal, and focus on what is right. Grace - this is a time for it!- view 3 more comments
-
-
-
-
When it's called evolving and experimenting it's not a mistake. ;)
-
-
Well they need evolve from wanting 10% sooooooooooon.:)
-
-
-
-
On the sliding scale point: I guess it is 9 months for patent law reasons? Anyway, what if the 10% (or maybe 5%) stood if you wanted your idea back after 9 months, but it was reduced to 0 if you wanted it back at 15 or 18 mo.
-
-
One more thing, what is Q's reason for this rule?
Is it that to discourage ideators from taking their idea off the website so Q can continue to try to sell them?
Is it to make money?
Is it to prove a point?
Is it to satisfy paying out the community of influencers? -
-
I'm wondering what happens when a Quirky inventor offers their Quirky-developed product to another website even before the product has been scrubbed by Quirky. Seems like that's been happening lately and it's a bigger problem than Quirky's '10% rule'!
-
-
I’m
dimeless.
And we wouldn't even have to worry about this issue if THEY DESIGNED THE IDEA BASED ON THE ORIGINAL IDEA IN AN INNOVATIVE WAY INSTEAD OF COMPLETELY CHANGING THE IDEA. :) Cuz then it would have been a hit and made everyone money and happy. :) -
-
idk Quirky tries to give you influence for whatever you did for the product.. but you guys are saying now that you wouldn't do the same for them if it was vice-versa? You want influence but you don't want to give it to anyone in the case there were some designs/direction your product idea was made by the Quirky staff. I would have to say it's case by case, but I do feel it's reasonable to give Q influence if they did HELP YOU in your successful launch of your product somewhere else. (if I'm understanding this rule correctly).
All fails, go to Shark Tank deal with Kevin O'Leary! -
