benjaminleebates wrote:

I feel you, but the overall site just isn't selling large quantities of a single design like it used to.



There are 27 ECs this week, tho.

There are a lot of things that are different about shirt.woot now. I've been scarce for half a decade, and even then people were bleeding out from the community. And the community was a big part of what sold shirts.

so was a $10 tee with free (if slow) shipping.

so was an industry standard blank for that low price, with solid, proper screenprinting.

so was a long tail theory where eventually everyone found something they wanted, because there was a separation between popular, voted work and curated, diverse work.

As those things started eroding, so too did buyers. Posting 27 Editor's Choice tees in a side sale for one week is not only deeply non curatorial, but it's spreading a shrinking viewership across too many options in too short a time.

Eventually that effects the folks who are submitting to woot. You may have some prolific creators stick around, but how often is their best work going to be what they submit? Fablefire isn't a threadless alum (unless that's changed recently). She's not a cult favorite designer that got a lot of vote love but rarely could convert sales. Her work, at best and worst alike, was popular as anything Woot has done.

And while I rarely cared for that work, she deserves to be paid for it if she is considered worthy of printing.

Going rate for freelance art? Start at $25/hr and realize depending on who you're chatting up, you might be offending them with so low an offer.

There's a reason places like Teefury and Teextile and RIPT didn't keep back catalogs (I have no clue what they do now... I doubt the latter two even still exist). To do so meant an exclusive contract, and an exclusive contract means you have to be able to guarantee a certain amount of money to continue to bring in artists. Woot gave $500 early on, moved up to a grand, and after day one gave residuals. It was a solid move, ESPECIALLY for an artist who wasn't printed elsewhere, or a novice who just wanted to have fun with art. There were LOTS of non-pros printed in derbies. There were lots of legitimately poorly done shirts printed in derbies (Fable herself got a pretty longstanding hit by parodying one that was legitimately just cheap clipart: Plan B was 100% a snarkfest, as I recall, on a clipart winner a few weeks prior).

It's one of the best and most infuriating parts of the derby: literally anyone could hypothetically win.

But back to non-exclusive contracts. Teefury (and Tilteed, I can honestly say) got to flex their muscles based on that non-exclusivity. Teefury has mostly used it to skirt copyright violation, of course, but lots of designers in the early days were willing to take the risk because they knew they could re-sell, or re-submit, their design elsewhere. A handful resurrected on other similar daily sites. Some printed on legit catalogued ones. Some folks took their designs and sold them on their print on demand sites, to who knows what kind of success.

And if they never sold them again, they made $50 or whatever on them.

It's the exclusive part that makes this ridiculous for woot. They don't need to do any legwork curating. They lose no money putting up 27 ECs (though the artists likely do given how thin that spreads the average wooter's budget). And then the tees get buried in over 10,000 available shirts, if they're even still available. They make no splash, being on a side sale, and they consequently make no money.

If a shirt site can't promise a flat prize that is justifiable for the time spent, it shouldn't option a shirt in an exclusive contract. If a shirt site can't promise sales enough to justify an exclusive contract, it shouldn't require one.

You can still make your $20 more than zero with a non-exclusive contract. Woot is definitely more exposure than a quiet printshop page on cafepress. But if you can't pay an artist the going rate, stop doing side sales of new product.