Results Of The 'Pay What You Want' Tangible Goods Experiment

from the sorta,-almost-worked dept

We recently wrote about an interesting experiment with a “pay what you want” business model for an iPad stylus. While I tend not to be a fan of “pay what you want” for tangible goods (since there’s a significant marginal cost), the two designers behind the device decided to combine it with Kickstarter’s “threshold” setup. Basically, they asked people to pay what they wanted for the stylus, but also only left open 3,000 spots, and said they needed $50,000. Well, the 3,000 slots went quickly — in just about a day. But the funding didn’t quite reach the necessary level. Instead, it came out at just around $45,000.

While this is just a single data point, it probably isn’t that surprising from a psychological standpoint. I would imagine many people went through the thought process of realizing that they could try any price, but if they went too low… it might not get made at all. So, for people who want to be cheap, perhaps the “logical” price point is just a bit below the necessary average, hoping that some others will overpay and subsidize you. And that’s what happened. As some in our comments noted, perhaps a much more interesting (and possibly better) model would be if there were a way to take the 3,000 highest bidders. In that scenario, if you bid too low, you wouldn’t get the stylus at all… but others who bid slightly more would. I’d be fascinated to see how something like that worked out.

Either way, with a few weeks left, and the ability to change bids, many expected that enough people would change their bids to hit the necessary threshold. However, rather than wait for that, the designers just added some new fixed-price tiers, that priced the item at the $25 they plan to officially market it at, and a whole bunch of people have paid up, so the overall project did end up going well past the threshold. Definitely an interesting business model experiment, which, once again, highlights one of the risks with a pure “pay what you want” model especially with tangible goods. It can work, but there are pressures to keep in mind.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Results Of The 'Pay What You Want' Tangible Goods Experiment”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Squirrel Brains (profile) says:

Tragedy of the Commons

I don’t have a device that the stylus would have been useful for, but I went to the page because the idea intrigues me. I calculated the amount of money each person was required to pay to make it to the goal. It turns out to be $16.67, well under the $25 dollar ultimate price. When I went there, over half the 3000 slots were taken, but the goal was less than half met. It turned out that the average person was giving $15.50 at that point. It makes you wonder. If I was interested, I would have put in $17ish because if I thought it was cool, I knew the minimum amount required and it would still have been a good deal. I guess my engineering background does not prepare me to deal with the irrational whims of humanity.

Jay says:

Re: Tragedy of the Commons

I’m always interested in other engineers. It seems that engineers and copyright go together like oil and water.

Copyright is woefully inefficient and if anything, most engineers would look at ways to maximize that goal.

OT – I’m not surprised you came to that amount, it just takes a little more to understand the incentives placed for a person to give X amount and adjust accordingly.

Anonymous Coward says:

The market spoke, the value was pretty consistent through the full experiment. If anything, the average slipped towards the end, as they were slightly over $15 before, and now they are dead on it.

50k to produce 3000 plastic stylus seems like an incredibly high price. Unless there is some true magic in them, it would appear to be a “pennies a piece” item.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I know how they work… and I also know that people are selling them for about a buck and half retail:

I also see that Nextag has them retailing in the $13 – $15 range. It makes it very hard to justify a $25 price tag as their “retail” price. It also suggests that, with a retail price in that range, that each item’s marginal cost is in the range of pennies, FOB China.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Not to forget:


All in the 20 cent to $1 range for 1000 pieces.

Sorry Mike, a little research can show you how incredibly overpriced this “offer” was, and how people pretty much fairly priced it to retail, which is why their failed.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You assume, falsely, of course, that this stylus is no different than those other ones. And yet, the whole reason why people want this is because it is different.

And, if by “failed” you mean they’ve actually succeeded in passing the threshold, then, yes. They “failed.” All the away to the bank.

Sometimes your attempts at being disagreeable just make you look stupid.

RyanMPLS (profile) says:

Do it right

Try it this way instead…

The concept of a second item auction ( is somewhat similar to a Dutch auction but better applied to a multi-item action. It’s the way Treasuries are sold and some IPOs have even been sold this way including GOOG (Google).

An interesting, if not old, article on the process can be found at the Fool’s site:

Robert P (profile) says:

They got their funding

I’m one of the backers (I bid $20) and the latest update indicates they dropped the 3,000 backer limit. They’re now sitting at over $80K in funding.

I like Mike’s idea (highest bidder) but it might be challenging to implement. When you bid, you actually pay that amount. How would they work getting the money back to you if you don’t bid high enough? I know this wouldn’t be insurmountable, but it would mean a change in how they deal with the funding. I think it would essentially convert the process to a pledge method, then you have to worry about people bailing on the pledge when it’s done.

Squirrel Brains says:

Re: Re: They got their funding

You are missing several key points. Anyone with manufacturing experience would know that doing a small run with a specialize material is very expensive. Most of the initial cost is a setup fee. On top of that, it is probably being made in the US. Obviously, people want it and it is different enough from everything else on the market.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
16:10 David Braben, Once Angry At Used Games, Now A New Business Model Embracer (33)
18:40 Artists Embracing, Rather Than Fighting, BitTorrent Seeing Amazing Results (10)
15:41 Vodo's Big Brother Bundle Shows How Bundles Can Improve The 'Pay What You Want' Concept (12)
23:06 Price Elasticity Can Work: Dropping Ebook Price To $1 Catapulted Year-Old Book Onto NYT Best Seller List (58)
16:03 The Good And Bad In Chaotic eBook Pricing (35)
05:18 Game Creator Finds That Knockoffs Can't Match His Awesome Game (33)
23:09 The Value Of Kickstarter: Connecting With Fans On-The-Fly (18)
10:02 Massive Growth In Independent Musicians & Singers Over The Past Decade (101)
23:54 Cool New Platform For Supporting Artists: Patreon, From Jack Conte (23)
05:46 A New Hope: How Going Free To Play Brought Redemption To Star Wars MMO (48)
11:16 There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter (105)
06:00 When Startups Need More Lawyers Than Employees, The Patent System Isn't Working (55)
03:14 Hitchhiker's Fan-Site Started By Douglas Adams Shows Why Authors Shouldn't Panic Over Derivative Works (27)
09:21 Patents As Weapons: How 1-800-CONTACTS Is Using The Patent System To Kill An Innovative Startup (54)
07:19 How EA's 'Silent Treatment' Pushed The SimCity Story Into The Background (55)
13:30 Deftones Guitarist: People Who Download Our Music Are Fans, They're Welcome To Do So (29)
13:10 Macklemore Explains Why Not Being On A Label Helped Him Succeed (29)
03:45 Successful Self-Published Ebook Authors Sells Print & Movie Rights For $1 Million, But Keeps Digital Rights To Himself (43)
11:53 Musician Alex Day Explains How He Beat Justin Timberlake In The Charts Basically Just Via YouTube (52)
00:09 Publishers Show Yet Again How To Make Money By Reducing The Price To Zero (42)
20:13 Flattr Makes It Easier Than Ever To Support Content Creators Just By Favoriting Tweets (61)
16:03 Case Study: Band Embraces Grooveshark And Catapults Its Career (21)
19:39 Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust (131)
16:03 Kickstarter-Funded Movie Wins Oscar For Best Documentary (89)
13:41 It's Fine For The Rich & Famous To Use Kickstarter; Bjork's Project Failed Because It Was Lame (20)
17:34 Connecting With Fans In Unique Ways: Band Sets Up Treasure Hunt To Find Fan-Submitted Sounds In New Album (10)
07:27 Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts (131)
20:00 Skateboard Legend Stacy Peralta Demonstrates His Latest Trick: Cashing In By Going Direct-To-Fan (13)
23:58 Wallet Maker Shows Everyone How To Make Their Own Awesome Wallet (16)
11:27 $274 Million Raised Via Kickstarter In 2012 (8)
More arrow