Live data from Hacker News

Teespring Says It's Minting New Millionaires Selling Its T-Shirts, Raises $35M

forbes.com

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Teespring Says It's Minting New Millionaires Selling Its T-Shirts, Raises $35M

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeh absolutely. It's another extension of the sharing economy. These kind of business models change societal habits and as generations shed, the sharing model will become more prominent (It's even been predicted by Gartner; not that this should be taken as gospel). Think about the amount of income you could make from renting your flat (AirBnB), Being a driver on Uber, Selling your skills on Udemy and now selling your…

> We are making entrepreneurs out of ordinary people, it's fking awesome. Or, people are naturally entrepreneurs stifled by regulation and AirBnB, Uber, Udemy and TeeSpring are simply allowing the people's natural entrepreneur spirit to shine through by shifting the compliance burden away from them.

>>We are making entrepreneurs out of ordinary people, it's fking awesome.

>people are naturally entrepreneurs stifled by regulation and AirBnB, Uber, Udemy and TeeSpring...

Not really. Renting out your house to someone is not entrepreneurial. Neither is driving people around in your car or teaching people. Further, I know of no regulation that prevents people from teaching for money. As far as Teespring "designers", those people are not entrepreneurs either. They are simply affiliates who market for Teespring and who also happen to give over whatever creative ability they have to Teespring with the hope of being paid for it.

In all of these cases, the people being touted as "entrepreneurs" are no different from employees working as independent contractors, and in some cases it's worse. The only entrepreneurs here are the companies that built the platforms and convinced people to give over their time and resources to generate revenue for their business.

One can make value judgments about whether it's good or bad for the people who participate, but to say that they are creating entrepreneurs is literally saddening.

Re: Teespring Says It's Minting New Millionaires Selling Its T-Shirts, Raises $35M

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are making entrepreneurs out of ordinary people, it's fking awesome. Or, people are naturally entrepreneurs stifled by regulation and AirBnB, Uber, Udemy and TeeSpring are simply allowing the people's natural entrepreneur spirit to shine through by shifting the compliance burden away from them.

>> We are making entrepreneurs out of ordinary people, it's fking awesome. > people are naturally entrepreneurs stifled by regulation and AirBnB, Uber, Udemy and TeeSpring... Not really. Renting out your house to someone is not entrepreneurial. Neither is driving people around in your car or teaching people. Further, I know of no regulation that prevents people from teaching for money. As far as Teespring "designers"…

I agree with your points. I was stretching my usage of 'entrepreneurs' to make a point as you noticed.

> Further, I know of no regulation that prevents people from teaching for money.

I do, because unfortunately the government has been using them against bootcamp schools:

> To achieve compliance, institutions must pay a $5,000 application fee; provide a course catalog, enrollment agreement, and performance fact sheet publicly on their websites; and submit a few other minor documents included on the application.

http://readwrite.com/2014/02/18/why-coding-bootcamps-should-...

> Over the past month, California regulators sent cease and desist letters to many of these hacker boot camps, saying they run afoul of the state’s educational laws, as first reported by Venturebeat. “They’re not properly licensed, and the law requires them to be licensed to offer an educational service like they are,” says Russ Heimerich, a spokesperson for the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, or BPPE.

http://www.wired.com/2014/01/california-hacker-bootcamps/

Re: Teespring Says It's Minting New Millionaires Selling Its T-Shirts, Raises $35M

#63
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, the ability for marketers to easily place their Facebook conversion/retargeting pixels on the Teespring site, meant that affiliates now had the visibility needed to profitably spend their own money promoting Teespring campaigns via paid acquisition channels (mainly Facebook ads). Out of pure curiosity, can someone decode this into non-marketer speak for me? Not trying to be rude, I just genuinely have…

Teespring allows users to place certain devices (tracking pixels, etc) on their Teespring site. This allows individuals to know which campaigns their conversions are coming from, and therefor where they should allocate most of their marketing funds.

^^^ This is correct, but I will break it down further with the assumption you are starting from zero knowledge.

Let's say you are buying ads from FB. It's common practice to test multiple ads. (Images, Headlines, Ad copy in the body, targeting (who the ads will be shown to).

The hope and idea is that one or more of these ads will work better than the rest. It's a bit like how YC invests in a lot of startups, not all succeed, the ones that do get more money, the rest run out of cash and go out of business.

To help you see which ads are working FB cookies and tracks everyone who clicks your ads. However they don't know if a click results in a sale/lead unless you send them confirmation that a sale/lead happened.

That's where the pixels come in. The term pixel can sometimes be confusing, because these days it's usually a snippet of javascript that makes a call to FB. I haven't looked at the back end implementation, but I assume the JS loads an image.

In short, this allows FB to attribute the sale/lead to a particular ad. With enough data, you can then weed out the ads that are wasting money, and focus on the ones that work. Al lot of time you can optimize further by building out variations of the winning combination.

All this is cool, but if you don't control the conversion page, and this is the case for 99.999% of affiliates you can't place your FB pixel unless the company you are working with provides a means for you to do so. Sometimes it's manually done, other times it's automate like what Teespring did.

QUICK PRIVACY WARNING: Placing a 3rd party pixel code on a conversion page has to potential to leak private information to the 3rd party. This usually happens if your customer's info is in the url variables of the page hosting the pixel. When the page loads, all the info is passed to the 3rd party pixel in the referer info.

Re: Teespring Says It's Minting New Millionaires Selling Its T-Shirts, Raises $35M

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> We are making entrepreneurs out of ordinary people, it's fking awesome. > people are naturally entrepreneurs stifled by regulation and AirBnB, Uber, Udemy and TeeSpring... Not really. Renting out your house to someone is not entrepreneurial. Neither is driving people around in your car or teaching people. Further, I know of no regulation that prevents people from teaching for money. As far as Teespring "designers"…

I agree with your points. I was stretching my usage of 'entrepreneurs' to make a point as you noticed. > Further, I know of no regulation that prevents people from teaching for money. I do, because unfortunately the government has been using them against bootcamp schools: > To achieve compliance, institutions must pay a $5,000 application fee; provide a course catalog, enrollment agreement, and performance fact sheet…

Apples and oranges. There's a big difference between starting an "educational institution" and sharing knowledge or otherwise teaching for pay as an individual.

And, in the case of the boot camps you mentioned, it kind of argues against your original point. That is, they apparently ran afoul of the regulations because of their attempts to make it a business that could be classified as an institution versus there being individuals who could have generated income from their labor, if not for some onerous regulation.

More relevantly, no one would have stopped any "teacher" from creating Udemy style online courses on their own domain.

That situation in CA is intresting though. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for sharing.

Re: Teespring Says It's Minting New Millionaires Selling Its T-Shirts, Raises $35M

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent answer- I wonder though why more start ups don't take out loans/issue debt? Is it simply because they can't find anyone willing to lend to them at reasonable interest rates? I would think a company like the one you describe would be a pretty good bet for a lender to give a loan to build a factory.

They do, and there are companies setup to make those kind of loans but the parameters have to be just right. Also things like IP, or growth curve, can usually not be used as collateral. You start to need deep analysis of those assets and people willing to bet on them which is where VCs come in.

In the case the OP described above, I would think the factory would be pretty good collateral. For a software company that just wants to hire more staff, not so much :)

Re: Teespring Says It's Minting New Millionaires Selling Its T-Shirts, Raises $35M

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent answer- I wonder though why more start ups don't take out loans/issue debt? Is it simply because they can't find anyone willing to lend to them at reasonable interest rates? I would think a company like the one you describe would be a pretty good bet for a lender to give a loan to build a factory.

Thanks for all the nice comments! They do sometimes, but in recent years banks have been more reluctant to lend and issuing bonds typically involves an awful lot of legal overhead, so I think it's just easier to issue equity. Another reason is that if business doesn't go as well as you hope the debt might allow creditors to secure your secured assets/stock, whereas if you issue equity that's not an issue. Also, for e…

Thanks again for another great answer. I can see where the legal/regulatory overhead for issuing debt could be a big roadblock. It is my understanding that a lot of early stage financing is 'convertible debt', with the idea to convert it into equity at a later time. I wonder how often start-ups decide to pay off this debt from revenue rather than allowing it to convert? Would that be a big no-no?
Post reply on HN