AN OPEN LETTER TO BEN AND QUIRKY..........
AN OPEN LETTER TO BEN AND QUIRKY………
Having been on Q for about a year, I have seen and experienced a lot of the good, along with the bad, as have most of you. I came into Quirky with high expectations that if I submitted an invention, it would be judged on its merits equally among all others, and the cream would rise to the surface. That has not been my experience, nor has it been the experience of many thousands of others who participate as members here at Q. I would more compare my experience to that of a laboratory rat, as I will further explain. As a member I have been submitting inventions, like all of you have. The process goes like this;
It begins when we first submit an invention. We get voted/commented on (motivating stimulus), in hopes of getting our product chosen by Quirky U.C. (a reward). This hearkens back to the Pavlovian method of teaching dogs to perform by using a stimulus and reward system. This has been coined as "learned behavior", and it is indeed addictive. It is quite simply just what the casinos use to keep customers gambling with their slot machines. It is also what Ben uses to keep the flow of ideas coming. Only in this case, the "payout" is different than we have a right to expect, by offering our inventions up for their serious review and consideration, which they do not receive.
This had led me to some rather astute observations about the quality of the Quirky organization, in terms of their business acumen, expertise in marketing, and with their method of promoting some inventions over others, while using dubious criteria in the selection and overall process. We, the inventors, are entrusting our best efforts to Q, and in return for paying a fee, are entitled to at least a more than cursory review of our invention, based on its merits. This is not the case. As I hear and read more about the internal workings of Q, some of their own issue, I have come to believe, as most of you have, that the system now has some major flaws that must be overcome, if it is to survive and prosper. In addition, the independent inventor, which feeds the huge machine, which is Quirky, is being tragically used and shortchanged in this partnership.
Rather than just sit back and do nothing, some time ago, I wrote to an invention ambassador, and asked that my concerns be brought to the attention of Ben. I was told that Ben doesn't pay much attention to suggestions, as he is quite busy and doesn't have the time to read them. I took this as a "never listens", because I heard nothing back.
Here is what I suggested then, and I am proposing once again:
1. A two tiered invention system with Primary inventions and Secondary inventions;
a. Primary inventions are those that can have major impact in the market and have longevity; as in performing a needed function or benefit.
1. These are the inventions that can earn Q and it's members serious, long term income, and will be marketable over a long period of time.
2. These are the inventions that will fund the Q organization and give sound financial structure to ensure theirs and ours future success.
b. Secondary inventions are those having or being an improvement or of lesser importance; i.e.. as in a "fad" or "want to have" basis.
1. These are the inventions that will be popular for a short time and then fade out of popularity with the consumer or technology will change.
2. These are not the inventions that will make long term profit or sustain corporate growth.
I am sure that other criteria could be added to flesh out this new framework, but if it is not done Q will continue to exploit our IP in favor of their own short sighted wants and needs, based upon an inexperienced staff of their associates, who lack the necessary judgement for selecting the best prospects, and which have the most potential for financial returns. This currently is, but should not be, based on a what's "cool or popular". If you have serious doubts as to what I am saying, just check out the products for sale, and ask yourself if they will still be around 2, 3 or even 5 years from now. And, by the way, many of them are way overpriced and cannot begin to compete with other similar products out there, especially given our fragile economy, now and going forward.
Here is an example of a missed opportunity by Quirky: An invention of mine, that the community favored largely some months ago (MAJIC GENIE SHOWER ROD) was selected by Q and then was turned down, under the old system, without valid criteria, other than to say it didn't fit in with the Q offerings. What exactly are the Q offerings? It had over 210 votes. Quirky and the Community, those who voted for it, most certainly have lost out on huge long term profits with the shower rod, as I am currently working through a licensing agreement with a company that plans to have it in Walmart, Home Depot and Sams Club, among many others, by this summer. It filled a valid need and has long legs in the market (it will be around for a long time.)
I would like to go on record as saying that if Quirky does not change its current business model, it will not be around for very long in the future, or perhaps even the next few years. I say this, especially, as the patent laws are changing from "first to invent" to "first to file". They are to take effect in 2013. We will no longer be able to disclose our inventions without care on the Quirky site, and still be given (1) year in which to file for patent protection. You will not be able to disclose your idea without the fear of your idea being compromised, if not outright stolen, regardless of what some may say to the contrary, it happens in the real world. Just picture the days of the patent office, one hundred years ago, of the timid inventor sitting in a patent office chair with his invention hidden under a cloak, so no one could see it. That is what the future of inventing holds.
As members of the Community, we are, all of us, active partners in the overall success of this company. We are bringing to them the most important part, our Intellectual Property, without which they would not exist. Ben, while I greatly admire what you have done for inventors and the invention community, by bringing access to the common everyday household inventor, you must listen to what the masses have to say, and either be a part of the change, or as in Russia, in the 1917 revolution, you will be "overthrown" with another form of "Social Product Development Community" that will better serve the needs and ideas of the Inventors of the world.
Best Regards,
David B. Bathurst
