I have noticed also that the Design Sharing program has seemed to languish. And I have continually thought in depth about how Thermwood, eCabinet Systems and this Network could enhance the capabilities of its members to be more profitable. Among other things, this would include a greater participation in the Design Sharing program. All of the contributors to this post have made valid points as to the lack of participation. I also feel, from a business point of view, that some of the reasons that make a Network successful i.e. free open participation on a equal diplomatic platform with a wide variety of input, could also impede success and the speed of success by its democratic nature. Lacking a well-planned guideline aligned with proven industry best practices the Design Sharing program may continue to not achieve the potential it has. I think Kerry was making an effort to “define the problem” in hopes of reaching a consensus to move forward in a more streamlined manner. The general lack of participation in the Design Sharing program is a complicated issue with many facets. Personal taste and style preference alone and which of the styles are “in demand” and in “which markets”. Should the designs reflect Country, Victorian, Asian, Contemporary, Arts and Crafts, Deco or Mid Century Modern? As most of us are aware, everything starts with the customer/sale, all else follows. The reason why we all (not including the just for pleasure hobbyist) want more Design Sharing participation is to be able to free up some personal time and mostly make us more money. And in that light I see the Design Sharing program as only a part of a greater program designed to make us more successful. I think what is necessary is to define Target Markets and then solicit and select Designs that will meet those needs. That process I would consider as an “industry best practice”. Of course there are many Target Markets to go after: Residential, Contract, Commercial, Educational, Healthcare, Store Fixture, Juvenile, Office… And within those there are High End, Middle Market and Low End. Top design talent tends not to design for Low End unless volume can make up for low margin i.e. Michael Graves for Target®. In this economy the Middle Market customer seems to be getting squeezed out. So I think for the volume of sales expected through the Design Sharing program and its members it may make best sense to target the High End customer. This probably is stating the obvious and this may already be your customer base. This base of High End customers may be trade professionals like Architects, Builders and Interior Designers or Retail private clients and they will tend to have sophisticated tastes. I think many top designers (perhaps outside of our network) may have apprehension in contributing designs cause they have a very personal attachment and pride to their designs feeling it is a reflection of themselves. So not only would they be concerned about being adequately compensated financially for their efforts, they are also concerned about how it would be represented in terms of who will be selling it, how will it be displayed (if at all) and marketed. If in a showroom, is the showroom in a garage or on Park Ave. NYC? Is the furniture covered in dust and have loose hardware or is it spotless and given the attention its creator would hope for? In short, would the seller’s representation harm or enhance their design, their baby and their brand? I apologize if this all seems over the top, but this is the way I look at it from my experience. I think that by stepping back a few steps and looking at how we currently run our businesses, we may be able to give better definition as to the expectations and management of the Design Sharing program. I hope that my comments have in someway continued to move this discussion forward rather that backwards. Precisely my point about the diplomatic nature of Networks!