[drharris]

But least popular does not at all mean "shittiest". Least popular means the fewest sales; if people were buying only because of the shirt they wanted, then you would indeed be getting the worst shirt. However, some people are buying based on what they think will be the least popular shirt, which changes up the mechanics quite a bit. In the end, the only good strategy is to pick the shirt you want to have, but not everyone will think that way. Some will settle for a less desired shirt in order to perhaps win the freebie. I don't see the same negativity in the concept you do.

[steve8918]

The "intention" may not be "shittiest", but that's the impression I get. It feels like a trick or a game of 3-card monte in order for him to move his worst product. Possibly others might get the same impression as well.

In general, retailers discount the product that doesn't move, and raise or maintain the prices on the things that are popular. So, this is something that would appear to try to artificially increase demand on their worst selling product. Again, I'm not saying he that's his intention, but that's the general impression someone could get.

That's why I suggested changing the mechanics to something more win-win. I suggested something like the most popular t-shirt gets a progressive discount, and early adopters get a discount on their next purchase. This feels more win-win, and you have to do less mental calculations to try to figure out if you're getting scammed or not.