1. What is CafePress?
A. What technology makes this possible?
B. What do people use this to do?
2. Theory A
A. Ways it applies
B. ways it doesn't apply
3. Theory B
A. Ways it applies
B. ways it doesn't apply
C. What does theorist A have to say about theory B?
Etc. Except maybe not that clear.
That looks pretty good, except that you're going to have a hard time tying up all your conclusions together in a way that sounds coherent. I can't say for sure without reading the paper, but instead of breaking your paper down by theories, you might have an easier time talking about different concepts that CafePress embodies and having a paragraph for each theory under these subheads. For instance:
1. What is CafePress?
A. What technology makes this possible?
B. What do people use this to do?
2. The Technology
A. How does it relate to Theory A?
B. How does it relate to Theory B?
C. Which theory better explains the process?
3. How people use it
A. How does it relate to Theory A?
B. How does it relate to Theory B?
C. Which theory better explains the process?
This structure allows you to make mini-conclusions as you go, making the paper stronger and more interesting. Then, as you pull together your final conclusion, you just basically take the topic sentence from each "c" paragraph and string them together to reiterate your main points, then draw an overarching conclusion based on those.
Just my initial thoughts. It's hard to say for sure without reading the whole thing.