[numindast]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I'm still willing to believe he was just a clueless guy who didn't know how to start a business rather than a scammer, but the fact remains any failure is entirely due to his behavior and how he was unwilling to explain the details of his business plan publicly. He only has himself to blame for his failure and no one else should feel guilty about it.

Although I feel your choice of words are needlessly blunt, it appears to me that you are correct. Here's a man who had a good idea and tried to execute on the idea. It seems apparent that he let the cat out of the bag before he had firmly established business relationships with the likes of authors, backers/venture capitalists, and most important of all: Amazon, creator of the device at the heart of the promotion.

Consider how many businesses have kept the wraps on new products until they were entirely and completely ready to attract notice -- and scrutiny. Remember Dean Kamen's Segway? Also consider how many large corporations announce a product, but then refuse to publicize any details until an official introduction. There's a reason for that -- it's to line up all the ducks, dot all the I's, cross all the T's.

In this case, David's mistake was limited business acumen. He had the smarts to register web sites, form an LLC, forge informal business relationships, but a lack of experience in other business skills is what held back his success.

I think the discussion and research performed here in this thread is notable, without question. I believe the attacks and assumption that this whole thing was intended as a scam is erroneous. Unfortunately the venture did have the appearance of one. Therefore I'd be happy to see the attacks on David's character done.

Originally Posted by avaloncourt

I received a reply from the author and he said that he was only interested in information regarding his 'business plan.' He even went as far to say that his use of Twitter was marketing savvy. [...] It certainly was a very odd approach to journalism. He wrote an article about a 'business' that lasted for four days and didn't actually make any money.

Using Twitter is indeed marketing savvy -- to everyone aside from people who actually know what Twitter is and how it works. Much of my family is not terribly computer savvy, but when they hear "Twitter" or "Myspace" they associate that with "young, hip, bleeding edge, the cool thing". Those of us who have been around the block and know exactly what Twitter is, and how it is usually used, know better -- but we're not the majority of the population either.

I know I defended David in this post. Let's make one thing crystal clear: The only thing I have in common with David is the same first name. Otherwise I have never met the guy, never heard of him before, heck I'm not even Christian. I just felt he was being unfairly blasted over a good business idea that was executed in a manner that would never succeed in today's business environment.

Kudos for all the fine research into this subject, though!