Comments on: How Kickstarter facilitates financial investments A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: MattyD Sun, 03 Jun 2012 02:44:12 +0000 “Once a company has the best part of $300,000 in interest-free financing repayable at a time of its choosing in underwear, the famous underpants gnome business model starts looking actually rather attractive.”
Haha, that’s awesome…

By: gwaitersesq Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:27:49 +0000 Jake, you must be savvy enough to have heard of the Streisand Effect, so I can only assume this is trolling. This story by Felix wouldn’t exist if you hadn’t tried to get him in trouble with an editor over the previous one. I can’t figure out what the Youtube video you’re upset about is, though – the only one Felix posted is this, which has been online for nearly two years: Uo

By: johnnyjr Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:50:52 +0000 Perhaps everyone should take a look at the Kickstarter terms of use for clarification. Pretty sure they’re in good shape.

By: JakeBronstein Fri, 01 Jun 2012 20:45:14 +0000 QCIC,

Yup, the system has problems.

I think if you read the comments above though, you’d find that “the above fraud” is anything but. Check out this local news story about how the factory we’re working with is fairing thanks to the efforts of Flint and Tinder on Kickstarter stry-making-comback/ Not bad, right?

By: QCIC Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:44:40 +0000 Kick starter is like a million lawsuits waiting to happen. I think the lawyers must be salivating.

Just yesterday I saw a project that had 75% of its funding 99.9% of the way through its window, and then magically just barely made it over. Cause you know there is no incentive for the kickstarter to put n that extra 25% just to keep the 50% that would be profit.

Between that sort of thing, the above fraud, and all the and all the project which clearly cannot possibly deliver what they promise with the funds donated you have to wonder how it will be around in a year.

By: MaxUtil Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:04:41 +0000 Jake,
I wish you all the best in your venture, don’t blame you for being creative in your launch/funding strategy, and don’t think you are in any way a fraud. However, you do come off as a bully and a huckster. Felix’s original post is a bit snarky. But it’s an opinion piece not a hard hitting, fully researched expose on your company. He says repeatedly that he’s using you as an example of a problem with Kickstarter.

Your claim that the Kickstarter campaign was some sort of a one off venture that you are “now” trying to grow into a viable business is pretty obvious BS. Your KS campaign violates their T&C’s. Not a big deal, but it is true. I think Felix’s main point was that at some point KS campaigns like yours are going to burn a lot of KS investors and they don’t seem to be doing much to police or deal with that eventuality.

I don’t blame you for bending the rules to get a venture off the ground. Good for you. But a little advice on the PR front. When you get called out for something, say “yeah, I’m doing what I’ve got to do to get this project off the ground.” Getting lost in the weeds of claiming a post about you is “error riddled” for pretty minor stuff while bitching to his boss just isn’t going to get you anywhere beyond back and forths like this in comment sections. I think investors are more interested in founders with clear purpose and vision, not ones who get sucked into tiny personal sleights that they try to blow up into a scandal that could hurt a “human rights issue” or “local school board”. (Think of the children!) Just makes you sound like a self obsessed a*s.

By: JakeBronstein Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:18:24 +0000 Dsquared / Suncoke,

No PR advisor (ideally, yes, there would be someone Felix could call to confirm the “facts” he basing his opinions on). Also no scramble to fix anything.

I guess though, we’re kind of off base.

Again, while I don’t like Felix’s opinions, he’s more than entitled to them.

The problem is what he presents as being the facts on which he bases his opinions aren’t actually facts. He seems to do no more research into them or fact-checking of them than the opinions he follows with.

In my case, the results aren’t disastrous. But what if he did the same thing from the Rueters platform about something that really does matter, maybe a human rights issue, or an issue facing a local school board. What if you based your world-view of the subject on Felix’s facts (separate from the opinions he follows with) because he works for a news organization. And what if you were to vote on the issue one day.

Isn’t it fair to expect more from a professional, especially in his answer to a story in which he was called out for missing the facts?

By: Suncoke Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:27:44 +0000 does have*

By: Suncoke Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:27:06 +0000 @dsquared I think it is fairly obvious that Jake does has a PR advisor – and judging by the length of Exocet’s post he is paying by the word

By: dsquared Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:18:00 +0000 Jake, do you have a professional PR advisor?

If you do, then you should probably ask him why it is that he told you that “scrambling around to clean up your web presence is going to make you look better to VCs”, or that “a good way to get a better press is to pick a high profile journalist and complain about him to his boss”. You might have got a dud.

If you don’t, then I think it might be money well spent to get one, they can often really help.

I also have a question about this anecdote:

“Instead, when I wanted to make underwear in America, knowing that there was a minimum order from the factory but also that I didn’t personally want thousands of pairs of underwear, I put it on Kickstarter to see if I couldn’t get people to buy all but the 20 or pairs I wanted personally. And also, to see if anyone besides me would want underwear like that at all before plowing my life savings into the venture.”

This seems to imply that your original idea was just to get the product made, and that the idea of a venture capital backed company was secondary; you only really went to Kickstarter because the factory had a minimum order size. (Of course, this is the version of history that would be consistent with the Kickstarter terms & conditions).

But the actual name “Flint and Tinder”, according to the Kickstarter writeup, comes from a conversation with a VC, who apparently turned down the idea to fund an underwear manufacturing startup. This would imply that what you have is a company that failed to get funding then turned to Kickstarter to get working capital and create buzz. Which would of course not be consistent with the T&C.

Which one is true, or is there some other explanation consistent with them both (like maybe you were trying to persuade the VC to buy 1980 pairs of underpants? Or possibly that the VC story is really more of a bit of branding flimflam? Or something?)