4 ms·

To me its just a shady way to do growth hacking. I have family members with an egg allergy, so I am grateful that they were able to get the word out on this pr

by tmaly 10y ago

To me its just a shady way to do growth hacking. I have family members with an egg allergy, so I am grateful that they were able to get the word out on this product.

jonknee 10y ago
> To me its just a shady way to do growth hacking. Or in other words, fraud.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  The growth hacking part isn't fraud. Grocery stores demand slotting fees to get products on the shelves, so if you can get your product on the shelf by spending less money on secret purchases than you otherwise would on slotting fees then that's just smart business. Representing these purchases as legitimate sales to investors would definitely be fraud though.
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    Is that part allowed though? I guess it depends if the terms of the contract with the store itself prohibit the activity, as it doesn't sound to violate any obvious laws (outside of reporting it as sales).
    - tedmiston 10y ago
      It is allowed to some degree e.g. secret shoppers. Sometimes these programs involve being reimbursed by a third party.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Every messaging board (ala Reddit), and Dating site (ala plenty of fish) I know of.. started with some founders "seeding the pool". To me it kind of makes sense, as you can't just open an empty 2 way marketplace and hope that it all works out. Ideally in the reddit way, there were actual discussions going on (except between 3 people not the 100 the usernames would success). Is this also fraud, or just the fact of starting a 2 way marketplace? Now for this story.. I cannot see a way to justify counting most of your sales as things you bought yourself. That sounds like a not valid way to do business, and I would be very surprised if it were legal to report those as sales.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    > Now for this story.. I cannot see a way to justify counting most of your sales as things you bought yourself. That sounds like a not valid way to do business, and I would be very surprised if it were legal to report those as sales. Yes, as I said, fraud.
  - Bahamut 10y ago
    I know of pretty much no message board that started that way - most aren't for profit even. This is just fraud.
  - zck 10y ago
    > Ideally in the reddit way, there were actual discussions going on (except between 3 people not the 100 the usernames would success). Comments weren't in the initial release of reddit, and wouldn't be added until the end of 2005^1. In the stories I've heard, the usernames were just for submitting stories, and the site was getting enough submissions on its own by the time comments were added. [1] December 12, 2005. https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/17913/reddit_now_supports_comments/c51 https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/17913/reddit_no.... Reddit's first post was in June: https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/87/the_downing_street_memo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/87/the_downing_... .
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    Is it different when they are creating data (threads / comments) vs purchasing their own product though?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tmaly 10y ago
Was there anything wrong with my characterization of what they did? Did I get down voted for using the word shady when fraud should have been used?
- Naritai 10y ago
  Attempting to speak for the rest of the group: You sound like the Wells Fargo CEO, who was criticized for using the term 'unethical' for actions that were clearly 'illegal'. That is, he used words for clearly illegal actions that somehow implied that maybe it was ok, maybe not, depending on how you look at it. You did the same thing - took fraudulent actions, admitted that maybe it wasn't the best thing ('shady'), then started talking about what a great company it was and how you are glad it exists. That is definitely underplaying the situation.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  I upvoted your sinking post because: the point is valid, "growth hacking", and its implications affect large numbers of startups. I'm not sure if the egg allergy point is relevant to this particular news post, but it doesn't necessarily detract either. Personally, I don't see why you were downvoted. We're supposed to up/downvote when comments add/don't add value to the intellectual discussion. Sometimes people seem to vote by whether they agree/disagree with you instead. I think we generate a better discussion when people vote the first way.

by tmaly 10y ago

To me its just a shady way to do growth hacking. I have family members with an egg allergy, so I am grateful that they were able to get the word out on this product.

jonknee 10y ago

> To me its just a shady way to do growth hacking. Or in other words, fraud.

Alex3917 10y ago
The growth hacking part isn't fraud. Grocery stores demand slotting fees to get products on the shelves, so if you can get your product on the shelf by spending less money on secret purchases than you otherwise would on slotting fees then that's just smart business. Representing these purchases as legitimate sales to investors would definitely be fraud though.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Is that part allowed though? I guess it depends if the terms of the contract with the store itself prohibit the activity, as it doesn't sound to violate any obvious laws (outside of reporting it as sales).
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    It is allowed to some degree e.g. secret shoppers. Sometimes these programs involve being reimbursed by a third party.
brianwawok 10y ago
Every messaging board (ala Reddit), and Dating site (ala plenty of fish) I know of.. started with some founders "seeding the pool". To me it kind of makes sense, as you can't just open an empty 2 way marketplace and hope that it all works out. Ideally in the reddit way, there were actual discussions going on (except between 3 people not the 100 the usernames would success). Is this also fraud, or just the fact of starting a 2 way marketplace? Now for this story.. I cannot see a way to justify counting most of your sales as things you bought yourself. That sounds like a not valid way to do business, and I would be very surprised if it were legal to report those as sales.
- jonknee 10y ago
  > Now for this story.. I cannot see a way to justify counting most of your sales as things you bought yourself. That sounds like a not valid way to do business, and I would be very surprised if it were legal to report those as sales. Yes, as I said, fraud.
- Bahamut 10y ago
  I know of pretty much no message board that started that way - most aren't for profit even. This is just fraud.
- zck 10y ago
  > Ideally in the reddit way, there were actual discussions going on (except between 3 people not the 100 the usernames would success). Comments weren't in the initial release of reddit, and wouldn't be added until the end of 2005^1. In the stories I've heard, the usernames were just for submitting stories, and the site was getting enough submissions on its own by the time comments were added. [1] December 12, 2005. https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/17913/reddit_now_supports_comments/c51 https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/17913/reddit_no.... Reddit's first post was in June: https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/87/the_downing_street_memo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/87/the_downing_... .
- tedmiston 10y ago
  Is it different when they are creating data (threads / comments) vs purchasing their own product though?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tmaly 10y ago

Was there anything wrong with my characterization of what they did? Did I get down voted for using the word shady when fraud should have been used?

Naritai 10y ago
Attempting to speak for the rest of the group: You sound like the Wells Fargo CEO, who was criticized for using the term 'unethical' for actions that were clearly 'illegal'. That is, he used words for clearly illegal actions that somehow implied that maybe it was ok, maybe not, depending on how you look at it. You did the same thing - took fraudulent actions, admitted that maybe it wasn't the best thing ('shady'), then started talking about what a great company it was and how you are glad it exists. That is definitely underplaying the situation.
tedmiston 10y ago
I upvoted your sinking post because: the point is valid, "growth hacking", and its implications affect large numbers of startups. I'm not sure if the egg allergy point is relevant to this particular news post, but it doesn't necessarily detract either. Personally, I don't see why you were downvoted. We're supposed to up/downvote when comments add/don't add value to the intellectual discussion. Sometimes people seem to vote by whether they agree/disagree with you instead. I think we generate a better discussion when people vote the first way.