Anecdotes like this ("$100 in ads bought 1 book! It's the ad platform, not my product!") are slightly annoying, and saying 'ponzi scheme' 4 times in the first t

Anecdotes like this ("$100 in ads bought 1 book! It's the ad platform, not my product!") are slightly annoying, and saying 'ponzi scheme' 4 times in the first two paragraphs doesn't make it so. Our startup has had a large amount of success with Facebook ads. Their segmentation makes it easy. In fact, Facebook ads are so successful it's becoming a danger. To some extent, we are reliant on them as a lead source and that's a really bad situation to be in. But yeah, post a sensational title, reinforce that title 4 times in the first two paragraphs and then at the end say something like this: >> Yet, their value and growth continues because they can use that money to grow their user-base more and assert profitability (in this sense it's not quite entirely a ponzi scheme, but there is no closer idea). It's possible that they do not even realize that they are like a Ponzi scheme. What? It's not quite entirely a ponzi scheme? There's a difference between an ad platform that doesn't fit your customer acquisition model and a ponzi scheme.