The article and most of the comments on here are arguing against a straw man. The original Dumb Money article [1] is about "dumb ideas" -- and let's be clear t

The article and most of the comments on here are arguing against a straw man. The original Dumb Money article [1] is about "dumb ideas" -- and let's be clear that an idea can be both dumb and profitable. As to as whether or not NaturallyCurly.com is a bad financial investment, I'm leaning toward yes. It's an advertising play with plenty (2MM) of page views, so this site should be printing money. Plus the site's been around for what, a decade? Why take investment money now, shouldn't 10 years be enough time to monetize? I can't see a reason why an investor would be useful to them -- if they're not making boatloads of dough by now, VC money is useless. If they are making loads of money, why take VC cash? [1] - http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/dumb-money-techs-stupidest-investments.html http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/dumb-money-techs-stupid...