But it had to happen, a package concept being used as a con. The only question is who really was fooling who, and who was the real victim.
The piece in the NY Times today reads like a story we have heard before. Con man fools innocent investors and steals their money.
But when you look deeper, because launching a new consumer product is a complex enterprise, it is a bit more complicated, with many more folks complicite in the scam. Let me explain.
• A can company sold expensive technology for a questionable enterprise
• A designer sold a really second rate brand identity
• A marketing group sold a dubious idea
• An investment manager sold fraudulent real estate
• And finally investors in Utah were sold a guarantee of a 24% return on their money.
All because they bought into a get rich quick scheme, premised on the assumption that consumers would be foolish enough to buy sandwiches in a can!
The exception of course are the duped investors who unwittingly bankrolled the whole scam. But even they were lured by the thought of a guaranteed 24% return.
My guess is that everyone else in this scheme has done just fine, incompetent package designer included.
This kind of thing has happened before of course, think snake oil, but this time it was a bit different. The package structure, as a delivery device, was the whole premise of the con.