To some degree I have long found fault with people pontificating on subjects that they have little perspective on, or begin with a base premise that is completely unfounded.

On February 4th Andy Rutledge drafted an attack on Frank Chimero and to a lesser extent, Ryan Carson precipitated by what I can only assume is a sudden onset of crabbiness.

I also fancy myself a student of history, human behavior, morality and economics. I have been in business in one form or another for 15 years, and I am an avid member of a number of movements.

I like to think of myself as well rounded. It is from this position that I read Andy's rhetoric, and find it close-minded, un-informed and generally irritating. I could refute his logic in toto, but I thought I would focus on a few core concepts, that when debunked, destroy his entire argument.

Destroy the foundation, and the entire construct will collapse, as it were.

Tangible profit is the only profit

This is really the biggest one. Shatter this and the entire logical structure is broken. I of course will not put forth the idea that there are endeavors that do not yield profit of some kind. All actions a human being take reward us with profit of some kind.

That is the point though, profit of some kind. There are great many types of profit that are intangible. The example that Andy uses as the basis of his attack is a great one. What if Mr. Chimero's motivation for this book was simply to have his words published, and put in the hands of as many people as possible?

Tangible profit was never expected, hoped for, or planned for. In fact the opposite was the case. Being a published author myself, I can say that intangible profit was more compelling and rewarding than the tangible profit I received from writing. Add to that the reputation building that occurs from publishing a book, and you begin to see a more positive outcome to his "selling out".

As another example, not hypothetical at all, I have a good friend who is a musician. He and his brother write and record music and then release it for free. They refuse to sign a record deal, and are actually a little uncomfortable when presented with the possibility of being paid for their work.

They make music for the intangible profit of having their music heard. They want nothing else, and expect nothing else.

Mixing professional and merchant models

There are a great many things I could attack in this section, but I am going to focus in on 2 points:

1. It is apparently impossible to create a new business model outside of these two.
2. That the Kickstarter model abdicates ownership of intellectual property.

The presumption, hubris and faithlessness in the ability of man to create that Andy betrays in his assertion is really staggering. There are numerous examples of new models of business being developed all around us.

From Cory Doctorow's pattern of writing books, releasing them for free, and trusting to his audience to the right thing and buy them, which incidentally, the do in droves, to Gary Vaynerchuck's championing of paying with social currency, a concept made famous by Doctorow in his Novel "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" we are seeing new models of business spring up.

What exactly makes the concept of mixing these two established business models to create something new? Nothing that I can see, and there are a great many people who agree with me.

So on to Kickstarter. I am really baffled by Andy's position that Mr. Chimero gave up control of his "genius" by soliciting help from backers via Kickstarter. Kickstarter backers are not investors. They are pledging to support the creation of quality products they would like to own. Nothing more, nothing less.

As Dan Rubin has said, Kickstarter is the PBS business model. My donations to PBS don't give me any ownership of the programming they create, nor does it give me any input into its production. It merely ensures that I can continue to consume that type of programming.

Backing Mr. Chimero's book merely ensures that I have the chance to consume the content. If I don't like it? That is unfortunate, but too bad. Mr. Chimero has no obligation to make me happy, healthy and well adjusted. He only has the obligation to deliver what he promised, in exchange for my financial contribution.

Summing it all up

I tend to agree with some of my peers on the twitters, that Andy is once again stirring up trouble for no discernible reason. His points are invalid, short sighted and not very well researched. I didn't even bring up open source, which is a shining beacon of mixing the two models he maintains cannot be mixed.

Comments open as always, please be civil if you comment!