[damoncali]

I can't say I disagree. They displayed some pretty aggressive, and possibly unethical tactics here. But honestly, I don't much care about their account (as it seems to be inaccurate). I do care about LivingSocial's account, which is interesting to me, and paints pretty much the same picture.

[tptacek]

That is the audience sentiment PrivCo is counting on.

[damoncali]

They're counting on me wanting to see the truth and thinking that they're scammy and unreliable? Seems like an odd strategy.

[tptacek]

Do you really feel like your perspective on LivingSocial's core business is underrepresented, and that continually reminding us of how little regard you have for it is a contribution?

Because I actually do think that the untrustworthiness of this report, and, more importantly, the implications of that untrustworthiness is underrepresented and is worth talking about more. Whereas a chin-wagging circle of commentary about how unsustainable daily-deals sites are does not seem particularly valuable.

(This comment reads meaner than I intend it to be.)

[damoncali]

Fair point. The dishonesty is simple to me: open and shut. It's in the state filings. PrivCo at best got pretty bad information and published it without verifying it, and at worst made a bunch of stuff up to drive traffic. Not much to discuss there - it's bad.

LivingSocial's business, though, changes over time, and is worth discussing from time to time. Down rounds are always interesting to me. The decreasing margin in the deals business is interesting to me. That LS still apparently plans an IPO, in the face of a fairly brutal down round is interesting to me. That they think they can be worth $1B is interesting. (As is the current valuation when you read between the lines). The sliding liquidation preference is whole discussion unto itself. But yes, it's a pretty well trodden topic when reduced to "LS's business model is flawed". So I'm guilty there.