Rippln labeled its critics "negative opportunists" yesterday, releasing FAQ version 4.0. The document was ostensibly meant to address mounting concerns about its business model. Instead, the company attacked the messengers, rather than engaging with legitimate questions about its viability. This move followed recent criticism from TechCrunch and social media analyst Chris Voss, both of whom had published videos questioning Rippln's operational structure.
The company stated, "Because we are growing so rapidly as a new company, opportunists are taking advantage of our success by attempting to put a negative spin on the good we are doing in hopes of boosting their own ratings." Yet, the stated motivations for these "opportunists" do not align with their established profiles. TechCrunch, for example, ranks 541st globally according to Alexa and has operated continuously since 2005. Chris Voss has covered social media professionally since 2007 and drawn profiles from mainstream news outlets. Neither entity needs Rippln's name to gain relevance or boost their own ratings. Their criticism was documented skepticism about a company that still had not clearly explained its core function.
Rippln has not clearly explained what it actually does. This lack of clarity reveals a deeper problem. Instead of outlining a coherent business model, the company is assembling an SEO team specifically to manage negative search results. Rippln also asks its affiliates to report critical videos, aiming to suppress them from public view. This approach prioritizes damage control and suppression over transparency.
When directly asked if Rippln constituted a scam, the company offered a qualified denial. "No, it is not a scam," they wrote. "Rippln is a new and innovative company that believes the end user is the most valuable part of any technology product." They positioned themselves as "the first ever incentivized sharing technology platform," promising rewards for users who share through their networks after joining a specific rewards program.
But Rippln avoided the central criticism. Critics did not question the company's intentions. The issue concerned its substance. Describing itself merely as "incentivized sharing" fails to explain how Rippln generates revenue, how its users might earn money, or why the model differs from multi-level marketing simply repackaged with better branding.
The confusion around Rippln's business model appears deliberate. For a company supposedly in development for several years, it launched publicly without a finished product. It also lacked clear explanations of its revenue streams and operational mechanics. This is not innovation. It resembles a beta test presented as a fully functional business.
A startup that responds to tough questions by dismissing questioners as opportunists, and then directs an SEO team at its critics, signals a clear lack of forthcoming substance. The company builds walls instead of building trust with its potential user base and the wider public.