Complaint Review: Katherine Krug - Internet

Correction of a few typos in yesterday's report regarding dates:

The dates now cited are correct, whereas the typos earlier were 2014 and 1914 respectively from yesterday's report:

Google search ( “Katherine krug” nadachair) on April 29, 2015 of the BetterBack's creator Katherine Krug and NadaChair, yielded a link to her reviewing the NadaChair product on Sept 3, 2014 reviewing the product name Dr Toso’s Back Rx by Nada Chair as “uncomfortable to wear. Do like the way it folds into a portable carrying device."

As an update to yesterday's report with some additional research, please find the following statements which might be helpful to not be misrepresented:

Reviewing the numerous comments on the Kickstarter page for the BetterBack project at: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1123408990/betterback-perfect-posture-effortlessly/comments, there have been queries by potential backers about the Nadachair, and how the BetterBack seems to be quite similar. 

Katherine Krug spins a yarn that really does not address the question that she has used Nadachair as a concept, both as a design and function, to take advantage of the fact that a Nadachair’s patent has expired, and to put it on Kickstarter to raise funds now close to $850,000.

If BetterBack was not a knockoff of Nadachair, why does Katherine Krug not suggest potential backers to go the the Nadachair website to see for themselves? Why does she not put both products together side by side to make it clear? Her main complaint is that she found it uncomfortable with the knees. Is that the rational to use someone else’s hard work and investment? There is no evidence presented of her contacting Nadachair. Apparently, on Amazon, there are many who have found the Nadachair quite comfortable. She certainly makes a meal of the knee pads. No one product is perfect for everyone.

One of the comments by Nicole on April 30, 2015 on the BetterBack Kickstarter page states “ This is one of the most cynical scams I have ever seen on Kickstarter, the @creator claims to invent the product but apparently the exact same product has been in the market for over two decades (Nada chair). Even worse is that the creator also used the name from one of the these distributors of the original product http://www.betterback.co.nz/  Shame on you”.

It is clear that Katherine Krug has used the Nadachair product by her own statements and has reviewed it on Amazon on Sept 3, 2014, now removed. Shortly afterwards on November 7, getbetterback.com was registered, http://whois.domaintools.com/getbetterback.com  

Apparently, one might find it reasonable to conclude, after doing research, and realizing that the Nadachair patent has expired, that it was a good idea to copy the design and function of the Nadachair to raise funds, and to provide a useful product. However, most of her backers do not really appreciate the similarities of her alleged invention. When queried in the comments, she replies that BetterBack is not an exact copy.

As previously mentioned in yesterday’s report, one can review the websites where the Nadachair is available to be viewed. The old saying “a picture is worth a thousand words”. 

One can google Nadachair. After the results appear, click on images for a plethora of visual images of the Nada Chair.

Kickstarter clearly has a role to play in this matter, as it appears they do not live up to their terms where they insist that a product be new, offering a trusted platform where people can back it to place it into the marketplace. An online search of Kickstarter yields many complaints about Kickstarter, where they they do not respond to customers complaints, and even has gotten an “F” from the Better Business Bureau. Clearly Kickstarter has a financial incentive, to see their creators successful in raising money since Kickstarter derives fees from the amounts pledged.

“Consumers need to be aware that crowdfunding is not without risk,”Robert Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanRogers/20150309/238279/Understanding_Your_Kickstarter_Liabilities.php

While Kickstarter has been very useful as a platform for many, it has been pointed out that crowdfunding carries some risk. An example has been reported in the article at http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2013/08/21221-kickstarter-lawsuits-f-bbb-better-business-bureau/

Kickstarter has an Integrity Team, but appears to have not responded to various complaints as mentioned in the referenced article. 

It will be determined in due course, whether backers are being misled by less than honest communication. Perhaps, there potentially could be a class action lawsuit by those feeling misled by the BetterBack representations?

This Kickstarter project does point out a problem with Kickstarter, allowing something that is not new, being represented as new, and Kickstarter to date, not enforcing its own policy. 

Again, one might reasonable conclude that Kickstarter’s financial interest might be a significant factor for allowing BetterBack’s representations to be online.

Buyers beware. Do you research!