But after 14 months, the company shut its doors. I was particularly fascinated by the key rationale.
"In the current highly risk-averse capital market, we simply could not raise the necessary funds to continue to move forward. We believe this is not so much a reflection of the viability of our business, but the result of an unfortunate confluence of events. Just as we could not have predicted the sudden groundswell of environmental consciousness that blossomed at the time we launched our business, we did not foresee the current crisis in the capital markets. At this time, investors are loath to invest in anything; especially, it appears, a company like Nau that has the audacity to challenge conventional paradigms of what a business should be."
Should the company have thought a bit more about funding needs before agreeing to give away 5% of gross receipts to charity? I'm sorry to say this, but the answer is probably 'Yes.'
It just stinks when anyone out there looking to think outside the box and break-down long-standing paradigms gets a black eye.
Last I checked, black eyes don't last forever.