From what I can surmise, the technique referred to here is one that has been around a while. I think Gary Halbert or John Carlton (probably both) suggested testing the market by offering a "quick and dirty" version of a product and then filling orders after the market proved worthy.

I think I read somewhere of someone actually suggesting testing markets like this before they've even produced any product. Without getting into "legal opinions" (I'm not a lawyer so all my opinions must be, by someone's definition, illegal) but... NOT a good idea.

The Inc article indeed uses a software developer who only creates a product for which a demand already exists. Well, gee, as a copywriter I only created products for which a demand already existed too.

This seems to demonstrate there is an acceptable gray area. It seems problems may crop up when products promised are not delivered in a reasonable time period. The FTC seems to prefer to answer such problems with prosecution.

I am all for testing markets and I think it's wise to learn from these techniques and implement them when they are appropriate but it's also apparent that relying on this alone may lead to more trouble than it's worth. Then again, I don't believe anyone here would suggest relying on just one method for anything.

For established companies desiring to product new produts or even expand into new markets, this seems like a lazy way of doing things. Maybe not so much for exploring new territory but even then, what's wrong with checking out popular competitors, talking to customers and uncovering what is missing? Then they can fill the void.

My two bits,

Andy