This was kind of interesting as I was looking at some bystander feedback about a fairly big company that has positioned themselves as an authority in an industry. The company had its eyes on expansion and so as a result thy were looking for new partners and investors. While most of their published work seems to garner a lot of praise and attention, they do have a few bits here and there that are not as successful. The funny thing I thought was how so many people insisted in looking at the small amount of less popular items they have as a reason to say that proves that they aren’t going to last long.
While I definitely understand the notion of how it can just take one thing to make or break you, this just makes me think how in their case just taking down the less publicized work would have probably got them more interest. I suppose in cases like these it is unrealistic to expect people to value or understand the notion of how if people are willing to take risks or come back from failure it can be just as important in terms of trying to determine if the person/company can adapt in the long run.
Kind of disappointing in some ways as I usually like to see things such as the type of work people have done during their humble beginnings. But I suppose if you are specifically trying to attract more partners and investors it’s more about making them believe that everything you touch goes gold, so to speak.