Oh, Tucker Max. Of all the bullet points the author listed, I failed to see "produce quality content" as one of them, which is pretty much why Tucker Max began a slow slide into irrelevancy years ago.
At this point he's a relic of an earlier time where fictional stories posed as truth was taken at (mostly) face value. In today's era of camera phones and youtube, if there's no proof then it didn't happen. Most of his stories have been debunked by various sources, and all you need to do is Google "Tucker Max sucks."
And of course, the $2.5 million question is if Tucker Max was such an effective marketer, why did the movie version of his book perform so poorly? (the "$2.5 million" figure obviously referring to the cinema and DVD sales combined[1]).
At this point he's a relic of an earlier time where fictional stories posed as truth was taken at (mostly) face value. In today's era of camera phones and youtube, if there's no proof then it didn't happen. Most of his stories have been debunked by various sources, and all you need to do is Google "Tucker Max sucks."
And of course, the $2.5 million question is if Tucker Max was such an effective marketer, why did the movie version of his book perform so poorly? (the "$2.5 million" figure obviously referring to the cinema and DVD sales combined[1]).
[1] http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/IHTSB.php