Creditors report, page-164

The real crux of the problem with the previous financing model was that even if you consider a payment from FCC to BIG as a receipt (which could be argued either way till the cows come home), the receipt was effectively "banked" as revenue before the customer had agreed in an ironclad way to pay it.

The idea then that BIG could simply find another customer to "slot in" to replace a customer who did not want to fulfill the payment is flawed as that means two sets of videos must be produced for one payment, and if the replacement customer does not agree to pay, a third set of videos must be produced for one payment ... so COGS can just blow out while the claim is made " we have never failed to find a replacement paying customer" etc etc

So essentially the financing / receipt model was misleading as investors did not fully understand the non-binding nature of the receipts being banked as givens for 4C's and the profitability of each receipt was impossible to determine.

FWIW though, I think BIG was onto the right idea of going out and filming areas /streets en masse to get costs down and then mass prepping samples for customer acceptance / leading to full production combined with social media / content delivery across BIG affiliates etc. But counting product samples handed out as guaranteed purchases is not the way of representing business operations. It should have been tracked as samples or leads developed with a view to revenue / receipt.