Amazon Told Sellers Its 2026 Fee Hike Was “Less Than 0.5%” — Then Bolted On a 3.5% Surcharge in the Middle of a War. Is There a Business in Catching What Amazon’s Math Hides?
What you’re reading: a real Opportunity Dossier from our AI research pipeline — Ada spotted the signals, Bea shaped the candidates, Cora dug deep, Edie tried to kill it and owns the score, and Della wrote it up. New to our scoring? Start with How Our Star Score Works. Research date: July 2026 — facts move; check dates before betting money.
Fluidity Rating: ★★☆☆☆ (2/5) — real pain and real willingness to pay, but a broad “true-margin dashboard” is boxed in on every side by Amazon’s own tools and a shelf of funded incumbents; only a narrow, ugly, audit-grade reconciliation wedge has any oxygen.
Amazon’s 2026 fee notice opens with a shrug. Sellers on Reddit open with a scream. And Greg Mercer — the ex-Amazon seller who turned that exact frustration into a company that raised $110 million — sits in the middle as living proof that the pain is real and that the easy version of this business is already taken.
Here is Amazon, in its own official 2026 U.S. fee update, framing the whole thing as a rounding error: “In 2026, FBA fees will increase by an average of $0.08 per unit sold, or less than 0.5% of an average item’s selling price.” (FBA = Fulfillment by Amazon, the program where a seller ships inventory into Amazon’s warehouses and Amazon picks, packs, and delivers each order for a per-unit fee.) That is the platform owner’s story: nothing to see here, the increase is pennies.
Then, on April 2, 2026 — with a war in Iran into its fifth week and fuel costs climbing across the shipping industry — Amazon sent sellers a very different note. The company added a 3.5% “fuel and logistics” surcharge on every FBA fulfillment fee in the U.S. and Canada, effective April 17, with no end date, averaging roughly $0.17 per unit. That is more than double the “$0.08” headline, layered on top of it, and Amazon did not fold the surcharge into the tidy “less than 0.5%” line at all.
And here is a working Amazon seller, quoted in an r/AmazonFBA thread where a builder explains why he stopped trusting the official numbers and coded his own tool: “Seller Central gives you revenue but buries the actual fees across 10 different reports.” A companion post in the same community puts the whole ache in one sentence: “I wanted to know my true profit per SKU after every single fee.” (A SKU — pronounced “skew,” short for stock-keeping unit — is just a single product variant: one size, one color, one item you sell.)
That gap between Amazon’s “0.5%” and the seller’s “which of my ten reports is telling the truth?” is the entire reason this opportunity exists. Notice the quiet self-contradiction in Amazon’s own posture, too: the company insists the fee impact is negligible, then in the same breath tells sellers they need a brand-new Profit Analytics dashboard, a Revenue Calculator, and a “Fee and Economics Preview” report to understand what the impact actually is. If the number were truly trivial, you would not need that much machinery to explain it. Amazon is not lying — the company speaks in portfolio averages while a seller lives in the SKU-level edge cases where a referral fee, a storage fee, a low-inventory fee, advertising spend, a return, and now a fuel surcharge collide differently on every product.
So what is this world, and why should a stranger care? Roughly two million-plus small businesses sell physical goods on Amazon, and a serious slice of them run on margins thin enough that a few misread fee lines decide whether the month was profitable. A “Fee and Margin Truth Layer” = software that pulls in all of Amazon’s scattered fee and settlement data and tells a seller the real, trustworthy profit on each product — and, in the sharpest version, flags the money leaking out that Amazon’s and rivals’ tools quietly miss. For a would-be founder, the question is whether a person’s months are well spent building it. For an investor, the question is whether there is real money here and who actually captures it. Our honest read on both: the pain is genuine, but the easy chair at this table is already occupied — the only open seat is narrow, unglamorous, and hard.
The three things worth knowing up front:
- The pain is loud and dated — sellers are literally coding their own tools because they don’t trust the reports.
- The “greenfield” is a mirage: Amazon, Jungle Scout, sellerboard, and Shopkeeper already own the “profit dashboard” slot.
- The one real opening is the ugliest one — audit-grade reconciliation that recovers provable dollars, not a prettier chart.
The Allure: Margin Death by a Thousand Line Items
Picture the moment that makes believers out of founders. A seller opens Seller Central the morning after a fee change. Amazon’s banner says the increase is tiny. But on a subset of products, margin has quietly collapsed — because referral fee plus FBA fulfillment plus storage plus advertising plus a low-inventory penalty plus inbound placement plus returns plus supplier freight all stack differently by product. The seller opens a third-party dashboard to make sense of it. And then — this is the tell — the seller still exports everything to QuickBooks or a spreadsheet, because the dashboard is not fully trusted as the accounting source of truth. One community post captured the whole doubt in a question: “Do you fully trust Sellerboard as the source of truth… or do you still export/check… outside the dashboard?”
That distrust is the dream a founder falls in love with. If existing tools were truly trusted, sellers would not keep exporting and double-checking. Amazon itself keeps validating the pain: the low-inventory-level fee Amazon rolled out in 2024 was contentious enough that Amazon had to publicly re-explain it — the company says it charges the fee because low stock “prevents efficient distribution, slows delivery, and raises shipping cost.” When a platform has to keep defending and re-explaining its own fees, that is a tacit admission that fee comprehension is a real, unsolved workflow.
And there is genuine money in the neighborhood, which is the investor lens. Amazon-seller software is not a hobby market. Jungle Scout, which started as a research tool for sellers, raised $110 million in growth capital in March 2021, led by Summit Partners — real institutional money betting on tooling for exactly these customers. Jungle Scout has since expanded into profit overviews, a full profit-and-loss statement, and AI-assisted profit analysis, spreading well beyond its research roots.
The margin shape is attractive on paper, too. This is a software business built on data pipes, not on expensive AI. Once the ingestion is stable, the main costs are cloud compute, data-sync jobs, customer support, and security — not the per-question “inference” costs that eat into AI-heavy products. Gross margin (revenue left after the direct cost of serving each customer) should be high, in the usual software range, because there is no big model-inference bill dragging on every account. If a founder could genuinely own “the number sellers trust,” the economics would be lovely.
That is the allure. Now the cold water.
Where This Idea Came From — and Who Wants to Build It
The provenance here is not a single dramatic villain; it is a slow accumulation of fee events that trained sellers to obsess over unit economics. Before 2024, the math was already non-trivial — referral, FBA, storage, returns, ads. Then, from late 2023 into 2024, Amazon announced and launched the low-inventory-level fee, then had to explain it further and credit some early charges back. Through 2025, Amazon held some increases flat but layered in more tooling. In 2026 came the “$0.08 per unit” notice — and then the 3.5% fuel-and-logistics surcharge on top of it, announced to sellers, per a note viewed by CNBC, in the fifth week of the Iran war as fuel costs rose across the industry.
The named human at the center of the “seller-turned-builder” archetype is Greg Mercer. Jungle Scout’s own biography page presents Mercer as a former Amazon seller who began selling in 2013 before building Jungle Scout in 2015 — the credibility story every founder in this space wants, because he lived the pain before he sold the cure. Mercer matters not because he is fighting anyone here, but because his company is the wall a new entrant runs into: the empathetic-founder story is already claimed, and the company built on it already spans research, ads, analytics, and enterprise intelligence.
As for who wants to build the new version: the signal is real but small. The clearest builder energy is in Reddit’s Amazon communities, where multiple sellers describe coding their own custom profitability dashboards because they were “tired of guessing real margins.” Two newer entrants surface in that same community chatter — one product called SaleslyPro/oSellpa positioning against sellerboard by claiming it pulls “actual fee data from Amazon’s Finance API” rather than category-size estimates, and another in-development tool called SellerGuards said to be built by ex-employees of an Amazon reporting tool. Both claims are community-posted and not independently verified, so treat each as an unconfirmed signal, not a fact. The honest read on this builder energy: it skews toward micro-SaaS and operator-built side projects, not obvious venture-scale ambition. That absence of serious would-be founders swinging big is itself a signal about the ceiling.
The Scorecard: Why This Lands at Two Stars
We score every idea on nine pillars measuring the return on a founder’s time. Here is where the Fee and Margin Truth Layer honestly falls.
Time-to-Truth — ★★★★☆ (4/5). The best thing about this idea is that you can find out cheaply whether it’s real. For roughly $1,000–$6,000 over 2–6 weeks, a founder can manually reconcile the recent settlement periods of 10–20 sellers by hand, prove whether real fee leakage surfaces that incumbents miss, and pre-sell a paid audit before writing a line of production code.
Time-to-MVP — ★★★☆☆ (3/5). A usable first version — ingesting Amazon’s finance data, joining settlement and report files, modeling the core fee categories, and shipping SKU-level margin views plus simple alerts — takes a technical founder roughly 6–12 weeks. An audit-grade version that a seller would stake accounting decisions on is more like 4–9 months.
Time-to-First-Customer — ★★★☆☆ (3/5). If the founder already knows Amazon operators or accountants, first revenue can arrive in 1–3 months via a manual audit or hand-run reconciliation offer. A cold-start founder with no relationships should expect 3–9 months, because trust and permission to touch a seller’s financial data are the real bottleneck.
Capital Requirements — ★★★★☆ (4/5). A lean, founder-built version starts on $5,000–$30,000 of the founder’s own cash for entity setup, cloud, data tooling, basic security and bookkeeping, and a little customer acquisition. A serious 12-month run with 2–3 people is more like $250,000–$600,000 (estimate).
Execution Complexity / Operational Risk — ★★☆☆☆ (2/5). Here is where it gets hard. The difficulty is not building a dashboard; it’s reconciliation fidelity across Amazon’s fee, settlement, advertising, returns, inventory, and after-the-fact adjustment surfaces. Amazon’s tooling and data structures change, which can break your assumptions overnight — and a single wrong discrepancy report is trust-destroying with a customer whose whole reason to hire you was accuracy.
Competitive Intensity — ★☆☆☆☆ (1/5). This is the pillar that pins the rating down. The field is crowded before you arrive. Amazon’s own Profit Analytics dashboard already offers SKU/ASIN-level profitability, shows how fee changes hit each product, and — per Amazon’s Seller Central materials — spans coverage across 34 fee types and 10 cost types. Amazon literally told sellers in the 2026 notice: “You can also use the new Profit Analytics dashboard to get a detailed view of your unit economics, including the ability to see how fee changes impact each of your products.” When the platform owner is actively tooling and framing the exact pain you want to sell against, a generic dashboard is a feature, not a company.
Market Momentum — ★★★☆☆ (3/5). Demand is real and stable — sellers keep facing fee complexity and margin pressure, and Amazon keeps adding economics tooling around that pain. But the category reads as mature, not newly opening. Momentum here helps the problem stay alive more than it helps a new entrant break in.
AI Leverage — ★★☆☆☆ (2/5). AI can explain fee changes in plain English, summarize anomalies, and speed up support — but AI is not the moat and does not solve source-of-truth reconciliation. The core work is data plumbing, accounting logic, and trust. AI is an efficiency layer, not a category-opening advantage.
Defensibility — ★★☆☆☆ (2/5). A plain dashboard is instantly copyable and easy for a bigger suite — or Amazon — to bundle away. Defensibility appears only if the product becomes an audit-grade reconciliation engine, a fee-anomaly network, or an accountant/aggregator workflow so embedded in the monthly financial close that ripping it out is painful.
The competitive shelf is worth naming plainly, because it’s the whole story. Beyond Amazon’s native tools sit sellerboard, which publicly claims “20K+ Amazon sellers trust sellerboard” — a self-reported number no independent source verifies, so weight it as a signal of entrenchment rather than a hard fact — and Shopkeeper, which markets itself as a real-time profit dashboard computing sales, expenses, and profit as they happen. On the accounting side sit A2X, positioned around importing Amazon sales and fees into accounting systems for reconciliation, and Link My Books, which handles similar accounting-side reconciliation. Tellingly, even Link My Books admits in its own help documentation that certain inventory events — lost, reimbursed, or disposed FBA inventory — still require manual balance-sheet adjustments. That admission both validates the pain and shows how stubborn the last mile of reconciliation truly is.
And the money is consolidating, not fragmenting. In January 2025, SPS Commerce agreed to acquire Carbon6 — the Amazon-seller software group that earlier raised a $66 million Series A, reported by TechCrunch on October 4, 2022 — for approximately $210 million, roughly 60% cash and 40% stock, per Digital Commerce 360 and SPS Commerce’s own completion release in February 2025. When incumbents are being scooped up by a public retail-software company, a lone new dashboard is swimming against a strong current.
What It Would Take to Raise This Score
Your money. A founder who codes can start on $5,000–$30,000 of personal cash. The business as a serious going concern — 2–3 people, an engineer plus reconciliation/support operations, modest marketing, and enough runway to survive trust-heavy onboarding — needs $250,000–$600,000 over the first year (estimate).
Time to break-even. Roughly 9–24 months (estimate) to cover costs, and only under a load-bearing assumption: that a narrow wedge can reach about 40–150 customers at $200–$800 per month, or a handful of larger accountant/portfolio contracts. The whole timeline rests on the product proving savings or trust superior to the stack sellers already run. If it can’t, break-even never arrives.
The audience you’d need first. The estimate is a warm, reachable base of about 2,000–10,000 engaged Amazon sellers, operators, or ecommerce accountants who already trust the founder enough to hand over settlement data or take an audit call — with roughly 2,000 as the minimum viable slice. Note the word warm: this is people who already know the founder, not customers the founder still has to go find. The math is unforgiving — reach 2,000 relevant operators, 2%–5% take a call (40–100 prospects), 10%–20% convert (about 4–20 paying customers). That is enough to validate a lean operation, and not much more.
What moves the needle. For a cold stranger with no seller relationships, this is a 1-star slog — the founder must spend an estimated 12–24 months and 600–1,200 hours building niche trust the product itself won’t generate fast enough. For a founder who already has the audience — a trusted Amazon educator, operator, or accountant — it rises to 3 stars, because audits and alerts can be pre-sold quickly. Money plus audience together also tops out at 3 stars. And here is what no amount of money or audience can fix: Amazon’s bundling risk and the entrenched incumbent suites cap the ceiling at 3 stars unless the company becomes a clearly superior reconciliation system of record rather than another profit dashboard. Capital alone, without a moat, buys better engineering and more sales — but not a defensible position.
Who should build this — and who shouldn’t. The person who wins here is an ex-Amazon seller, seller-side operator, or ecommerce accountant who has personally felt report-mismatch pain, already knows people who’ll hand over real settlement data, and is patient, detail-obsessed, and unusually tolerant of ugly edge cases, month-end close logic, and support tickets that hinge on being exactly right. The person who’ll be tempted but shouldn’t be is the generic AI-or-dashboard builder who sees “fee complexity,” assumes a nicer interface is a business, and has never lived through Amazon settlement messiness or earned the trust required to be a source of truth.
Go-to-Market: Three Channels That Fit, and a Long List That Doesn’t
This is a trust product sold to a niche back office, so the channels that work are the ones that borrow existing trust or prove value directly — not the ones that shout into a feed.
1) Partnerships and co-marketing with Amazon accountants, CFO-for-hire firms, and aggregator operators. These partners already own seller trust and feel the reconciliation pain on repeat, which makes them the single best route in. Expect roughly $300–$1,500 in founder-time and revenue-share cost per paying account through warm partners, lower for portfolio deals where one relationship unlocks many brands.
2) SEO and content plus an owned email alert list. High-intent searches — around fee changes, low-inventory-fee math, and per-SKU profit — map straight onto the problem, and a weekly “what changed in your margin” alert email becomes the owned trust asset that converts into audits. Realistic early cost is about $150–$600 per qualified lead in founder time and content production, compounding as content ranks.
3) Cold outreach plus sampling. Offer a free one-settlement or one-SKU audit to seven-figure Amazon brands and accountant firms, then convert to a paid monthly exception-detection or reconciliation retainer. Early cost runs about 10–30 targeted outreaches and 1–3 hours of analysis per serious prospect — a free audit is the strongest possible proof mechanism for a product whose entire promise is accuracy.
First 90 days. Weeks 1–2: interview 20 sellers and accountants and collect anonymized settlement files. Weeks 3–4: build a manual audit workbook and a landing page. Weeks 5–8: run 10 free audits, publish 5 factual fee-teardown posts, and start a weekly fee-change email. Weeks 9–12: turn the discrepancies that keep repeating into a narrow product for alerts and reconciliation — not a broad dashboard.
One thing a day: audit one account edge case; publish one fee insight; ask one operator for a settlement sample; email one accountant partner; improve one discrepancy rule; send one follow-up; document one “why Amazon and dashboard X disagree” example.
Considered and set aside: GEO, paid search, paid social, organic social, influencer, own podcast/YouTube, community, newsletter cross-promo, affiliates, press & HARO, Product Hunt, awards, app stores, plugin/integration directories, listing sites, DMs, events, local press, associations & trade shows, freemium, built-in virality, referral programs.
Marketing cannot rescue a moat-less product. If this stays a generic dashboard, no channel above saves it — the channels only matter for the narrow, audit-grade wedge.
Illustrative Case Study: The Audit That Found the Wedge
Illustrative scenario — not a real company. This is a projection built from the analysis above, not a measured outcome.
Imagine “Priya,” a former operations lead at a seven-figure Amazon brand who spent three years fighting settlement reports. She doesn’t build a dashboard. She emails eleven brands she already knows and offers each a free reconciliation of one recent settlement period. Nine say yes — because Priya is known, not because her landing page is pretty. Over three weeks she finds that four of the nine were being over-charged on inbound placement fees that Amazon later partially credited, but which none of their existing tools flagged as recoverable — worth $700 to $1,900 a month per brand.
Priya’s gamble is to sell not a subscription but a finding. She charges three of the four a $1,000-a-month retainer to keep catching exactly that kind of leakage. Her consequence: she has revenue in month two and a checkable, dollar-denominated proof of value — the one thing that pierces seller distrust. Her risk, which the honesty spine demands we name: the moment Amazon changes its report structure or an incumbent adds the same exception check, Priya’s edge can evaporate unless her library of reconciliation rules keeps growing faster than the market closes the gap. The wedge is real. Whether it’s durable is the open question no case study can answer in advance.
The Skeptic’s Case: Strongest Reasons Not to Build This
The blunt version: this is not a new category, it’s a narrowing seam inside an already-occupied stack. Amazon itself now ships Profit Analytics and fee/economics previews. Jungle Scout, sellerboard, and Shopkeeper already promise profit visibility. A2X and Link My Books already handle accounting-side reconciliation. A founder who says “I’ll show true SKU margin” is not yet describing a company — only a familiar feature claim. The remaining gap is real but ugly: audit-grade reconciliation of delayed, scattered, adjusted, and sometimes manually interpreted fee and inventory events. That gap is operationally hard, trust-sensitive, and probably too narrow for a broad SaaS breakout unless the founder can prove meaningful recovered dollars that incumbents consistently miss. If the product can’t produce repeated, checkable findings that save or recover material money, sellers will rationally stay with the stack they already have.
What we could not verify, stated honestly: we found no clean, current public market-size figure for “Amazon seller profit analytics” — so treat any TAM (total addressable market) claim as inference, not fact. sellerboard’s “20K+” customer count is self-reported. Exact incumbent pricing tables and the size-in-dollars of the “provable truth gap” per seller are not publicly documented, which matters because that gap size is the whole variable that decides whether the wedge grows fast or slow. And the two newest builders we found — SaleslyPro/oSellpa and SellerGuards — surface only in unverified community chatter.
The Thesis-Killer Alternative
The obvious cheaper path a reader will ask about: why can’t a seller just stitch together free and cheap tools they already have? Amazon’s own Profit Analytics and fee previews, plus sellerboard or Shopkeeper for daily operational visibility, plus A2X or Link My Books feeding QuickBooks or Xero for accounting truth. Does that combination defeat the opportunity?
For a broad seller dashboard, yes — mostly. Community sentiment around sellerboard is often positive, especially for the price, and the stitched-together stack gives many sellers “good enough” truth. A prettier version of “good enough” is not a business.
For the narrow, audit-grade version, no — not fully. The tell is that even users of these tools keep asking whether they still need to export and check outside the dashboard, and even accounting connectors like Link My Books openly admit certain inventory and cost-of-goods events still require manual adjustment. That residual, stubborn, manual truth-work is the only real opening: a product whose claim is “we reconcile every Amazon fee event to the SKU, order, and lot level,” or “we detect fee drift and exceptions the incumbents miss,” or “we produce an accountant-verifiable margin ledger.” The bypass kills the dashboard. It leaves the reconciliation engine standing — barely.
Business Model, MVP, and the 30-Day Kill Test
Model. Subscription software priced by sales volume or SKU count, in the analogous range of low tens to low hundreds of dollars per month (estimate, by analogy to incumbents — exact tables not verified), with an annual contract value likely $300–$3,000 for small-to-mid sellers and higher for agency, aggregator, or accountant contracts. The healthier version leans on retainers for ongoing reconciliation rather than a cheap self-serve dashboard.
MVP. Not a dashboard first — a manual audit workbook first. Reconcile real settlement files by hand, prove you catch what others miss, then automate the rules that keep recurring.
The fastest kill test. Within 30 days, recruit 10 Amazon sellers or 3 accountant/CFO firms, run manual reconciliations on recent settlements, and ask two questions. One: do you find at least 3 repeatable discrepancy or leakage patterns not already surfaced by Amazon plus the seller’s current tools, worth at least $500–$2,000 per seller per month or a clear strategic pricing/inventory decision? Two: will at least 3 prospects prepay $500–$2,000 for ongoing alerts or reconciliation? If not, the broad thesis is dead and the narrow wedge is weaker than hoped.
Distribution compounding — weak-to-moderate. Customer number 50 does not automatically make customer 51 cheaper to win, unless the product builds reusable reconciliation rules, a benchmark anomaly library, accountant referrals, or checkable case-study proof. There is some compounding through partner channels and high-intent search, but this is not a viral or network-effect business — distribution is earned seller trust, not product output.
Reasons not to pursue, in one breath: you have no seller or accountant relationships and need fast wins; you hate data reconciliation and month-end close logic; you expect self-serve virality to do the work; or you’re drawn to the idea because “fee complexity” sounds like a clean software problem rather than the trust-and-edge-case grind it actually is.
The Full Top Three Takeaways
1) The pain is loud, dated, and self-evidently real — sellers are coding their own tools rather than trust the reports. When a working seller says Amazon “buries the actual fees across 10 different reports” and another builds a custom dashboard just to know “true profit per SKU,” that is not speculation — that is documented, repeated frustration. The pain passes every honesty test. The trouble is that pain being real is the easy half; capturing it is the hard half.
2) The greenfield is a mirage — the “profit dashboard” slot is already owned four ways over. Amazon’s own Profit Analytics spans 34 fee types and 10 cost types; Jungle Scout raised $110 million and expanded into profit tooling; sellerboard and Shopkeeper hold the real-time-profit slot; A2X and Link My Books hold accounting reconciliation; and Carbon6 just sold to SPS Commerce for about $210 million. A new generic dashboard walks into a room where every chair is taken and the money is consolidating.
3) The only open seat is the ugliest one — audit-grade reconciliation that recovers provable dollars. Not a prettier chart; a checkable ledger that catches leakage the incumbents and Amazon miss, embedded deep enough in the monthly close that ripping it out hurts. That wedge is narrow, unglamorous, and trust-heavy — and it caps out around 3 stars even executed well.
The cliffhanger that decides it all: the one number nobody has published is the size, in dollars per seller per month, of the provable truth gap — the leakage a sharp reconciliation engine can catch and monetize that the existing stack genuinely misses. Amazon just proved the fee stack can shift overnight, tacking a 3.5% surcharge on top of a “0.5%” promise mid-war. Every such lurch widens the gap for a moment and hands a trust-based founder fresh ammunition. But Amazon and the incumbents are building toward that same gap from the other side. Whoever measures that dollar figure first — the founder running real audits, or the platform closing the seam — decides whether there’s a company here at all.
Method: Super Fluidity Opportunity Dossier, Fluidity Rating v1. This analysis was produced by an AI research system. Facts were source-verified against primary and secondary sources where possible; self-reported, single-source, and estimated figures are labeled as such in the text. Scores reflect Return on Founder Time for a stranger’s pitch, with no home-team discount. This is analysis, not investment advice.
Why five ratings? Because the same idea is a different bet for different people. As a side gig — no money, no audience, no special skill, a few hours a week beside a job — the question is simple: is there a realistic path to $2,000–$5,000 a month within a year? As a business, starting with no money and no audience, most ideas are traps — even ideas that became famous companies rate only 2 stars from that starting line. With money, an audience, or both, the same idea can be a real opportunity. So every dossier rates all five, and you can find your own row.
Dossiers rated 0–2 stars for a founder with no money or audience are published free, right here. The rarer 3-, 4-, and 5-star finds go to paid subscribers first — that tier is opening soon, and free subscribers get the first invitation. Join the free list. Or have us investigate your own idea, privately: Request a Dossier ($199).
