Instead of answering your question about evidence directly -- the article was very clear in providing evidence that Naturally Curly is investment-worthy -- I think it's important to point out what an arbitrary and arrogant comment this is. (It's a step above mkramlich-level commentary, because at least you acknowledge that you have no evidence.)

What you call "common" sense is a collective set of prejudices you rely on as a sort of defense, or shortcut, against having to constantly question your base assumptions. The strength of common sense is not that it's predictive, but that you can make baseless assertions about the world and expect them to be accepted unquestioningly, so long as you are speaking to an audience whose own core beliefs will be comforted and affirmed by your statements. By forwarding common sense as justification enough for unsubstantiated assertions, you're basically pandering.

But, if we strip away your crutch for a moment and ask another set of questions, the point of this article becomes obvious -- because you have illustrated it with (probably unintentional) hilarity. Instead of asking (rhetorically, because you assume that everyone shares your assumptions) why this wouldn't flop, let's ask:

  * Why should anyone believe you know anything about what makes a successful investment and what the predictors of a successful exit are? 
  * Do you know anything about the curly/wavy-haired segment? 
  * Have you ever invested $1.4M (or even $14k) to the effect of generating ROI of whole multiples?
  * Have you ever sold any beauty or hair-care products?

Or, in short:

Who are you, and what is the evidence that you know anything about what you're talking about?

At the end of the day, columns like this one in NY Mag thrive on people like you, whose reliance on unquestioned assumptions allow them to circulate bullshit like it's truth.