Write-up of conference call notes from Dr Slowly on i i i

Reproduced without permission - hope he doesn't mind me sharing for the benefit of shareholders...

-----------------

Presentation:

Blinkx tapping into new media trend: text websites integrating video, e.g. BBC news etc.

Connected devices iPad/iPhone are becoming more important. We are all more connected therefore more video - more minutes online. Online video and connected iTV will become MASSIVE, we have only just scratched the surface. Exploiting a secular trend.

Showed a historical graphic which showed they have obliterated the other opposition in video search with their technology.

Business model. Burst & PVGM is going to make lots of money for Blinkx (they are now integrated). Business model is more diverse talking to the ad buyers. But the impression that Burst/PVGM are only adding revenue via the "conventional" channel (as opposed to high margin AdHoc channel) is clearly wrong. Later SC said most of Burst & PVGM revenue is also generated from AdHoc. Very important point I think.

Currently the Sales revenue is generated as follows:

1. AdHoc: 80% ($91m sales) - premium ads
2. Conventional: 14% - lower margin ad space. Doing what other ad sellers do.
But SC's plan: to grow/keep customer base & then sell them AdHoc
3. Tech Servs: 6%

------

Questions:

Tom from Citygroup - commented that the strategy has now changed (well done Tom!)
- Conventional model can we expect CPM deflation? CPM down but impressions up. Bridge to get Burst & PVGM customers into AdHoc.
- Trading Desks (are automated buying ads for online)? SC - Not trend unique to online. Does not see as a challenge. We can demonstrate to customers the ads are high value.
- There was no "conventional" model before Burst/PVMG? SC - True but Burst/PVMG also brings in new AdHoc as well.
- HP transaction / position? Meet with HP team regularly. Value our opinion & interest in strategic value of Blinkx. Getting sales from HP as valued partner. (me - Clearly no IDOL license issues).

Richard - Charles Stanley.
- Trading Desks are they a problem? Not a negative or positive. Can sell direct to ad companies. Our platform gives rich data about users (a big advantage)
- Burst/PVGM from where is their revenue? SC - AdHoc is there dominant chunk of revenue.
- Skipit - skip video ads? did not understand answer.
- Organic Blinkx growth? SC - difficult because Burst now fully integrated.

David - Numis (Don't listen to this guy's forcasts = idi*t).
Cash flow $5.59m intangibles. = Burst Media. R&D ? no answer.
like4like comparison from last year? no answer.

Alan - Canaccord (Was not listening to previous Qs + Wet lettuce!)
- the traditional models of Burst/PVMG go through the "conventional" route yes? SC - No. Can sell AdHoc as well (i.e. all 3 revenue colomns).
- AOL important - what is trafic growth? Promote and build relationship (Ask, AOL, relationship going well). SC - cannot give AOL traffic # as it is top secret (dummy).
- Burst/PVGM what is staff turnover? Sales team have higher turnover, not much higher than Blinkx. Retained the best staff.

Goldman Sachs (typical GS: show me the money Questions $$$)
- consensus estimates - are you happy? No forcast. Metrics based trends. SC - is very coy about forcasts
- Burst/PVGM - how has # of impressions increased ? Burst/PVMG. 9bn monetised last year to 50bn (factor of 10) this. But not selling ads on all impresions (only 10% now).

Singer Cap
- anulised base volumes? AdHoc 19bn, conventional 25bn (only represents 10% of all impressions). Totals: 300-400bn Burst, PVMG slightly less.
- price direction Tradjectory? How much of 90% will be monetisable? Difficult to answer.
- Growth #s? should we focus on AdHoc? SC - yes.


-----
Overall:

Was all a bit cat and mouse. But I respect SC in not answering the forcast Qs. They will trash him if he misses. Also quite genuinely I think it is now difficult to talk about "organic" growth since both Burst/PVGM sell AdHoc as well (which was considered organic).

SC got essentially the same repeated Question on Burst/PVGM. Clearly the perception was that they only sold through the conventional channel. But SC said that most of Burst/PVGM revenue comes from AdHoc. But the benefit of Burst/PVGM is they sell thru new channels, to different customer base. The idea being to get customers via conventional ad routes and then to convert them to AdHoc. Clearly this is working if both are making most of their revenue from AdHoc.

Like ML before him SC is unwilling to talk about forcasts/consensus estimates. For this reason like Autonomy the analysts will always be cautious/negative and undervalue the company - only for SC to surprise on the upside. Autonomy mark 2.

Overall I was very impressed by SC and his vision. I am now much happier about the role of Burst/PVGM. I will continue to hold, as they offer excellent long term value due to the potential for underlying ad growth.

All IMHO/DYOR.