Returning to my theme of a few days ago, it seems clear that the Blinkx management team is determined to get out there and spread the news - which is of course all to the good - but only a rather selective news.
For examples, this piece from the San Francisco Business Times:
"Revenue has been growing rapidly and is expected to reach $12 million to $13 million for this fiscal year, which ends in April, said company founder and CEO Suranga Chandratillake. Revenue was about $6 million the previous year, and $2.5 million the year before that."
Not a word about costs, you'll notice. What did it cost to increase revenue by that amount? We know that Blinkx have been hiring staff (they doubled their sales team last year) and expect to hire more. How much are those staff costing? How close is Blinkx to profitability with that increased revenue? These are the questions shareholders want answered.
Again, in this piece from MediaPost News
"Derived almost entirely by advertising, revenue doubled year-over-year to about $13 million last year, according to Chandratillake"
Once more, good news on the face of it, but not the whole story.
I believe there is now a compelling case for a full trading update from the company stating revenues, costs, progress towards profitability and all other pertinent matters. I believe this is even more important after the Miva fiasco, to restore confidence in the company and its officers moving forwards.
Because from where I'm standing it looks like the company is playing show-and-tell. They'll tell us everything, but they don't want to show us anything...
Friday, 6 February 2009
Thursday, 5 February 2009
More takeovers? He hasn't even managed Miva yet!
More coverage of Blinkx, this time from Media Post News: Blinkx Relaunches Search, Viewing Platform
I like this bit the best:"While larger media companies have ruled out acquisition activity this year, Chandratillake said Blinkx could be tempted by this buyer's market. "We could see some very attractive deals this year, and we're lucky to be sitting on a large cash pile," he said."
This from the man who has severely damaged - if not actually destroyed - his credibility among many shareholders with the botched, totally amateur (or at least that's the way it looks from where I'm standing) non-bid for Miva. And he seriously thinks that next time he makes an approach for a company they're going to take him seriously?
I like this bit the best:"While larger media companies have ruled out acquisition activity this year, Chandratillake said Blinkx could be tempted by this buyer's market. "We could see some very attractive deals this year, and we're lucky to be sitting on a large cash pile," he said."
This from the man who has severely damaged - if not actually destroyed - his credibility among many shareholders with the botched, totally amateur (or at least that's the way it looks from where I'm standing) non-bid for Miva. And he seriously thinks that next time he makes an approach for a company they're going to take him seriously?
Are Blinkx getting their PR act together at last?
from the Guardian today
Blinkx adds web TV to video search
Good to see Blinkx getting some coverage at last, what with Chandratillake's appearances on Sky and the BBC's Working Lunch last week.
Blinkx adds web TV to video search
Good to see Blinkx getting some coverage at last, what with Chandratillake's appearances on Sky and the BBC's Working Lunch last week.
Now all we need is a resolution to the Miva non-bid and I might be convinced that Blinkx management actually does have some kind of plan after all...
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
'PROJECT KANGAROO' - FINAL REPORT (Competition Commission)
RNS Number : 7448M
Competition Commission
04 February 2009
News Release
05/094 February 2009
'PROJECT KANGAROO' - FINAL REPORT
The Competition Commission (CC) has decided to block the proposed video on
demand (VOD) jointventure
between the BBC through BBC Worldwide Limited (BBCW),
ITV plc (ITV) and Channel Four Television Corporation (C4)-UKVOD, also known as
'Project Kangaroo'. It has concluded that none of the other remedies proposed
could remove the threat to competition in the VOD market.
Peter Freeman, CC Chairman and Chairman of the inquiry group, said:
After detailed and careful consideration, we have decided that this joint
venture would be too much of a threat to competition in this developing market
and has to be stopped.
The case is essentially about the control of UK-originated TV content. VOD is an
exciting and fast-moving development in TV, which makes programmes previously
broadcast available to viewers at a time of their choice. The evidence we saw
showed that UK viewers particularly value programmes produced and originally
shown in the UK and do not regard other content as a good substitute.
BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 together control the vast majority of this
material, which puts them in a very strong position as wholesalers of TV content
to restrict competition from other current and future providers of VOD services
to UK viewers. We thought the joint venture parties would have an interest in
doing so, in order to make Project Kangaroo a success.
Without this venture, BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 would be close
competitors of each other. We thought that viewers would benefit from better VOD
services if the parties-possibly in conjunction with other new and/or already
established providers of VOD-competed with each other.
We considered very carefully a combination of measures aimed at removing the
wholesaling activities of the joint venture and safeguarding commercially
sensitive information, but we were not persuaded that these measures would
overcome the risk that membership of this joint venture would influence the
parties' commercial decisions, particularly in relation to the wholesaling of
VOD content.
We looked closely at the possible benefits to viewers which this joint venture
might bring. We found that these and other benefits could come just as well from
other projects that were less damaging to competition. We expect these
alternatives to be much more likely to develop in the light of our decision.
We are aware of the various important proposals coming from Ofcom and the
Digital Britain project regarding the future of public sector broadcasting and
the position of the three companies involved in this joint venture. None of the
proposals is specific or imminent. Our job has been to examine a specific
proposal for a particular new and developing market. The effects on compe tition
of other, future proposals for public service broadcasters have yet to be
examined.
In its final report, published today at www.competition-commission.org.uk, the
CC has confirmed its provisional finding that the joint venture is likely to
result in a substantial lessening of competition (SLC) in the supply of UK TV
VOD content at the wholesale and retail levels.
The CC published a notice of possible remedies to address the SLC in December
2008. These possible remedies included putting in place access remedies to
control the way that content is offered to other providers and/or making
material modifications to the terms of the joint venture. Other possible
measures have since been suggested by various parties, including a proposal by
the joint venture partners to remove the joint venture's ability to wholesale
content combined with measures to prevent the exchange of commercially sensitive
information.
Notes for editors
1. The CC is an independent public body which carries out investigations into
mergers, markets and the regulated industries.
2. The reference was made by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on 30 June 2008. The
CC extended the timetable for the inquiry in August, whilst it awaited important
information on details of the joint venture, which were still being negotiated
by the parties.
3. The Enterprise Act 2002 empowers the OFT to refer to the CC completed or
pro posed mergers for investigation and report which create or enhance a 25 per
cent share of supply in the UK (or a substantial part thereof) or where the UK
turnover associated with the enterprise being acquired is over GBP70 million.
4. The definition of merger includes a joint venture when two or more enterprises
cease to be distinct from each other.
5. Further information on the CC and its procedures, including its policy on the
provision of information and the disclosure of evidence, can be obtained from
its website at: www.competition-commission.org.uk.
6. Enquiries should be directed to Rory Taylor on 020 7271 0242 (email
rory.taylor@cc.gsi.gov.uk).
Competition Commission
04 February 2009
News Release
05/094 February 2009
'PROJECT KANGAROO' - FINAL REPORT
The Competition Commission (CC) has decided to block the proposed video on
demand (VOD) joint
ITV plc (ITV) and Channel Four Television Corporation (C4)-UKVOD, also known as
'Project Kangaroo'. It has concluded that none of the other remedies proposed
could remove the threat to competition in the VOD market.
Peter Freeman, CC Chairman and Chairman of the inquiry group, said:
After detailed and careful consideration, we have decided that this joint
venture would be too much of a threat to competition in this developing market
and has to be stopped.
The case is essentially about the control of UK-originated TV content. VOD is an
exciting and fast-moving development in TV, which makes programmes previously
broadcast available to viewers at a time of their choice. The evidence we saw
showed that UK viewers particularly value programmes produced and originally
shown in the UK and do not regard other content as a good substitute.
BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 together control the vast majority of this
material, which puts them in a very strong position as wholesalers of TV content
to restrict competition from other current and future providers of VOD services
to UK viewers. We thought the joint venture parties would have an interest in
doing so, in order to make Project Kangaroo a success.
Without this venture, BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 would be close
competitors of each other. We thought that viewers would benefit from better VOD
services if the parties-possibly in conjunction with other new and/or already
established providers of VOD-competed with each other.
We considered very carefully a combination of measures aimed at removing the
wholesaling activities of the joint venture and safeguarding commercially
sensitive information, but we were not persuaded that these measures would
overcome the risk that membership of this joint venture would influence the
parties' commercial decisions, particularly in relation to the wholesaling of
VOD content.
We looked closely at the possible benefits to viewers which this joint venture
might bring. We found that these and other benefits could come just as well from
other projects that were less damaging to competition. We expect these
alternatives to be much more likely to develop in the light of our decision.
We are aware of the various important proposals coming from Ofcom and the
Digital Britain project regarding the future of public sector broadcasting and
the position of the three companies involved in this joint venture. None of the
proposals is specific or imminent. Our job has been to examine a specific
proposal for a particular new and developing market. The effects on compe tition
of other, future proposals for public service broadcasters have yet to be
examined.
In its final report, published today at www.competition-commission.org.uk, the
CC has confirmed its provisional finding that the joint venture is likely to
result in a substantial lessening of competition (SLC) in the supply of UK TV
VOD content at the wholesale and retail levels.
The CC published a notice of possible remedies to address the SLC in December
2008. These possible remedies included putting in place access remedies to
control the way that content is offered to other providers and/or making
material modifications to the terms of the joint venture. Other possible
measures have since been suggested by various parties, including a proposal by
the joint venture partners to remove the joint venture's ability to wholesale
content combined with measures to prevent the exchange of commercially sensitive
information.
Notes for editors
1. The CC is an independent public body which carries out investigations into
mergers, markets and the regulated industries.
2. The reference was made by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on 30 June 2008. The
CC extended the timetable for the inquiry in August, whilst it awaited important
information on details of the joint venture, which were still being negotiated
by the parties.
3. The Enterprise Act 2002 empowers the OFT to refer to the CC completed or
pro posed mergers for investigation and report which create or enhance a 25 per
cent share of supply in the UK (or a substantial part thereof) or where the UK
turnover associated with the enterprise being acquired is over GBP70 million.
4. The definition of merger includes a joint venture when two or more enterprises
cease to be distinct from each other.
5. Further information on the CC and its procedures, including its policy on the
provision of information and the disclosure of evidence, can be obtained from
its website at: www.competition-commission.org.uk.
6. Enquiries should be directed to Rory Taylor on 020 7271 0242 (email
rory.taylor@cc.gsi.gov.uk).
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Blinkx creates rich catalog of web video
From The San Francisco Business Times
"Revenue has been growing rapidly and is expected to reach $12 million to $13 million for this fiscal year, which ends in April, said company founder and CEO Suranga Chandratillake. Revenue was about $6 million the previous year, and $2.5 million the year before that. The sheer momentum of the online video explosion means the company is likely to keep growing, Chandratillake said. The company now has 60 employees, about 40 of them, including all the technical and research staff, in San Francisco. The company expects to hire 10 to 20 more in the coming year."
Sorry - why do shareholders have to learn these facts from the SF Business Times? Where, exactly, is the official trading update? Are Blinkx touting themselves for sale to the SF/West Coast hi-tech community?
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Kangaroo to launch at last?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article5627414.ece
From The Sunday TimesFebruary 1, 2009
Kangaroo hops to launch
From The Sunday TimesFebruary 1, 2009
Kangaroo hops to launch
James Ashton
An internet television service designed to rival YouTube is finally expected to get off the ground this week by getting the green light from the Competition Commission.
Kangaroo, a jointventure between the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, was thrown into doubt in December when the commission raised doubts over a “substantial lessening of competition” in the fast-growing video-on-demand market.
Designed to be a single portal for viewers to catch up on recently broadcast television shows as well as an archive of older programmes, shareholders have reached an agreement to supply rival websites on the same terms.
As a result, Kangaroo, to be funded by advertising, may be ready for launch in late spring. It aims to show more than 10,000 hours of programming, including BBC shows that are more than seven days old.
Before that, they appear on iPlayer, the free service which notched up 41m programme requests in December and 271m during the whole of 2008.
iPlayer has proved so popular that by some estimates it accounts for 5% of UK internet traffic. This led the Digital Britain report last week to suggest the BBC might have to contribute to broadband-delivery costs.
Concerns over Kangaroo had been raised by Virgin Media, independent television producers and BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster 39.1% owned by News Corporation, parent of The Sunday Times.
Kangaroo, a joint
Designed to be a single portal for viewers to catch up on recently broadcast television shows as well as an archive of older programmes, shareholders have reached an agreement to supply rival websites on the same terms.
As a result, Kangaroo, to be funded by advertising, may be ready for launch in late spring. It aims to show more than 10,000 hours of programming, including BBC shows that are more than seven days old.
Before that, they appear on iPlayer, the free service which notched up 41m programme requests in December and 271m during the whole of 2008.
iPlayer has proved so popular that by some estimates it accounts for 5% of UK internet traffic. This led the Digital Britain report last week to suggest the BBC might have to contribute to broadband-delivery costs.
Concerns over Kangaroo had been raised by Virgin Media, independent television producers and BSkyB, the satellite broadcaster 39.1% owned by News Corporation, parent of The Sunday Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)