The persistance in presenting one sole view from a poster on Yahoo Finance is (or, can be I guess), likened to my own. Apart from the fact that we both hold diametrically opposed views, on Looksmart. - I happen to see a great future ahead for the company & he says that there's .....
It's all interesting when considering the following, in recent times.
TechCrunch today, reports, that .. AFCV Holdings, a portfolio company of growth equity investor Summit Partners, ........is axing the majority of people working for the Q&A site Answers.com parent company Answers Corporation, which it acquired earlier this year for $127 million in cash.
This move effectively cuts the total employed at the Co (that is said to be around 90), by half.
The Co was clearly SOLD and was NOT Bought
TechCrunch advise - -'Answers.com was acquired by AFCV Holdings earlier this year after 6 years on NASDAQ, at a 33 percent premium over the company’s average closing stock price over 90 days prior to the announcement of the deal.
But shareholders were very unhappy with the terms of the deal, claiming it tremendously undervalued Answers.com, and tried to block the sale.
Shortly after they did, a U.S. court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the special meeting of stockholders to vote on the merger agreement, however, and thus the acquisition was closed on April 14, 2011.
Now, roughly 11 weeks later, Answers Corporation’s brand new owner effectively gutted the company, raising doubts about its long-term viability.'
I'm not so sure that I agree with TechCrunch, there?
I know little about this Q&A site Answers.com. But at a 1st glance (at both the sale price and with the new owner's latest move - in its firing some 45 out of 65 employees in the company’s offices in Israel), I'd reckon it has been a 'steal' of a buy.
[Answers.com is no longer a publicly traded company and thus no longer needs the supporting infrastructure.]
I strongly feel that not only have they a Co that looks to have long term sustainability- I mean will Kidz ever stop their asking of questions that will always need answering? - So, I do feel that they have also got themselves an absolute bargain, is, as I'm seeing it!
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all to eventually see the likes of a Google, (or, a News Corp?) to now move in and buy this off the new owners (in time) and they may even pay (up to) double the price just paid, in their doing so.
1stly, I'm not concerned about the reported small revenues increase shown Y/Y for answers.com, nor am I wanting to go into anything that pertains to the Co's expenses or, delve into the/anything relating to it's general performance re; it's revenues earned. ($21,47M/$20,76M) - I would note that the Co held some $21.5M in cash at the time of it's sale.
Answers.com Reports Q4 and Full Year 2010 Financial Results ...
In terms of performance based advertising globally, all USERS (both onshore USA and International) are as good as GOLD (with the global retargeting of individuals or, audience targeting), in the not to distant future... Is my strong opinion.
According to answers.com and re; my question (Unique visitors to answers.com? - and from within the Google results provided), came the following claim that was being made, from the Co...
Yahoo! Answers - Information from Answers.com
Answers staff claim 200 million users worldwide and 15 million users visiting daily. Google Trends reports around 4 million unique visitors (Global) daily.
Just who do you now believe?
From Quantcast - www.quantcast.com/answers.com
Monthly US People83.2M
Global PeopleFrom in my own Feb 24, 2010 instapost [Publishers Should Create 'Toll Gate' For Premium Content?- tinyurl.com/3bbnttn], I'd like to remind readers here of where McLauglin points out (and rightly so, I feel), when he writes:
"do not lose sight of the value of the advertising supported model... We are in the middle of a complex media transformation and a brutal recession".
Further within that posting I go on and hilight the fact that the digital UK newspaper site for the Guardian.com, had told all:
"The Guardian is a strong brand to work with. The site showed a global audience of 20.6m unique users and ... over 186m page impressions in July's ABCE audit, which just goes to show how popular the product is internationally." - The Guardian signs ad inventory deal with Ad2One .
I then go on to show how (with eCPM impressions alone), this single digital publisher The UK's Guardian (12 months) ='s $200,880,000 - that it stands to gain, resulting from those International "uniques".
At answers.com I'm seeing a total of five Ads (incl. three standard banners) on a typical results page, when the site had provided me with its answer to my own simple question.
Back to my Guardian.com calculations and my reasoning of, Let's just say you can get a $3 net CPM for all the ads (combined) on your pages.
With the re-targeting of those claimed 200 million users worldwide at answers.com - across the Looksmart global marketplace, I'm sure (and would confidently predict) that all advertisers will be paying a lot more than those my early predicted results (just $3.00), as a payment that then gets back to the publishers, per 1000 targeted audience page-views.
All, just my opinion though. Disgruntled shareholders of answers.com have their own opinion, barryzebo45 on Yahoo Finance has his and I do happen to have mine, that I express here daily.
Maybe News Corp could buy answers.com? It'd be a great 'fit' for all it's global media sites. It's also possible that News Corp will (too), buy a controlling stake in Looksmart?
Let's be certain on one thing though (re; any Looksmart buy-out), hopefully - that it's NOT under the same stealth situation that has recently been endured by shareholders of answers.com, surely?
LOOK: 3:59PM EDT: $1.51 0.02 (- 1.31%)
Looksmart (that has THE ONLY independent GLOBAL performance marketplace, on the web.) has $25.5M in cash. And a market Cap of??
ps; Of real interest: Summit Partners invested in Rapt. (1/24/06)
Disclosure: Long LOOK and happy to be so, too...