Blinkx Share Discussion Threads

[nickb] 18/12/2014 08:25

JonC
Not my fault you did not take profits at 200p
Not my fault you did not protect yourself on the way down either.

[gspanner] 18/12/2014 08:20

so Jon have you gone long this morning then?

I thought your agenda was pretty obvious yesterday (mine is clearly different).

[jarvis4] 18/12/2014 08:11

Begs...I'll keep hold of my views of that's OK.

[loafofbread] 18/12/2014 08:06

Any sign of the latest comscore numbers?

[begorrah88] 18/12/2014 07:24

That summary by Orslega [sorry, shroder] about how blnx have upscaled, in his opinion, is an extraordinary flyer.

I can envisage a scenario whereby the BLNX board think that will be a good plan and send their sales staff out with the message.

'Hi, It's me from BLNX, yes, I know we've been doing malware and got slaughtered in the media and lost 90% of our value and lots of money for investors and also brought a nasty smell to your products by virtue of your association with us but hey, great news! we're now going to put your prices up!'

I don't imagine the sales staff get an opportunity to get any further into the conversation as the phone goes down at the other end of the line.

Might explain why they seem to think they are working hard but no figures are suggesting any improvement.

[jonc] 18/12/2014 07:17

lol gspanner.

I am long.

That doesn't stop me from airing my views unlike trader Nick who was ramping this dupmg with the family while dumping.

At least I am honest in my views.

[begorrah88] 18/12/2014 07:16

jarvis

You've lost it fella.

Accept the reality and move on as your posts are now just desperate scribblings of pipe dreams.

[1gw] 18/12/2014 07:00

Let's hope we're not doing a Mulberry - these moves up market don't always work.

Between 2HFY13 and 1HFY15, premium prices went up by about 80% ($4.80/eCPM to $8.73/eCPM) while premium volumes went down by about 55% (19.1bn to 8.6bn) with the result that premium revenue fell by nearly 20% ($92m to $75m).

During the same time conventional volumes more than doubled (25bn to 53bn) which meant that despite falling prices for conventional, revenue still increased ($21m to $27m).

If this is all about filtering out the bad stuff or charging more for higher quality, why have conventional volumes continued to grow so impressively?

[all subject to me having got the numbers right]

[nickb] 18/12/2014 00:24

Poor guy then.

[gspanner] 18/12/2014 00:23

Perhaps sensativity is wrong; paranoia probably better

[nickb] 18/12/2014 00:05

To me he sounds hurt

[gspanner] 17/12/2014 23:57

JonC your invective rather than humility demonstrates your sensitivity and nervousness, perhaps you should be long not short?

[sikhthetech] 17/12/2014 23:22

why would integrating costs cause a drop in REVENUES?

H1 revenue, ex Rhythm, was $25m lower than the previous year and that excludes a possible 20% growth..so possibly $40m lower than the previous year...
they bought Lyfe for approx $2m and they lost $25m revenue to integrate.... really!!!!!

answers on a postcard..

If it was so obvious that the revenue was going to drop then why didn't the house brokers or the bod, say so...





seball 17 Dec'14 - 15:31 - 4985 of 4997 4 2
....

That was only in May and they have been integrating LYFE into the Blinkx ecosystem since then.

So, to think that you can integrate that level of technology in a few months to the end of the half year and generate revenue out of it does not make sense. Not only that, but it costs money to integrate, test and get it right before you release it so a drop in revenues was obviously going to happen.

....

[shroder] 17/12/2014 22:37

The move to higher quality inventory offering is evident in CPM rates yoy imo.

Look at Premium CPM 1HY12 v 1HY15, you have a near doubling of margins from 4.45 to 8.73 - this has to come at a cost of something, that something is the lower end of the spectrum (see also link above, post 5000).

That said it's still too early to say if the strategy has worked, my point was to give some meaning to why these metrics are changing and if they are discretionary or not.

It's a bit like the supermarket analogy, I think blinkx for the most part has been a Tesco but now sees the higher margins afforded to quality inventory providers -

Waitrose here we come..

[1gw] 17/12/2014 22:15

Shroder - they may have been trying to take the company up-scale, but the numbers suggest the opposite has been happening. Between 2HFY14 and 1HFY15 the volume of low-value conventional ads shot up from 40bn to 53bn, while the volume of higher value premium ads fell from 13bn to 9bn (post 4502 again).

So is the up-scale strategy aimed just at the premium segment in your opinion? i.e. trying to increase price at the cost of some volume just within this segment? If so, they (and we) need to hope that they have now rebased the business and volume as well as price can grow from this level.

[shroder] 17/12/2014 21:54

21st Century Fox to Acquire Video Ad Company True[X]

hxxp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/21st-century-fox-acquire-video-758795

[berkbollox] 17/12/2014 21:37

That FITB RNS you were banging on about do the biz, Barky? This was supposed to soar in December, as opposed to bomb, right? Classic Barky. lol

[yom kippur] 17/12/2014 21:30

Sikhthetech. No need to get all dramatic on us. Seball was making the point that it costs money to integrate acquisitions.

[berkbollox] 17/12/2014 21:20

Jarvizzzzzzzzz......A-Zzzzzzzzzzz tradezzzzzzzzzzzz.....mumble mumble blah blah bunch of crooks way oversold never thought this day would come barkers what sayest ye scaffolders G2 a total tosspot one day my prince will come zzzzz time to hibernate zzzzzzzz

[sikhthetech] 17/12/2014 21:07

why would integrating costs cause a drop in REVENUES?

H1 revenue, ex Rhythm, was $25m lower than the previous year and that excludes a possible 20% growth..so possibly $40m lower than the previous year...
they bought Lyfe for approx $2m and they lost $25m revenue to integrate.... really!!!!!

answers on a postcard..

If it was so obvious that the revenue was going to drop then why didn't the house brokers or the bod, say so...





seball 17 Dec'14 - 15:31 - 4985 of 4997 4 2
....

That was only in May and they have been integrating LYFE into the Blinkx ecosystem since then.

So, to think that you can integrate that level of technology in a few months to the end of the half year and generate revenue out of it does not make sense. Not only that, but it costs money to integrate, test and get it right before you release it so a drop in revenues was obviously going to happen.

....

[shroder] 17/12/2014 20:51

The moves by blinkx over the past 12 months have been to take the business up-scale.

imo the blog prompted (or pushed) this move sooner than they planned. It became easy to link a drop off in volumes (see slide 7/9 presentation) to the effects of the blog. Yes, some perhaps but this is pretty much as faceless exchange, most was a result of drawing in the traffic filters across their reach.

I asked Dan during a recent call if these filters would now be relaxed given the 'inflection point' comments - the answer was emphatically 'no'.

As a direct result of higher quality (verifiable) traffic blinkx are able to charge a higher rate, again see earlier slides lower volume, v higher margins.

So while at first glance it may look poor it is in fact a deliberate strategy by the company to make the offerings premium. Again, part of this effort can be seen in the exchange results where ad conductor was positioned a very favourable 14 out of 20.

blinkx are also attracting some top talent, Donald, Raj and Sander are the high profile recruits but I am sure there are others.

...just my thoughts..