Hi Redfaces ... < LC, unfortunately i didn't understand your...

Hi Redfaces ...

< LC, unfortunately i didn't understand your post. >

Sorry .... I'm hard to understand at the best of times. And it's all a very complex understanding. A lot of guesswork.

< Did Looksmart CEO mislead investors or not? >

Not at all. The CEO (since his arrival), has never once made an announcement (relating to partners), that has been in any sort of 'ramping' tone whatsoever, consequently the market has little insight into the ultimate Co model, at all.

A group of shareholders have got together to discuss (and have little doubt) as to where the growth of the business will come from. But again, much has been a lot of guesswork and logical assumptions.

His matter of fact type mention of those dozen or, so technology partners the Co now have, (or, any future developments surrounding them), has left shareholders guessing of the timetable of what sort of success lays ahead. A lot of guesswork has gone on and plenty of assumptions are made. New partners have almost been disguised when being announced (some simply a verbal for months) and very little is known by the market, as to where it's all heading. As a result, the shareprice value has suffered.

An example?

In the conference call following Q2, a transcript of the call shows:

< The company signed four new licensing customers for its "ad content" during the quarter.

These new customers are Active Athlete Media, Krugle.com, NBC search, and Reed Business Information. Facebook.com has signed on to use the product and the company looks forward to working with them. Frazoo, Global.com, Ask.com, Fox TV Stations and The New York times joined other publishers.>

Among them, a Co (Global.com) is almost a mystery. We haven't quite understood the correct interpretation of "ad content". Sure, we have put our own connotations on it, as to it's meaning, I certainly DID! .........(as did Andy Beal) ....

I feel that "global.com" announced may even have been an inadvertant mispronounciation or, possibly an interpretation transfer "mix-up", for a Co called GlobeAndMail.com.

The two web sites:

http://www.global.com/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

< 'The Globe and Mail" are divisions of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada M5V 2S9 >

It is felt (I DO) that CEO Dave Hills may have even simply "slipped" it out, (& that, he's now told the market place) or, that 123jump have " mistook" it in the broadcast? (But, I'm not about to check it out ...LOL !!)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/advertise/

And, it's well indexed within our Verticals

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Looksmart+TheGlobeandmail.com&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

http://www.looksmartmutualfunds.com/p/search?qt=Emerging+Markets+Funds&tb=art&qf=free&vcat=typ

globeandmail.com : Rate hike pause helps kick-start reinvestment in emerging markets ... of outflows for emerging markets funds since we started tracking them ... net $418.7-million into emerging market equity ...
www.theglobeandmail.com · More like this · Save

And .........They are "loaded" with Sites ....

< Welcome to the Internet sites of Bell Globemedia Inc. and its subsidiaries ("BGM"). These Terms and Conditions apply to all BGM Internet sites which reference these Terms and Conditions, including without limitation CTV.ca, TSN.ca, MTV.ca, DISCOVERYCHANNEL.ca, THECOMEDYNETWORK.ca, ROBTV.com, GLOBEANDMAIL.com, GLOBETECHNOLOGY.com, GLOBEAUTO.com, GLOBEBOOKS.com, GLOBEINVESTOR.com and GLOBEFUND.com >

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/servlet/an/comedy/2/20051003/TCN_termsConditions

It's felt that they, as a major publisher/media Co (Canada) are best suited by further to be announced (hopefully?), major development of Looksmart's business, surrounding an articles content network or, two.

Now, that should confuse you even more!

< Did Looksmart lose a deal or not? >

Looksmart haven't said so, as such. The Co's "deal" with facebook.com was simply about an AdCentre licensing. It may very well stand. Facebook could yet use it to pay close attention to both traffic & Ads clicks etc, being part of their deal with MSN. It could be used in a separate, yet to be finalised, articles 'deal' surrounding Looksmart's Vertical Sites. Who knows?

But according to two of the formost authorities of Search? ...Looksmart have "lost" the same "deal" that MSN have won.

I've simply proven that Looksmart haven't. And proven that the experts haven't much of a clue, either.

Or, they are simply playing a "ducks & drakes" game?

Cheers

:)
LC