posted on February 16, 2001 12:07:53 AM new
First of all I would like to congratulate one of the regular posters here on his indignation with the censorship that routinely goes on at BidBay. One of the things that pissed me off about eBay was its routine censorship of postings. BidBay will yank a post even if it suggests serious questions about policies, much less outright criticism.
However, I do not understand why there is no indignation about what goes on here? This is probably one of the most censored message boards I have ever seen with a set of CG's that seem like a riot act from a Soviet Gulag. But I digress...
I fully agree that there is something shady going on at BidBay. The people there - a tax preparer (ex IRS) as CEO, with partners being a securities telemarketer, and a former congressman. Both the latter being disgraced and indicted for fraud. The congressman lied about his war record. Well, all politicians lie so I will not hold this against him. The other fellow got in trouble selling something in California, and some no-no stock selling in Pennsylvania. White collar misdemeanors if you ask me, and really not such a big deal. But what is a big deal is why these people are in the Online Auction business, as none have the computer technical expertise of say, a Yahoo, or even has any product to sell.
They just don't *seem* to be the right people for this business. They seem real helpful and dedicated, but only to gimmicks to get people in to the site to bolster statistics rather than true technical improvements. The latest technical improvement was new varieties of smiley faces. They are helpful, until one asks hard hitting questions. They have already experienced defections from some of their most loyal supporters.
It really becomes painfully obvious, as AG2 has pointed out that they are in this for the IPO. My question is, for those more knowledgeable about the SEC and finances than I, is this: CAN THEY TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN? Isnt there some kind of regulations about selling portions or a majority of a company (as a stock offer is) and then abandoning it? Technically, sabotaging it?
Isn't a CEO legally responsible to the shareholders? I would like to believe that they are serious about this site, but their failure to even attempt to attract high profile advertizers which is the only way to attract revenue makes me suspicious.
And in response to AG2 from another thread
about the concept of 'free' auction sites. Since no other auction has even a reasonable fraction of eBays customer base, the very concept of listing fees on these sites is ludicrous. An FVF would be reasonable, and so would charging for 'extras', but still nothing comes even close to ebay in sell through for the 'average' vendor, so basic fees for these sites are simply not practical. They need to be advertizer supported or rely on ancillary services.
Or both, like web hosting.
And I am certain BidBay is not the only site of this type. The most visible due to their high profile antics, maybe.
posted on February 16, 2001 06:10:47 AM new
Don't know if anybody has seen it yet, but the ceo is asking the members what the names and telephone numbers of their local cable stations are so he can call them and advertise.
Maybe I am just a lowly peasant who doesn't know anything about business compared to the geniouses over there, but shouldn't a company that is about to go public on the stock market have an ad agency that would handle all of this?
Also, should a company that is about to go public be announcing their advertising plans in the first place? Aren't they in the period where they can't make any announcements?
Please, somebody set me straight, tell me that I am dumb and this is how all pre-IPO companies run.
posted on February 16, 2001 09:14:30 AM new
Well snakebait (peculiar nic)
first of regarding censorship at eBay and here.
I am a regular poster on one of the eBay boards and the only time I have ever seen a post pulled was when a user id was mentined in the title of thre thread, inappropriate images/language was used, threads were started in order to ask people to move to another auction site. Those are the only times I have seen a thread pulled there. Take a visit on the soapbox and you will find plenty of threads questioning eBay's ethics, policies etc.
Here I hang out mainly in the "basement." The only time I have seen anything censored or people suspended is when they violated the CG's.
I have been in plenty of discussions over the last couple of weeks that have taken heated turns, with sarcastic overtones and as long as we haven't attacked each other personally the moderators have allowed them to continue.
Now regarding BidBay's legal problems. I not only see them as legal problems but ethical and moral problems as well which I believe carries over into the way they are running their business.
I have to agree with your assessment with their abilities or qualifications in running this type of business. And because of this lack of qualification they are turning to the gimmicks as you pointed out. But this is also where the legal, ethical, and moral problems leak right back in.
For example members ask about fees. Right now there is a response by the CEO to that question and he states that they are receiving revenue from other dot com companies and he is of course referring to ad revenue.
But his own SB2 filing clearly states:
WE MAY NOT ACHIEVE
PROFITABILITY
At the present time,
BidBay.com does not charge any
fee to the user. In its
present business format,
BidBay.com does not generate
revenue.
BidBay.Com does not generate revenue. And the only revenue that they do claim on that SB2 filing is approximately $17,000.00 not a whole lot.
The CEO there also claims to have signed a contract with speedy click for 15,000,000 users at $1.00 a user = $15,000,000.000
They are currently at 4 million. He also states that by the end of the year they will double their membership. 8,000,000 with a difference of 7,000,000 members (and that does not include people who sign up on their own or existed prior to that contract).
But when you read the SB2 filing once again this company is only $3,000,000.00 in the hole and the contract they signed with speedy click is for 2,000,000 users.
Numbers once again don't seem to add up.
Am I saying that they did not have a contract with speedy click for 15,000,000 users? No. All I can go on are the answers I can find in public materials and like I said the numbers don't add up.
It is things like these that make me question anything that comes from their main office.
And as auctiongaurd pointed out they are supposed to be in the "quiet period" and the CEO makes ridiculous statements like he is going to buy out all auction sites and auction information sites like AW.
This leads me to believe and is only an opinion but the PTB's will do or say anything at this point to make their company successful.
Do they have to keep any promises they make like no listing fees? No.
The only promises they have to keep are the ones made to the shareholders and their potential investors when they go IPO.
And in response to your comment regarding listing fees snakebait.
Exactly. So it is a vicious circle. Sites that do not have buyers cannot support themselves on FVF's. Sellers will refuse to pay listing fees. So what is the outcome of it all. Dot Com Death.
posted on February 16, 2001 06:45:40 PM new
First of all thank you AG2, for your kind reply. My nym is my kittykats new middle name. And also his description if he doesn't stop his evil ways
You are absolutely correct about the 'vicious circle' problem. No profits = no service sooner or later. And since I don't believe that any fee based service can realistically compete with eBay, the only alternative source of income other than 'extras' would need to be from advertizing or ancillary services. Either web hosting, or even supplying DSL lines.
I think the 'portal' market is pretty well flooded.
As far as BidBay, which is probably just the tip of the melting iceberg, their antics is certainly the stuff of a Dadaist novel. Beyond slapstick. Now, your point is that once the company goes public, the only obligations of the management/owners is to the shareholders. I would assume that any attempt to abandon the company or let it die would be considered a gross dereliction of responsibilities. And the stuff of massive lawsuits. This is the point I would like to clarify. I do not think these people are in this for the long haul. But I do not understand their strategy unless they intend to leave the country after dumping their stock.
I would also be more understanding of their antics if they were yuppies right out of business school with no real understanding of the basic brutalities of the system they are so openly flouting, like the silent period issue. But ones a former government IRS bureaucrat, another presumably a lawyer, and the third a financier/marketer. All are in middle age, so we are not dealing with kids. And the sheer perversity of launching something like an ad campaign with presumably a cheap vidcam and the relatives, while soliciting locations of backwoods cable operators, is simply beyond bizarre.
I would like to see the site survive, since it does have its good points. I would also like to see the managent split to either Rio or Tripoli. I want it both ways. Just hoping it could be done.....
posted on February 16, 2001 07:16:29 PM new
snakebait said:
"And the sheer perversity of launching something like an ad campaign with presumably a cheap vidcam and the relatives, while soliciting locations of backwoods cable operators, is simply beyond bizarre."
Okay you get the new keyboard award!
It's not really an award it's the privilege of buying me a new keyboard because you made me spit coke out of both my mouth and nose when I read that...LOL
