Jump to content

LOK


ShareCafe

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (quiktrade_1 @ Friday 05/05/06 07:50am)

< Then again they could do a capital raising or get Rupert to buy in.. Regards Quik. http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/lmaosmiley.gif >

 

Yes, LOL !! Better still, we could (initially) get Rupert, to partner us, couldn't we?

 

When smuggler asked me, over on HC (the following), I then replied:

 

< Ross...you have said ad nauseum..NEWS is coming!? >

 

Yes, barry .... NWS comes in all different "shapes & forms" ......Did I just write NWS? (That's Newscorp, isn't it?)

 

ANYHOW ........ A great post, from elsewhere ......

 

Recommend this Post Ignore this User | Report Abuse

Re: Huge Good news for LOOK, UP we go!

by: sickosmeggler

Long-Term Sentiment: Hold 05/04/06 11:08 pm

Msg: 158417 of 158417

 

< And another post on Looksmart on Bambi's blog, too!!!! >

 

Well, it was there when I checked a few minutes ago ... Anyhow, I copied it, for here ....

 

"It's become even more interesting (particularly in view of those thoughts expressed in those last two paragraphs of my above post) in that, during Looksmart's CONFERANCE CALL after the close of market, 05/04/2006, Looksmart's CEO Dave Hills mentioned (twice) of Fox TV Stations becoming a partner of Looksmart. Will it be the same arrangements that the CBS TV sites already have with Looksmart? Both Furl & porn free, Search results"? (eg: Check bottom of both these Links below)

 

http://search.cbs4.com/?__LOGIC=1212&HOSTN...chString=tomato

 

And a "FindArticles on Tomato" search? (The "humble" Tomato?? LOL !!)

 

http://search.cbs4.com/?__LOGIC=1212&HOSTN...icles+on+tomato

 

Yes .... It all becomes more interesting, each day that goes by.

 

Posted as a reply to: Msg 158416 by sickosmeggler

 

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=...9351&mid=158417

 

http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

LC

 

ps; And the "thoughts" within the last two paragraphs??

 

And Bambi, back to your question within your article:

 

"My question was how can advertisers get in front of this crowd, and would it marginalize the general search engines?"

 

"How can this generation -- with such high lofty expectations -- get sufficiently personalized answers from a general search engine?"

 

Most (or, a lot) who frequent these ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“socialÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ sites, (myspace.com, etc) also study full time. They ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“canÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ get the opportunity to mix some leisure & pleasure and get to prepare a report (or, an assignment), at the same time, that they are "interacting". Just a thought!

 

Bambi ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¦. Guess what?

 

Looksmart have, both the expertise and ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“toolsÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ to ensure a long lasting success of any ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ventureÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ of this type and a Licensed Furl on each publisher/media CoÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s individual site, then allows ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“usersÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ to ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“save & shareÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ what is relevant to that siteÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s own ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“group cultureÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ and at the same time, they ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“shareÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ their ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¹Ãƒƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“findsÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢, with users all over the world.

 

Oh Yeah !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (quiktrade_1 @ Friday 05/05/06 12:53pm)

Hi Quiktrade_1 ......

 

< Should be a red day for LOOK tomorrow >

 

I'm not sure what you have based this on. Looksmart's Q1 report, perhaps? I suppose, on the surface, it would be a fair "guess" when breezing through the numbers .....

 

I broke it down to some pretty 'raw' (basic) thoughts. Looksmart have told us that unique visitors to their sites, have grown from 9M up to, a now 12M, (an increase of 33%) and that this figure of visitors have produced $10.5M in revenues.

 

So, Under a (3 months) 'period' mean average, and by applying a rough 'rule of thumb', 10M 'visitors' will give you $10M in revenues/quarter.

 

So, the obvious solution to increase revenues, (we'd agree), is to increase your 'visitors'. Now, within the Looksmart CC today, the CEO (twice) mentioned a ..... "new partner in Rupert Murdoch's FOX TV Stations", is what he said. As yet (& in my previous post I mentioned) it is not known, as to the extend of this remarkable 'deal'.

 

And I say remarkable, but not unexpected. For many months now I have told of a possible NWS "hook-up" and as late as your own post today, you, and many others have laughed at, the very thought of a "Rupert Buy-in". It's all a "step at a time" and today's matter of fact dropping the news of a partnership is typical of the manner CEO Dave Hills has introduced 'other' Top Tier publisher/media Co partners, in The NY Times, Viacom's CBS Local TV Sites and IACI's Ask.com. Dave Hills has often talked of long term shareholder value and isn't "blowing his trumpet" to cause any short term share price 'spikes', so to speak.

 

But, how many 'visitors' (I wonder) does FOX TV's 35 television stations get us up to, in due course? And if my 'hunch' is correct and NWS do happen to 'buy a controlling stake' in Looksmart, well the sky is the limit!!

 

Rather then say, why should they, let me put it to you, why wouldn't they? If you have any though of a possible content consortium being put together, I'd suggest to you that NWS would be silly not to want (to enjoy) a 'lion share' return of revenues generated.

 

I figured that no matter what it would cost for them to get 60% (that's all that would be required) of Looksmart, LOOK's shareprice value, would jump alarmingly, on any such announcement. Why? NWS now have over 75M "unique visitors", per month! So it's now fair so say, upwards of 100M 'users' could potentially be utilising Looksmart search, one way or, the other. (On my above 'rough' equation, that $100M in Q Revs, for Looksmart).

So, that 60% buy-in cost, that doubles the Market CAP in the 1st instance, provides "cash" for Looksmart to make a strategic purchase or, two and in reality, whatever they pay to get "in" they (in reality) would immediately "own" 60% of it, anyway!! (Look's new Market CAP).

 

I was asked to comment (a few days back), when a poster advised of an .........

 

< Interesting article in the NY Times the other day in regards to NWS's battle to commercialize Myspace.com considering it gets the second highest amount of page views in the world and NWSÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s general battle to drive good margins from the web. >

 

It was suggested that ........< Making Friends Was Easy. Big Profit Is Tougher - >

 

I had already suggested to Bambi, that ...(within a Content Consortium) "Most (or,a lot) who frequent these ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“socialÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ sites, (myspace.com, etc) also study full time. They ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“canÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ then get the opportunity to mix some leisure with pleasure and still get to prepare a report (or, an assignment), at the same time, they are "interacting". And that Looksmart have, both the expertise and ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“toolsÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ to ensure a long lasting success of any ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ventureÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ of this type and a Licensed Furl on each publisher/media CoÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s individual site, then allows ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“usersÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ to ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“save & shareÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ what is relevant to that siteÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s own (age) ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“group cultureÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ and at the same time they then get to ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“shareÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ their ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¹Ãƒƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“findsÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢, with users on both myspace.com & other newspaper/magazine sites, all over the world".

 

And, I then went on to answer some of the 'general' advantages for a NWS 'involvement', (when he said: < The point is the margin not the method >), as follows: (some of this is repetitive, sorry)

 

My point has been all along, if NWS were to buy "into" Looksmart they would then get it from both "ends". A 60% invested "controlling stake" will see their initial investment amount "double" in value when the market get to hear of it, for starters!

 

But whatever that 60% "cost" them, they effectively now "own" 60% of the 'new' Market Cap that is bestowed on LOOK. So, how much does it "really" cost to make such a move? Think about it???? They then "own" 60% of all future profit generated by their (new) interest, in Looksmart.

 

Their investment also allows Looksmart to make some strategic aquisitions to compliment the overall stratergy (eg; INCX's Local.com for starters) and also gives Looksmart some 'breathing space', to add manpower expertise to their effort. Not only the likes of myspace.com get to initially help generate (a minimum) 78% Adsense revenues from Looksmart's Vertical result's pages, we are now on display to millions of additional users daily, through ALL of (NWS's) publications, (right down to their, well over 100, 'free' local papers here in OZ).

 

All Local newspaper (here) can now have their "own" (and now more meaningful) sites (localised) to 'fit' each publication's specific "local" conditions. Interaction between a local publication and it's own website then "comes alive" all of a sudden and Google is encouraged to "top up" (locally), any web page (Looksmart's) results that haven't already been filled by NWS's own (existing), those print division advertisers who can all be initially levied with a % "top-up" marginal fee, (over their print cost) for an automatic high ranking ('cocked up') appearance in Local search results, conducted within the websites (say max 30km radius, only), of an area's Local paper. All print division advertisors would also pay a minimum (introductory) "click through" fee (of say, .15cpc ?) with a minimum monthly spend, of say, $15.00 per advertiser. Can't they afford that? Of course they can!! And again, with simple & easy "interactions" between the print copy advertisers, (eg: announce randomly, on any given, run of the free "local" paper page, hidden with an article or, an advertisement (?) even, (maybe ?), that there are $50.00 cash prizes "hidden" in/on their Local.com websites. 1st to 'claim', wins the prizes each week!! One payout only, per advertiser. They then gauge the number of cash prize claiments back to them, (the total number of actual phone ins), as to the success of these type promotions!! (They will then report the winner to the paper, that then does a "head & shoulder" photo of all weekly winners, etc, as part of the promo's ....

 

I could go on and on ...... but I won't !! Don't even dare to ask me how "Local" schools all over the world can also become involved (with easy promotions "involving" participation incentive contributions, to a school's annual fund raising targets), by the setting of suitable homework projects or, centered around search results, again with article's content provided within Looksmart's Vertical's!!!!

 

And you are worried about 'skinny' margins? I'll show you a 100% increase on current margins, if you care to have a good LOOK at where it's all going to come from. It's all "fat" contained within NWS's "existing" Ads customers, on a local level. Yes, at the 'coal face'.

 

Their $$$$'s are the same, aren't they??!!!

 

Cheers !!

 

http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

LC

 

Quiktrade_1 .... Does it matter if it is RED or, GREEN tonight, in the real context of time? But I think it will be GREEN.

 

pps: Do I get the L-O-N-G-E-S-T post award???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: LookingConfident on Friday 05/05/06 08:46pm

Ross, errr LC,

 

You sure do have the record for being long winded.. Hard to believe someone can have so much to say about LOOK but then again most of your posts are about LOOK's competitors..

 

LOOK was red last night and dropped 14% on high volume of ~800K. That would have been 4,000,000 in the pre reverse split days...

 

Still want to discount my reversal call at $5.75?

 

Hills has to go IMHO.

 

Quik. http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/graduated.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (quiktrade_1 @ Saturday 06/05/06 07:45am)

< Still want to discount my reversal call at $5.75? >

 

LOOK "hit" that 12 month "high", on march 29th through the course of the day and closed (that day), @ $5.44cps

 

29-Mar-06 5.68 5.75 5.42 5.44 140,800 5.44

 

Now do me a favour ..... Dig out the post, copy it and paste it onto the board here, where you ever mention a "reversal call", prior to it happening. OK?

 

Now, I don't expect a reply. Why? Because you never made such a call, as you have claimed ... Just as you have also posted ......... < Ross says that: ...... losing Lycos is a good thing >

 

And I am still waiting for you to "dig" that up for me, too ...(look has lost lycos - quiktrade_1)

 

As a matter of fact, I'll make a point of boldly posting here that you cannot find an answer to either of those above requests, for claims you have made ..... But you make them, all the same!

 

It's a bad habit to develop in life, is my experience in living some 61 years of it .....Honesty and truthfulness go together just as birds of a feather do ......

 

Show me your friends and I'll tell you what you are ....But if you lie down with a dog ......you get fleas!!

 

LOL !!

 

Nice call, Quiktrade_1

 

http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

LC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NWS - And a Rupert Murdoch "Buy-in" ??

 

A reply (from me) to another member within a private Google Group board, where Looksmart shareholders get to post their thoughts on the stock, daily ....... We are discussing the market's lack of response to an announced "partnership" with FoxTV Sites, within Looksmart's CC last thursday ....

 

Thanks for your reply Mike .....

 

< ........and sadly Ross the stock market flicked it off much the same way they did when it was revealed they were working with Viacom and NYT. >

 

Yes, if the stock markets only knew of it, then it may have been a different story, possibly. Ask yourself ..... How many people in both stockmarkets happen to listen to Looksmart's CC (let alone any, actual Looksmart shareholders) and of them, how many of these would know the real significances of this "new" partner for Looksmart, (in Fox TV Sites) .... And that there are 35 of these sites, in all !!

 

Had David Hills posted an announcement that told the market of this "new" partnership, and told the market of a strategy (if there is one) fully involving publisher & media Co's and one surrounding their millions of articles they have, is it possible then, that the market may have then treated Look's Q1 report friday, in a different manner? I think so and I'm sure other group members would feel the same.....

 

In fact, with Viacom and NYT, (again) I'll say .... There was very little fanfare ... NO bold lights or, bold headings ..... Why?

 

....Because Dave Hills has also reminded us that his mission is to provide long term value for shareholders and that he "couldn't give a fig" about the share price value, in the short term ......If he had the latter "in mind" he would have been pumping away prior to the "reverse split", to try and avoid a need for it .... Or, at least, (on the reverse split), the low share price was then, a reasonable enough excuse, for the need to have one .... What I am saying is, that Looksmart's shareprice value has been "kept" down at these levels for a more important reason. And that this "real" reason (a Murdoch "buy-in") will 'unfold' over the next couple of weeks, I believe .... And I don't think I am talking through my pockets!!

 

The fact remains that a "buy-in" wasn't possible UNLESS a 'reverse split' was enacted!!

 

The reverse split has now made available some 170M shares in Looksmart, (they are permitted 200M on their register) that have (& as a result of the reverse split, now) become available to make strategic purchases (some all script deals, possibly?) or, allow any such "buy-in", to go ahead, & occur.

 

If Looksmart was being prepared for or, there was ever a potential to be sold 'outright' and Rupert Murdoch was an interested buyer, he (naturally), would have made the purchase "lock stock & barrel", long before today, I feel.

 

And you have also said ..... Rupert Murdoch promised the market he would be securing his Search Engine in mid-May.

 

Back to the share price and it's current 'oversold' situation ..... Looksmart as per tradition enjoyed it's "usual" run-up, prior to reporting it's Q1 results. On the friday, a week before this event, LOOK's share price traded as low as $4.85cps ... So, the 'peak' (of $5.26c) or, close of the day on thursday, actually represented a rise in one week, of some .41cps, or, 8.5% .....

 

28-Apr-06 4.88 5.01 4.85 4.96 71,100 4.96

 

Not convincing enough, was the market's response on friday .... Yet, activity in the A/Hrs (following the report on thursday) was "non-existent" with barely a "seller" in sight. (There were only 2 trades for around 1100 shares only, and @ the close, of $5.26cps).

 

So, maybe a strategy was put into place, 'overnight', for friday in the US? Who knows??

 

http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

LC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: LookingConfident on Sunday 07/05/06 12:49pm

NWS - And a Rupert Murdoch "Buy-in" ??

 

And here is a Fox property, with Looksmart "written all over it", already!!

 

http://www.google.com.au/search?client=fir...G=Google+Search

 

Florida Gators Football ....

 

http://www.looksmartmiami.com/p/search?qt=...Marlins&sb=furl

 

(Note the indexing of the Florida.scout.com article, in Looksmart's Vertical, Looksmartcities - Miami)

 

http://florida.scout.com/

 

http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

LC

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: LookingConfident on Sunday 07/05/06 03:58pm

You'll have to pump harder than that...

 

Brace yourself for the sell-off on Monday.. That $6.50 sell order was a good call by the seller.

 

Quik. http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/king.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: filament on Sunday 07/05/06 06:39pm

< Looks like a target of $4.50 and a head and shoulders type pattern unfolding.>

 

IS THAT TOMORROW? Is that what you are saying??

 

I mean, Looksmart (LOOK) closed (very oversold, IMHO) on friday in the US @ $4.52c after coming back up, off of a low of $4.25c, during the day.

 

With the current exchange rate of $1.29525c, and inspite of a declining $US, this gives LOK an approx "value", of $5.85c, for monday. I'm not sure of where you think the sellers are going to come from, to reach your target figure ...... Maybe a "re-calculation" by you, possibly?

 

Cheers !!

 

http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

LC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...