Davis Freeberg
Loading...
Symbols:
Loading...
Symbols:
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
Trading Center
- Free E-Newsletters
- About Seeking Alpha
- About Us
- Contact Us
- What's New
- Readers Feedback
- Advertise With Us
- Contributors
- Contribute an Article
- Feature Your Book
- Our Contributors
- Anonymous Contributions
- Dispute an Article?
- Legal
- Terms of Use
- Privacy
- Copyright
Latest Comments68 Comments
Sirius Shares Priced Like Stamps
Sirius XM Dips Beneath $1: Will the Street Give It Any More Time?
Understanding Sirius' History Of Converts May Ease the Pain
New DivX Hook-Up with Matroska to Provide Enhanced Video Experience
Here is a link to an interesting interview with Sony's CTO discussing their plans. Other than making it painfully obvious that he doesn't understand what the digital revolution is all about, the video raises more questions than answers re: their plans for DivX and Netflix. From his description one would think that he's talking exclusively about a DivX download program, but his protectionist comments lead me to believe that they didn't learn anything from the walkman fiasco.
www.beet.tv/2008/06/so...
Anyway, I found the whole interview discouraging because it reaffirmed that Sony is going to fight tooth and nail to protect their oligarchy on content, but would interested in hearing your own conclusions from watching the video.
Blockbuster Should Jump on Positive Citi Call
Is DivX Just a Troubled Kid?
With so much confusion over H.264, DivX is in a great position to grow their brand around the format. As we move forward, I expect that DivX certification will eventually mean that both Mpeg4 and H.264 is supported and since Apple is a notoriously closed system, it creates an opportunity for independent companies like DivX to help fill this void. If Steve Jobs would open up his DRM to companies like Toshiba or Samsung, then h.264 Quicktime could be a threat to DivX, but somehow I don't see them allowing other gadget makers to muscle in on their monopoly over the content. In the past, better formats like Betamax did fail, but that was only because they were dependent upon the mainstream media's approval in order to get access to the content. Since the H.264 and Mpeg4 pirates don't seem too concerned about asking for permission, it allows DivX to continue to build their brand around these standards, even though Hollywood hasn't come to their senses yet.
SA Weekly Quiz: 7 Headlines You Shouldn't Miss
Blogonomics: The Seeking Alpha Model
If you take a look at any of the articles that I've published on SA, you'll see that 90% of the davisfreeberg.com links have been changed to SA. Here is an example where SA changed my links from just last month.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
If you've changed your policy then that is fantastic and says a lot about SA's willingness to listen to feedback from their writers, but in my experience, I haven't found this to be the case. Part of my frustration with the SA business model has been the lack of consistency in following through on these sorts of issues. In Barry's article, he mentions that there were several times that he also privately complained about SA changing content, but it still kept happening. When you tell a writer that you'll quit messing with their articles but don't actually stop, you lose credibility. Hopefully, this is just a mistake and somehow my posts managed to slip through the cracks, but when I see other writers echoing similar complaints, I can't help but wonder whether or not this policy has really changed at all. All that I ask is that you be open and honest about what the rules are. Mistakes happen and are easy to fix, but they wouldn't keep happening, if this practice wasn't still being used on the site. I can appreciate SA's desire to build critical mass, but when it comes at the expense of your writer's critical mass, then it disincentives them from wanting to syndicate their content. I don't mind if SA gets a bunch of traffic from one of my posts getting picked up by Gizmodo or another site, but it does bother me that SA hasn't shared that traffic with their contributors by honoring the integrity of the original article.
Blogonomics: The Seeking Alpha Model
The cost of syndicating through the site is zero, but there is a real opportunity cost that we give up as writers. Over the last several years, many stories that I've written have hit the front page of Digg, Slashdot or other large sites, but it's the Seeking Alpha copy that has gotten coverage instead of my own site. This really isn't SA fault and has more to do with other bloggers and journalists being lazy, but it is frustrating to work on an article only to see it quoted elsewhere as Seeking Alpha said this or that, instead of recognizing the work that the author put into it.
I'm willing to give up this traffic in exchange for having access to SA's platform and there is a real argument to be made that someone wouldn't have even seen my articles to begin with if it weren't for the SA business model, but this problem does set the stage for tension between SA and their writers.
Providing a cut of the advertising revenue would be one way to reward writers, but I think that it would be a mistake. Anyone who is trying to write for CPMs or CPCs isn't making the best use of the platform. You bring up a number of good examples where people can use SA to advance their careers, but since my writing is mostly a hobby, I'm more interested in what I can do to improve visibility on my own blog.
When I first started publishing through SA, David Jackson told me that there would be minor editing to ensure the quality on the site, but that none of my links would ever be changed. This was our deal and I viewed this as a social contract. I provide good content and you provide the platform to cultivate an audience.
After the site picked up the Yahoo! syndication deal, SA started to change the links in my articles so that they would redirect back to SA's copy of my writing instead of my own site. This is a mistake and one that should be corrected.
Links are the currency of the blogosphere and by linking back to SA, I have no doubt that it improves repeat page views for your site, but it also takes away one of the huge incentives for your writers. A quick link in a story might not deliver a lot of hits, but it's enough recognition to create an equitable balance between the writer and publisher and it motivates the writer to want to see their articles syndicated in as many publications as possible. Instead, SA leaves in the links to sites outside of their network, but penalizes their own writers by cannibalising their work. I would rather see SA add random links back to their own sites, then to take away a link that I've put in my content.
I've written privately to SA about this issue several times and each time I've been assured that they would quit changing my content, yet there has been no change in policy to date. When you give your writers lip service and don't follow through, it creates doubts about the integrity of SA and places a strain on the relationship that you have with them.
If SA really wants to reward their writers, don't give us money, give us the exposure that we are looking for to begin with, that is after all the primary motivator for most writers on the site.
Is the Breakdown of Stage6 the Beginning of DivX's End?
If this was only about Stage6 closing, I probably wouldn't be as concerned, but what really bothers me is the shift in focus by DivX from long term investing to short term earnings. This is a key development and one that I disagree with. DivX has essentially moved from a growth company to a value one. Don't get me wrong, there are times when businesses should make this adjustment, but DivX is still only on the cusp of a tremendous market opportunity and to see them buyback stock when they should be investing in growth makes me wonder what their agenda really is.
Closing Stage6 will add to the net income, but it's more about manufacturing earnings growth then securing DivX's strategic future. There will be some long term benefits in the cost savings, but $20 million for a share buyback won't go very far. It won't even be enough to buyback the stake that Insight dumped. If DivX was struggling to stay afloat or was dealing with a lot of debt, I could understand the rush to pull the plug, but they have more than adequate cash flow and the reserves to fund the site for at least another six months while they try to continue to raise financing. In the past week alone, we've seen CrunchyRoll raise an initial $4 million, Akimbo raised another $8 million in what has to be their 100th round of funding and TidalTV raised $15 million of series A financing. Even in this cash starved market, there are people who are willing to invest in digital video. Even if the board disagreed with how much of an ownership piece they wanted to keep, wouldn't it have been better for DivX's long term future if they kept a small piece of a funded and vibrant Stage6 over giving up on all of their investment and closing down operations? If they were focused on growing the company, they would be using their cash to solidify their market opportunity instead of focusing on milking the existing business for cash to buy back stock.
Ancient Chinese Proverb:
"Do not fear going forward slowly; fear only to stand still."
Time to Short Financial Stocks - Starting with BofA
Modavox: The Next Big Internet Patent Licensor?
Macrovision Upgraded to Buy, Shares Jump
Does Market Timing Actually Work?
Akamai Will Be Essential for Hotspot Prevention