RE: My short-lived self-imposed silence.
>So she's actually been formally a part of SW for 16 months, about
>half the time you claimed. She's been CEO for less than 7 months. >It's not a fair appraisal to lay blame for the state of SW's
>trouble at her doorstep.
All right, even if she has only been _officially_ linked with SW for 16 months, do you think that the investors that got bilked by her and Beninger in 1994 really care about that? Does it really matter who she was working for when she took their money and gave it to SW? She's been on the BoD for long enough to know there were problems with the company why wait a YEAR to swoop in and save the company (even if it was at Brian Beninger's request?)
>So no mainland investors are willing to give SW money you
>claim because she's ticked off everyone? What about the
>Traveler's Insurance investment this past March?
I haven't seen the details of this deal, so I really can't comment. However, I think that if someone had given SW ANY amount of money there would have been a press release from SW.
>So you think CW has been sandbagging all this time letting
>the stock price die so she could get in cheap, drive the
>price up, and cash out? So is allowing the company to be
>delisted part of her master plan too? Does it make common
>sense to let this happen if one intended to be able to
>cash out like you suggest?
Sure, she probably was hoping they wouldn't be delisted, but I'm sure it was an eventuality that she was prepared to deal with when it happened. And what does her ability to cash out have to do with being delisted?
>You know, even if this entertainment business was the
>biggest asset, apparently it was an even BIGGER
>LIABILITY -- at least in SW's hands. Do you think it
>would've been smarter for CW to sell off the
>education side and focus even more resources travelling
>down the entertainment path Beninger and Walchek
>envisioned?
Well, if a group of highly talented people working with the latest in high technology is a liability, then I guess SW must be doing great because they have neither now. Oh, wait, SW ISN'T doing great.
Have you actually _played_ NFL Math? The gameplay is incomprehensible, and the production quality would make Ed Wood proud.
Just go do a search on Dejanews (www.dejanews.com) for Sanctuary Woods. You'll see a thread in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure that praises the entertainment group for Buried in Time and Master Lu. One person goes so far as to say that they would buy the next product in the Master Lu series sight unseen. This is known in the business as "pre-release hype." They have pre-release hype, and they don't even have a product! One of the big hurdles to get over in the entertainment business is that of name recognition. No one's going to purchase the product if they've never heard or seen anything about it. Master Lu paved the way for a bigger audience, a bigger audience that is now there and waiting for a product that will never come.
>Or maybe you think proprietary technology alone can pay
>the bills? Clearly, SW failed miserably to MARKET and SELL
>its products and was living way beyond its means.
Do I believe that proprietary technology alone can pay the bills? Yes, and if you don't believe me, go count the number of Ferraris in the ID parking lot. Yes, SW failed to market and sell their products, but the products produced by the Victoria studio were good enough to sell and market themselves, as evidenced by the recent usenet postings. SW killed their entertainment division just as it was about to take off into orbit. If SW was truly interested in making a lot of money BACK for their investors, they would have bitten the bullet and maintained their entertainment group which was already in production on at least two new titles. With just a little effort, the next Master Lu title would have been out and on the shelves right now and SW would truly be able to make some money with the Strategic Partners folks (who are old hands at selling entertainment products and complete greenhorns at selling educational titles.)
>Were you formally an investor that got badly burned by SW?
>Do you have some ax to grind with SW? What's the deal?
Ok, we're at my favorite part now. Yes, I'm _formerly_ an SW investor that got burned in a big way, and if I can prevent even one person from getting burned the way I did, I'll be satisfied. I think the thing that's making me the most bitter is the fact that while Brian Beninger was pitching SW as the "Disney of the CD-ROM World" (kind of prophetic, don't you think?) he was busy dumping as many of his options as he possibly could without being noticed. He really didn't care HOW the company performed as long as he was making money out of the back room. It was only when the crap really hit the fan that he stumbled back into the picture to try and piece his reputation back together, and try to salvage some sort of a relationship with his former investors for his latest venture called "WildWood" (http://www.wwood.com) WildWood desperately tried to be listed on the VSE, but failed due in part to Brian Beninger's soiled reputation.
I knew I said I'd be quiet, but this SW love-in has really been stuck in my craw for a while now. I think that anyone who's actually interested in investing in SW needs to know what happened to the first round of investors who bought in at $6.00 and $7.00 because Beninger assured us all that it would go to $25.00 in no time. Awfully funny that he was dumping at the exact same time, wasn't it? I guess he really didn't believe that it would go anywhere, did he? I know that things have changed within the company, but the fact is still that this is a small-time company with no products and big, big hype (ie. Paul's "leak" of a $5 - $10 million deal.)
This time, I truly will stay away, Jamie. If my long lineage with SW isn't worth anything here, then so be it. It is my sincere hope that no one else gets burned by SW like the rest of us did, but I know the stock market doesn't work that way.
Later,
Bart. |
