Although I haven't done much posting, I have been following NETZ for the past few months and fortunately got out with some semblance of a profit this a.m.
Aside from that, I reread prior Wired articles that mentioned Zulu and Softbank and compared them with today's releases. Is it just me, or does anyone else find the following unusual:
...
from the Jan. 6, 1998 Wired article entitled ZULU-TEK BLITZES INTO CROWDED AD SALES ARENA:
"Neufeld and other analysts praised Zulu-tek's purchase of 65 percent of Softbank Interactive Marketing for an undisclosed sum. Jim Nail of Forrester Research said that Zulu-tek is 'putting together a portfolio of different advertising companies, and I expect there to be more acquisitions in the near future to achieve more synergies.'"
compared to the Mar 2, 1998 Wired article entitled PART II: MATING 'A POODLE WITH A DEAD HIPPO'?
"Softbank Interactive was hard to sell," says Jim Nail, an analyst at Forrester Research.
Jupiter Communications analyst Evan Neufeld agrees, and elaborates.
"If other direct competitors had the opportunity, but didn't buy them, then that's a little weird," he says. "Maybe there's not much that's compelling under the hood."
...
I'm not in the internet industry...are Forrester Research and Jupiter Communications industry heavyweights? Seems wishy washy at best (??? at worst) to "praise" a transaction then develop a strongly opposing opinion soon after.
JeanneK |
