Terry, I can't come to that conclusion. Those were significant commitments to buy both echoMEDIA and Softbank Interactive Marketing. And if you consider where the industry was at that that time, they were excellent decisions. And it also makes sense that the company today move into the ecommerce arena, for that timing too is ripe.
My theory is Netvest, with both Pat Hayton and Neil Miller in the lead, realized based on unforeseen SIM complications--particularly in light of all the ex-SIMer-induced bad press--that a leapfrog onto Nasdaq would help reduce the credibility problem resulting from that bad press. I think they also realized there was a need for additional funding and that the original money would prove insufficient.
Thus, Netvest turned to Richard Duckman and Ralph LaBarge, principles of ESVS. Through this relationship, also came a potential for the additional funding needed together with a Nasdaq listing. In retrospect, this appears as a prudent move. I think it's a reasonable supposition that Zulu-tek's financial bleeding had to stop, coupled with a need for new money in order to accomplish the original business objective.
So why all the cutbacks? The company terminated employment of SIMers it felt were responsible for SIM's largescale debt creation (which caused Softbank Holding to sell the company in the first place); ended or let expire unprofitable clients of SIM (the Netscape, primary among them); consolidated both ESVS and ZULU offices; and NB Digital became defunct.
Essentially, they put Laptops on automatic pilot to work with the Panasonic deal; and decided to maintain the technical and primary sales staff of Zulu. Also noteworthy has been the continued ability of this company to attract top-notch executive personnel, which only recently has again been proven by the appointment of an ex-Disney employee, Robert Chmiel, who more recently was employed by Barnes & Noble.
Furthermore, if this were only a stock play, why continue to keep not only the technical staff, but also sales leadership staff intact? I think it's a hint, given that Zulu owns proprietary technology, that this technical staff has stayed onboard. Anybody else have any insight on this fact?
No, Terry. I think our investment has become victimized by a widescale campaign to oppose everything ZULU and ESVS have tried to accomplish. It's my opinion this opposition is nefarious in nature, and I further note it's been present since the beginning. The early nature of this opposition shows we're not simply dealing with only a change of consciousness due to Zulu setbacks and/or failures. Unfortunately, in the course of this campaign, some would-be Zulu advocates have fallen prey to opposition arguments.
ZuluGroup.com is still a young company (it hasn't even had a chance to assume it's desired name yet!) and I believe more will come from it. I hope to God I am correct in my analysis, because I assure you I'd feel very badly were I proven wrong. |
