BAM v. "Raging Bull" on BCST: A Duel
"Raging Bull" on BCST: Will Crummy Journalism Dethrone this Emerging Media Giant?
Letter to the Editor, "Raging Bull," in response to the following article:
ragingbull.com
Posted for Shareholders and Friends of BCST
____________________________________________________
January 17, 1999
Dear Matt:
Let's talk about "Raging Bull's" article of January 9th,
"Broadcast.Com: Will the Portals Dethrone this Streaming Media Giant?"
Three principal flaws prompt me to write to you:
1) lack of focus,
2) poor research, and
3) conventional wisdom.
Any of these, if taken alone, would be cause for concern. Together,
they call into question the ability of "Raging Bull" to get a story
straight and bring value to its readership.
As a BCST shareholder, I find half-baked media coverage to be a bullish
indicator. BCST has been discredited and second-guessed from its
inception and for that, I thank you. Handicappers like "Raging Bull"
have allowed those who "get" BCST plenty of time to invest. Having said
that, I must tell you that it is as a CMGI shareholder that I am
discouraged. Simply put, you need to do better or you will not survive.
I think your problem with this "enterprise" piece is that you weren't
terribly sure where you wanted to go with it. It seemed to be the
stock's volatility that inspired your coverage. This was a singular
news event, to be sure, and you should have written about it.
For example, how about an inquiry into the issue that incited a two-day
trading imbalance and short squeeze in BCST and led, in turn, to the
Friday trading halt--the alleged "closed door" portion of the Morgan
Stanley conference? The question here is this: What exactly was BCST's
main presentation? Was it the same presentation made at other recent
conferences? Could "inside information" have been disclosed to a select
few institutions and investors in a "smoke-filled" room? To what
extent, if any, would the public have a right to such information? Is
the common policy of public firms not to comment on trading activity
reasonable? Should it be reconsidered? Lest there be misperception
and misinterpretation, should standard language be employed in response
to an exchange's inquiry?
These are challenging issues to which your readers want answers;
responses to them, whatever the outcome, would add value to your Web
site. Talk about misinformation, consider this: An associate of mine
told me that, immediately upon the BCST trading halt, his broker
urgently called him and insisted he sell his substantial position
because there was an "irregularity!" Now that's scary--it may be
malpractice--but it's what's out there. (Don't worry, my acquaintance
now has a new broker and a new BCST position.) What's also interesting
is that I tracked how these questions were dealt with in the press and
Internet media. The answer is clear: "poorly."
Okay, now on to your "coverage."
On the subject of research, or lack thereof, are you aware that YHOO is
an *investor* in BCST? Don't you think that your readers should know
this? Does this piece of information not change the perspective a bit?
And are you aware that INTC and MOT are also investors? Why do you
think they might be involved? What future directions and broadband
strategies might be implied by their participation? If any of this
matters, then how can you imply that BCST is some sort of bush league,
kitchen-table Web site bleeding cash and headed for extinction? C'mon,
Matt, the only way to describe this kind of journalism is, well, "dumb
and dumber!"
Ever heard of SimpleNet? You'd better go check it out, 'cause you
missed it. It's a key component of BCST's strategy and your readers
need a glimpse of what BCST's acquisition of SimpleNet means. Maybe
it's time "Raging Bull" interviewed Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner. You can
ask them directly. Hey, you might even get to break a story. In the
meantime, let me give you a hint: With SimpleNet, Everyone gets a TV
station.
If you had bothered to consult the presentations BCST made at two (!)
recent "BusinessWeek" conferences, among others, you would know a lot
more about why conventional broadcast networks and other sleeping giants
are not of great concern. Cuban and Wagner have discussed this "bogey"
in some detail. The subject is fascinating and their responses are
enlightening. The best part is it's all available...on broadcast.com!
Finally, even with the answer in your face, you miss a huge issue in its
entirety. If you don't mind, I'm gonna drive my Hummer right though it.
As you say, "...broadcast.com attracts over 500,000 unique visitors a
day." (Surely, the number is now massively higher.) But let me ask you
this: How many visitors a day does OnBroadband.com attract? (Is that
related to "OnGoldenPond.com?") The point? BCST is the Pied Piper of
Cyberspace and its Multimedia Muscleman. It has the brand recognition
that matters. It is ubiquitous. It is beloved. It is now one of the
five most influential Web sites in the world (the others: AMZN, AOL,
MSFT and YHOO). And this: People go to broadcast.com because if what
they're looking for isn't there, it probably didn't happen. Some day,
it will develop proprietary content, but that matters little now. In
the end, BCST is an *arms merchant.* It's an Internet broadcast
facilitator providing services that *make money* for content people
(maybe, even, for "Raging Bull").
In closing, let me tackle one final question. In your article, you ask,
"...could broadcast.com still be undervalued?"
My answer is this: 'Some day, we'll all BCST this way.'
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
Bruce A. Marlow
P.S. I'm including a link that may offer you some additional BCST
perspectives. ( Alas, it's on SI.)
Message 7165048 |
