Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1449)	5/3/1999 11:12:00 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Respond to of 3795

What channel are you watching? Do you have special deluxe cable or something? I can't find that channel.

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1449)	5/3/1999 11:13:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3795

They might be able to show that Janice et al maliciously singled them out in trying to manipulate and inflame public opinion into thinking that Business Wire's releases are lacking integrity, and that other wires are going to capitolize on this and profit from Janice et al's "little joke." How, pray tell? They'd have to demonstrate that we'd been hired to do so by the "other wire services". And I daresay they're not gonna accuse Dow Jones of that sort of thing. In any case, it'd seem this ad's only been running since BW filed suit, and so brought attention to themselves. That is highly relevant in any attempt they might make to "prove" irreparable harm. I reiterate that it is assinine for Janice, Jeff, Bill and their groupies to use the angle that Business Wire should have spent more time verifying their WebNode press release... You're not following along, Cindy. That's not the point we're making at all. Our point, obviously, is that BW does not require clients to warrant that the material they submit is true or accurate. They merely disclaim responsibility for any errors or falsehoods. This has been explained to you about ten times now. What is it you find difficult to understand? I would be shaking in my boots. I refer you to the legal opinions offered by experts consulted by the press. MY vendetta? Get a grip, Cindy: YOU'RE the one who follows me around, always on the attack.

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1449)	5/3/1999 11:35:00 AM
From: Hoatzin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

dow jones nimble news giant stepped in to seize the day grab the prize they are hip to what's going down they "get it" there is a vast untapped market for business news services that do more than pump press release pablum that are not run by malicious idiots non-savant they will cash in make out like banditos fortune favors the few the brave dow jones one business wire nothing

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1449)	5/3/1999 12:08:00 PM
From: CatLady	Respond to of 3795

Cindy, Didn't you notice that this Webnode stuff was pretty much a non-event outside of SI, until BW put out their lawsuit PR? It's as if BW stubbed their toe on publishing the initial Webnode PR, but now, instead of putting on some shoes, they go around shouting to the whole world "Look, we're walking around barefoot!" CL

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1449)	5/3/1999 12:43:00 PM
From: zonkie	Respond to of 3795

>>>>>To Janice: To spare these threads from your nasty persecution party and the pathetic entertainment that you unfortunately derive from your cruelty towards me, *I will not be reading or responding* to your posts. Don't waste other's time furthering your vendetta towards me, and don't garbage up the threads trying to sick your groupies on me. I have you all tuned out now once and for all.** Sadly, you aren't worth my time.<<<<< Sorry to see you go Cindy (haha) but since you have hinted at your high moral standards to everyone time and time again I know you aren't lying when you say you won't be reading or responding anymore. If you do respond again after May 3 1999 at 11:00 AM EST it proves that you are a liar. Since you won't be reading this I will just say to the rest of the people here, now aren't all of you people ashamed of yourselves for thinking that Cindy is not a woman of her word. She will never read or respond on this thread again. Don't make a liar out of yourself Cindy.

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1449)	5/3/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Respond to of 3795

To all, I have seen some people post some opinions on this thread regarding "ticker spamming" or "ticker leeching". So in case there are folks who don't understand the whats or whys or hows, here is my opinion. "Ticker spamming" and "ticker leeching" are just two similar phrases for a similar practice. The act itself involves Company A (usually a small company trading on the OTC-BB or even on the NASDAQ Small Cap) including in their press release(s) irrelevant information that somehow manages to include the stock tickers of larger, well known companies, or sometimes the tickers of smaller companies which may or may not be of significance for Company A. The reasons for this (from Company A's perspective) are two-fold. First of all, a valid and significant relationship may exist with a different company. If so, then mentioning the other company's ticker could not really be considered as ticker leeching/spamming. This should be obvious to everyone. However when no prior relationship exists, the purpose is usually to get the press release in front of a larger audience. While I'm not criticizing Yahoo or their computer systems, I'll use them as an example. Yahoo electronically scans the wire releases looking for tickers. When they find them, they post news links on their website so that people looking for all the news on a particular company will easily find them in one convenient location. If Company A includes other tickers in its' release, then that release is linked to all tickers mentioned. Thusly, Company A gets its' news presented to a larger readership, even though those other companies whose tickers were included may have absolutely no relationship to Company A. This practice is more correctly labeled as "ticker spamming". Similar results may occur with other firms that employ "push" technologies to disseminate press releases. While the practice of "ticker spamming" is not yet illegal, it likely was not what the Yahoos of the cyber-world had in mind when they created their systems. Sometimes a subtle effort is made to link Company A to the other larger, more successful companies through careful, yet misleading wording of Company A's press release(s). The purpose here is to confuse the issue in the mind of the casual reader or novice investor who may believe that a relationship exists with the larger company, or may be led to believe that success similar to the larger company is inevitable (disregarding any "forward looking" statements usually included at the end of most press releases). This practice is more correctly labeled as "ticker leeching". It should be noted that in both instances (ticker spamming and ticker leeching), the content of the press release usually comes directly from Company A itself or directly from an IR/PR individual/firm that is acting as Company A's agent. Outside of perhaps a spell-checker and maybe some other obvious no-no's, the wire services themselves do not alter the press releases and are mostly engaged in the dissemination of the press release, not the authorship or the content. Who is looking out for the interests of the small or novice investor? Well, that's a very good question. The wire service(s) that allow this practice may indirectly benefit from ticker spamming because they could now (theoretically) legitimately claim a higher viewership (because of all those people that had to <click> through Company A's press release to get to their company's news). Yahoo (by way of example only) also (theoretically) benefits because they might realize a higher <click> rate for their site for the same reason. (<Click> rate is one of the ways in which the internet companies measure their "success" or viewership to be able to correlate viewership to advertising revenues, an internet business practice somewhat analogous to the relationship of the Neilsen Ratings to television programs.) As previously mentioned, Company A might also benefit from the larger audience. So my original question was, "Who is looking out for the interests of the small or novice investor?". Possibly no one but themselves... Caveat emptor! KJC