Blinkx Discussion Board http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion http://www.iii.co.uk/icons/logos/uk_logo.gif http://www.iii.co.uk tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9671312 fish By fishoutof ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9671312&action=detail Wed, 23 May 2012 06:05:00 GMT fishoutof tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9671061 Is it possible Blinkx could do an APP for Apple ?

Interesting to see that the TV package from cable companies may be weakened
by Apple offering each person to pay for only the things they want to watch, this way it would be easier to offer sport/golf programs adverts for golf shoes/clubs etc.

Blinkx originally offering to find video/films then changing to adverts to be dropped beside video/films
to earn Advertising ££$$
Is it possible Blinkx could be teaming up with Aurasma to drop advertising into each persons account and to continue to offer Aurasma free in the future.

Blinkx is going to try to put advertising into everything, where is Blinkx going ?
what type of company is Blinkx interested in buying, it has Burst video/films
It has an advertising company PVMG

I would be interested in speculation on what type of company Blinkx wants to buy.
This would narrow the companies that i would look to invest a few ££$$ into.


By safarinorman ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9671061&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 21:54:00 GMT safarinorman tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9670696 i saw this about Apple TV which i will read later. from seeking alpha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple TV Will Revolutionize Content Delivery And Advertising
May 21, 2012 | 57 comments | about: AAPL, includes: CHTR, CMCSA, CVC, DISH, DTV, TWC
Apple (AAPL) gossip sites were abuzz after Foxconn Chief Terry Gou dropped a few hints about the new Apple TV, noting that it would have an aluminum body, Siri and Facetime integration. But this provides precious little detail on exactly what Apple TV will be and misses the key point - Apple TV will completely revolutionize the cable TV and TV advertising markets as we know it. How? Through TV apps.

The revolutionary aspect of Apple TV will be the apps, and these will disrupt the cable industry just as much as Apple disrupted the music industry. Currently, cable subscribers have to subscribe to a set of packages, some of which are mandated by federal and local law. But why? Why can't cable users subscribe to channels on an individual basis, or even to purchase individual shows as desired?

With TV apps, they can. The new Apple TV will allow content producers to create apps which will be used to distribute content. For example, someone who wants to watch HBO could download the app and subscribe directly with HBO, obtaining the content through the internet and completely bypassing the cable provider. All of the revenue would be shifted from the cable provider to the content provider and Apple, and the cable provider would be reduced to a commodity provider of bandwidth.

This will completely revolutionize the way people watch TV, how content is distributed and monetized, advertising, the role of cable providers - basically the entire industry. Cable companies will be reduced to providers of bandwidth for content delivered by apps over the internet. Their content delivery business will be eviscerated. Content providers will be able to segment their customers more effectively - generating revenue from subscribers who want to watch an occasional program from their premium services, but wouldn't be motivated to subscribe to a cable-based package.

Consumers would experience radical benefits - if they wanted to watch Game of Thrones but not True Blood, they could subscribe to HBO's individual shows as desired rather than having to pay a monthly subscription. And this would apply to all channels - you could literally subscribe to any individual show or sporting event you want, from anywhere. All that's needed is for a content provider to develop an app to deliver it. Consumers will even shift to viewing network channels like ABC and NBC through apps so they can view what they want, when they want.

Oh, but there is more - Apple TV apps will revolutionize TV advertising. The current problem with cable TV advertising is that you have to broadcast the same commercials to all of your cable TV subscribers. When content migrates into apps, Apple can use its iAd platform to deliver customized advertisements based on the profile of the individual user. For content providers, this allows them to thin slice their target audience and deliver precisely targeted ads via apps rather than widely targeted ads via a cable channel. For Apple, they open up the possibility of controlling a large share of the TV advertising market. Consumers benefit by receiving ads more relevant to their interests, based on their search history, purchase history, etc.

This revolution wont happen immediately - consumers are used to cable packages and it will take time for them to adopt the app model. When they do, the shift will be huge. Apple will be a huge winner in this revolution. Cable providers will be the big losers. They failed to innovate and they'll pay the consequences.

What else can we expect from the new Apple TV?

A set-top box: Apple TV will not just be an HD flat scre By safarinorman ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9670696&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 19:50:00 GMT safarinorman tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9670521
If you go back to the Questions section at the end of the presentation, Q3 was from Charles Stanley Securities. He had a follow-on question regarding the RTBs. The point he made was that SpotXchange claimed 30% of its business went through the exchange but SC pointed out that SpotXchange was small and so 30% of its inventory could go through the exchanges but in the main only 10% of inventory currently went through the exchanges of Xaxis, Tremor and Brightroll which were much larger.

Benefits Blinkx has over others using exchanges is that RTB (Real Time Bidding) exchanges ask very specific questions about the video, security of video, users of video etc.. all questions Blinkx can answer but others cannot because the others use tags. It is this security that is driving more business the Blinkx way in the RTBs and because the quality is much higher this, in turn, is generating higher CPM rates.

The other thing he pointed out which is relevant is that AdHoc was the part Blinkx brought to the table. Burst and PVMG brought conventional and the plan is to grow the AdHoc through the conventional and in this way raise the CPM rates to about $16 and they expect that the Olympics will generate CPMs in excess of that.

But Burst and PVMG will continue selling conventional under its old guise so that relationships are maintained but they will use the relationships to move the customers onto the AdHoc platform proving that these, whilst more expensive, are far more effective.

So, the main benefits Burst and PVMG brought was the exponential levels of volume and reach which can now be attacked as potential customers of AdHoc.

So, Burst, PVMG and Blinkx are now gearing up to generate major revenues from the RTBs whilst still continuing their core competencies in developing strategies for customers and specifically targetting ads at video content because that is where the really big bucks are.

A few reads from the internet are interesting.

http://brandedcontent.adage.com/adnetworkguide10/network.php?id=6

http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-081810

http://www.adoperationsonline.com/2010/12/28/consumers-are-aware-of-dynamically-targeted-ads-%E2%80%93-and-their-opinions-of-them-are-split/#.T7vRBVIrJrQ

If all of this was pie in the sky you might be worried but it has, in the main, happened and only the final pieces of the jigsaw are being put in place. When the integration is complete and you have the whole thing together, AdHoc and Conventional, I reckon you will have a steamroller that is going to take some stopping. By sobeit ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9670521&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 18:35:00 GMT sobeit tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9670094
There is a lot in the presentation that needs to be digested. But here is a trick you might have missed. If you click down through the slides, the speech on the left matches the slide. That way, you click to the slide you want and then listen to just the speil relating to that slide.

I have now gone through the presentation four times gleaning a bit more each time and as you say, he is very technical but this is a technical subject and if, like the analysts and the market, you judge the company on revenue, cash flow and profits you are making a big mistake.

The other thing people like Chicken51 and others forget is that in the last five years this video search market has been evolving and is still a work in progress. If you look at the ones who have fallen by the wayside such as Pixsy, Joost, SingingFish and Truveo, they were written for a time and place and then could not adjust when the market moved on so they fell by the wayside.

Blinkx is a bit like a chameleon of the video search market. It can change itself at will to suit any changes that the market throws at it. It is the old adage "change or die". It is that flexibility built into the product from the ground up that makes it what it is.

And it is that ability to change which makes SC sometimes seem unpredictable and irrational. But the technology does not drive the market; the technology responds to the market's demands. And Blinkx has been very capable of doing that in this particular field.

You can talk of Youtube, but Youtube is breaking the law every time it shows a "copyrighted" video that it does not have legal rights to. It has been getting away with it but the day will come when it will get its due desserts. That day is growing ever closer and then it will have terrible problems ensuring it is compliant or Google will have to employ another 30,000 employees just checking the legality of the videos it shows.

In the meantime, it is the very compliance that Blinkx has which companies such as AOL now see as a major benefit, not least its "Safe Search" feature. You can be sure the gurus in AOL are looking at the possibility of a Youtube clobbering and working out how they can take advantage of it through Blinkx. If they are not, then they do not really have their noses to the grind.

By sobeit ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9670094&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 15:52:00 GMT sobeit tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9670035
this field seems to be changing so fast, hadnt even heard of them 6 months ago, now they seem to be a very big deal. I still struggle to get my head around it all though, for example regarding PVMG and Burst can either or both of them be described as exchanges?

regarding our friend, his analysis was very poor indeed, but not so poor as to be interesting

I am thinking that we should have a competition for who has received the most insults from him, the winner has to buy a round of drinks at the 10 Bagger Party!

We could get T shirts printed, maybe one of those tag clouds, red/yellow on a black square, just the thing for tennis, a good ice breaker between sets!

I think I would be up there on the Leader Board after our last exchange. My examples include: "a small mind, a small man, lacking in style, cannot handle alcohol, lacking in basic intelligence etc etc",

Most importantly I know how to press his buttons, he is going gangbusters with the porkies lately

By gubu ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9670035&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 15:38:00 GMT gubu tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9669760
The trouble with many of those who have a 'one way only' view of blinkx is that they look at the micro picture (all the detail) and don't consider the bigger picture. They take at face value everything SC and others who are 'fans' say is going to be good and they ignore the possibility that all might not go according to plan. I doubt, for instance, they have considered the impact on the bottom line of all the additional employees and overheads that have been taken on board with Burst & PVMG. They talk only of additional sales. Overheads are real and they are there - day in and day out.

blinkx's SP got to 161p because it was overhyped. SC has to take a lot of the blame for allowing the situation to get out of control by failing to manage expectations properly. He then deliver poor results - they were neither "excellent", nor 'outstanding' - they were extremely disappointing - if you don't agree, consider what the market thought. The clowns who don't know what they're talking about who fill boards like this with constant hyberboles (in the hope their drivel will drive the price higher) are also partly to blame for having hyped the company.

On an historical basis, blinkx trades at over 60x latest net earnings. In the absence of guidance on the likely level of profit in 2013 and beyond, this is high enough (for me at least), although I accept that someone who believes these latest numbers are just a blip might see the shares as a 'buy'.

Certain posters (fullofot is one) claim to have done very well out of blinkx (although I don't believe the stories of constantly selling at the top and always buying back at the lowest subsequent price, because such reports are always filed with the benefit of hindsight). One thing's clear: because there was never any justification for the price getting to the astronomical levels it did, their investment success (if they did manage to sell at prices much higher than today's) isn't down to skill. It is down to luck.

There are plenty of other bargains around at present - and possibly likely to benefit from any respite in the prevailing sentiment at least as quickly as blinkx.

So, does one buy, hold or sell? As Dirty Harry said: "are you feeling lucky, punk?"

The sun's shining and it's quite warm for once! so I'm off outside to mow my lawns (I've given both gardeners the day off :-))

Eagle By eagle51 ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9669760&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 14:44:00 GMT eagle51 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9669659 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9669659&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 14:19:00 GMT gubu tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9669622
I notice that Blinkx have represented the 2011 figures in the recent report, to allow for purchased intangibles of 956K in FY 2011, not identified separately last year.

The fully adjusted Operating EPS for FY 2012 is now almost 29c per share by my calcs versus 25c in FY 2011, an increase of about 16%. This is slightly different than the way Blinkx do it as I have ignored the tax credit and investment income.

I also agree that it makes sense for investors to manage risk by not putting too many eggs into one basket no matter how keen they are on a stock. I am very keen on Blinkx at these prices but it is now just over 20% of my portfolio.

Each to their own of course

By gubu ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9669622&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 14:09:00 GMT gubu tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9669322
But it is time to give him the credit that he richly deserves having grown Blinkx to over $114m in turnover in a few short years and still powering ahead.

What I find intriguing about him is that although he speaks quite rapidly, when you go back over the text afterwards, everything makes perfect sense, he never seems to have chosen the wrong word. It would be really useful to get a transcript of that recent CC as there is so much to digest.

A bit odd that the people most harshly critical of him claim to be the unblinkered ones! If that is so then how did they get everything so wrong, and why are they so irate all the time, best get those blinkers back on I think. By gubu ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9669322&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 13:09:00 GMT gubu tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9669268
Based on his comments in that piece that "Especially Cannacord and GS. They have to remain in the real world as they have a reputation (and jobs) to protect. Fantasy scenarios whilst enticing are frowned upon by their bosses."

Smacks to me a bit like J P Morgan. They now realise they are probably in the doodoo to the tune of $5.5billion losses and it is all down to the manager getting Lime disease. Now, would you like to take advice from J P Morgan after that?

And as for advice from borkers, how about this statement from an analyst back in 2010?

"Back in June, one analyst set Blinkx, led by CEO Suranga Chandratillake, a target price of £0.61, forecasting Blinkx will be making £30 million profit on £80 million revenue by 2014."

How wrong did they get the revenue level there, sonny jim. And by the way, you will note they did not say nett profit. They thought that it would take Blinkx until 2014 to revenue £80m or $125m. Blinkx could have done that this year and will certainly do it well before 2014.

And if you factor out the $66m they paid for Burst and PVMG and the costs associated with integrating those and still have money in the bank what is the real price of Blinkx now relative to the market price back in 2010?

And you put your faith in analysts? Shame on you. You might as well lick your finger and stick it up in the wind or anywhere else you might feel you might get a realistic prediction.

The problem with most people who are anti Blinkx is that they have probably been badly burnt with the price going to 160p. But that is because they did not have the faith in this company when it was trading at approx. 15p. After all, who hyped the price up to 160p if it were not the Cannacords and GS?

That is why I can praise Blinkx whilst others whinge and cry. I can actually say that in trading shares over forty years, Blinkx has been by far the biggest profit earner I have ever had by a long street. Long may it last - which I believe it will. By sobeit ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9669268&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 12:56:00 GMT sobeit tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9668962 Shame the analysts don't agree with you. Especially Cannacord and GS. They have to remain in the real world as they have a reputation (and jobs) to protect. Fantasy scenarios whilst enticing are frowned upon by their bosses.
There is an element of Autonomy here though which was never flavour of the month in the City.

By romaron ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9668962&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 11:52:00 GMT romaron tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9668738
Well, on Friday last, Blinkx told us a lot but most of it you have to work out for yourself. Because of the "forward looking" statement, read at the beginning of the presentation, they could not come out and say definitively that "we will make a lot of money in the next year or two" does not mean that the message was not contained in the presentations.

Unfortunately, I went to http://www.aimsoiree.co.uk/blinkx.php where I realised they did not "ignore" items from that nerd Chicken51 but it made me laugh when I read this comment from him:

"Ignoring the share price (not a valid measure of a company's performance in the short term) how many would you score blinkx out of 10 against the benchmarks it set out in the 2007 prospectus? Ditto, Suranga Chandratillake? blinkx was founded in 2004, the same year as Facebook, I believe :-)) "

So, let us dissect his comments.

Blinkx was founded in 2004, correct, but how many people were actively selling Blinkx when the IPO was announced in 2007? Well, actually, Blinkx was being sold in 2007 by a two sales people from Autonomy who only sold it in conjunction with Autonomy's products and did it part time, so in fact Blinkx had no sales team when it started in 2007.

Read the following and laugh. http://maxbley.typepad.com/maxs_blog/2007/05/

Now compare that analysis to Blinkx today and what would you now give Blinkx out of 10? And, after the presentation last Friday, what would you give Suranga out of 10? In my opinion at least 8 in both and definitely heading for 10 in the next year or two.

Look at a few hiddens in the presentation.

1. Starting with no sales team in 2007, how many sales and marketing executives has Blinkx now got? Friday, 178 sales and marketing out of 276. How many did they have before they bought Burst and PVMG? I believe the total company had a headcount of 60 and most of those were working on development rather than sales.

2. Look at the overall structure of the company now. 176 Sales& Marketing, 61 R&D and 30 in Administration.

3. What revenue did the 61 R&D (developers) produce in the year even though they were obviously working on AOL for example. Tech and Services generated $7m in revenue. That is a revenue of about $110k per employee. Anything above $100k for a developer is excellent return.

Furthermore, Tech & Services is repeating business because this is the revenue Blinkx gets from the licenses being used by BBC, ASK, etc. where the software drives these businesses and the revenue is not from sales of advertisements.

4. Where has the biggest part of Blinkx' revenue come from? Again Friday, AdHoc $91m (80%) of revenue and $16m(14%) from conventional. But, according to Friday, AdHoc has only hit 4% of the potential market and conventional only 5% of its market. What revenue will Blinkx generate from using AdHoc with companies such as AOL and Sony? Why did Blinkx stop Cheep on 1st April after doing the deal with AOL? And when SC said on Friday that they would be going back to AOL to see what else they could do that surely relates to the fact that Blinkx is currently only being used in AOL.com and AOL has many other places where it can be used. The reason why it was used only in AOL.com was to prove itself and given the statement on Friday which clearly indicates they have, you can expect that relationship and other uses of Blinkx to be extended.

5. If you look at the growth chart of Blinkx revenues (shaded in red) in Slide18, you would notice Blinkx' revenues flattened a little in the first three months of this year. You can be pretty sure that was caused by the work going on with AOL and Sony becoming members of the Blinkx club. But if that had stayed on trajectory, you see that Blinkx would actually have achieved the $120+ revenues that were spoken abou By sobeit ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9668738&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 11:02:00 GMT sobeit tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9668472
What I think about SC is probably not very important. I think like many young CEOs he probably thought he was setting out on a very different path from the one he has taken, and I cannot blame him for that, or his over optimistic initial assumptions. In a company like this you have got to have someone young enough and dumb enough (I mean this in a kind way - as in still too young to be cynical) to lead the charge. Someone who believes it is all possible. Has he made mistakes? Yes - but nothing serious IMHO.

Whilst the company does appear to be opaque in many instances, I think this is something of a legacy from Autonomy and the influence of ML, who never gave the city analysts a bone. Will it continue? Yes probably.

My bet is mainly on the quality of the technology (IDOL) and the competence of the people on technical side of the company (SC, ML) to build a good product that can dominate the competition in the medium to long term. ML clearly has a strong track record in this respect. However, I am under no illusions that the path will be smooth or the outcome certain (as are some around here).

Dr.S.



By DrSlowly ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9668472&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 10:03:00 GMT DrSlowly tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9668214
I mentioned in a previous item about advertising exchanges. These only started to appear in 2007, the year Blinkx floated. So, when Blinkx started in 2007 it would not be interested in that market. But the world of advertising on the Internet is now going to be about 90% advertising exchanges and 10% traditional advertising agencies.

So, if Blinkx did not change to cater for this major breakdown it would live in a very limited business world. To make those changes to cater for this major market it had to broaden its base and to do that it had either to develop its own technology or it had to buy. To "go it alone" it would have taken years to develop the software but also be a "suck it and see" approach to employing the correct staff so it bought complementary companies and those were Burst and PVMG.

Not only that, but as I have said before, Blinkx belongs in the "last man standing" wins world of video search engines. In one slide, SC pointed out that Pixsy, Joost, Google Video, SingingFish and Truveo, all well known video search engines have come and gone since 2009.

There are probably many other small video search engines which have also come and gone. There are still others there such as fooooo, a Japanese site that has actually been around longer than Blinkx. http://en.fooooo.com/ and there are supposed to be 50 like fooooo to be found at http://www.similarsitesearch.com/alternatives-to/en.fooooo.com amongst which is Blinkx.

So, why has AOL not bought one of these when it decided to remove Truveo, which cost millions in development costs and replace it with Blinkx?

Why have many of these gone in that time whilst Blinkx has grown and developed? Because in a head-to-head they cannot compete with Blinkx. Blinkx is killing all of these off. Proof is AOL's replacement of Truveo with Blinkx.

Look at the history of AOL and video search engines and ask yourself why AOL did not buy these as well..

For example, Pixsy won a deal to do the video search and indexing for Pearson the major publisher who owns, for example, The Financial Times, in September 2008. Who now runs FT videos? Blinkx of course. FT is a partner with Blinkx. Check it out at http://www.blinkx.com/channel/FT

Now here is a comment from 2009.

"Anyone Know Where Pixsy Has Gone (and Chase Norlin)?:
"An e-mail has been sent to partners indicating that the “Pixsy API is down indefinitely”.

Why have they gone and Blinkx has survived? Could it be that Blinkx has been doing it correctly and is it possible that they have gone because Blinkx has beaten the socks off them?

Check out SingingFish at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singingfish and weep.

How about the history of Truveo?

Spring 2004: Truveo was founded by Timothy Tuttle and Adam Beguelin.
September 2005: Truveo launches the first version of its Web-wide video search engine.[2]
January 2006: Truveo is acquired by AOL.[3]
Spring 2006: Truveo powers video search on AOL websites including AOL Video and AOL Search.[12]
September 2006: Truveo powers video search on Microsoft websites.[13]
September 2006: Truveo launches Developer Program and offers open APIs to developers worldwide.[14]
June 2007: Truveo reaches nearly 40 million monthly unique visitors and is adopted by hundreds of new partners.[15]
August 2007: Truveo relaunches the truveo.com website.[16][17][18]
Fall 2007: Truveo expands internationally into 16 countries.[19][20]
January 2008: Truveo grows to reach 50 million monthly unique visitors and expands index beyond 100 million videos.[8][9][10]
June 2008: Truveo launches its new website.
December 2008: Truveo grows to reach over 73 million monthly unique visitors (source: comScore) and expands index beyond 300 million videos.
June 2009: Truveo launches its new website.[21]
June 2010: Truveo launches new Facebook app that includes recommendations based on what your frie By sobeit ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BLNX.L&display=discussion&id=9668214&action=detail Tue, 22 May 2012 09:17:00 GMT sobeit