Member Info for 1GW_

Given the questions from Edison on the call, I would guess we will get a public Edison analysis of the company in due course, which I would have thought would be a very good thing in terms of seeing a notionally independent and reasonably detailed analysis of the company and its prospects.

08:30 I think. I can't see 9:30 on the TU. To be fair to blinkx I would have thought the "8:30 BST" on the website counted as the "details" for this event and that they would be confirmed along with dial-in details in the 07:00 RNS tomorrow. Any analysts would presumably check directly with Dan or FTI.

blinkx really don't help themselves here. Their US peers go out of their way to make their cases at investor conferences. While I wouldn't blinkx to waste money on too many conferences, there just seems to be no activity from blinkx. Come on blinkx. Now you've got the exchange (and Brandy) up and running and are featuring high up in ComScore, Quantcast and Pixalate, get your act together and take the show on the road to US investors (preferably with a namechange to RhythmOne and a plan to list on Nasdaq). Here's a summary of the planned and last few conferences at which peers were presenting and have (or will) put webcasts on their investor relations sites: Criteo Jefferies 2016 Technology Conference (May 12th) Deutsche Bank 24th Annual Media, Internet & Telecom Conference (Mar 9th) Raymond James 37th Annual Institutional Investors Conference (Mar 8th) Pacific Crest 11th Annual Emerging Technology Summit (Mar 1st) Rocketfuel Needham Emerging Technology Conference (May 18th) Credit Suisse 19th Annual Technology Conference (Dec 3rd) Citi 2015 Global Technology Conference (Sep 9th) Rubicon Project B. Riley & Co. 17th Annual Investor Conference (May 25th) Needham Emerging Technology Conference (May 18th) Jefferies 2016 Technology Conference (May 12th) SunTrust Internet and Digital Media Conference (May 10th) Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (Mar 1st) TremorVideo Jefferies 2016 Technology Conference (May 11th) Credit SuisseAnnual Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (Mar 12th) TubeMogul JP Morgan Technology, Media and Telecom Conference (May 25th) Needham Emerging Technology Conference (May 18th) SunTrust Internet & Digital Media Conference (May 11th) JMP Securities Technology Conference (Mar 1st) Citi Internet, Media & Telecommunications Conference (Jan 7th) YuMe 18th Annual Needham Growth Conference (Jan 12th) Deutsche Bank 2015 Technology Conference (Sep 16th) Citi 2015 Global Technology Conference (Sep 9th)

Dan as good as his word. An impressive re-entry into the pixalate rankings. Now they need to crack the mobile in-app rankings as well Here's the link to the pixalate site. http://www.pixalate.com/sellertrustindex/global/#!global

Some familiar themes there, maybe... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/viex-sends-open-letter-yume-120000614.html

Rubicon trying to fight back against the share price mauling with a bit of PR. "Rubicon Project Named Best Overall Technology for Programmatic Trading" http://investor.rubiconproject.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=253324&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2166394

An update to today (5-day change in share price according to Yahoo! Finance chart comparison option), including Tremor: +7% YuMe -1% Criteo -10% TremorVideo -26% The Rubicon Project The market can be brutal.

In line with guidance (total spend slightly ahead) but missed the analysts expectations for 1Q, however, reconfirmed full-year guidance. A few extracts from the SeekingAlpha transcript of the call: "To emphasize our conviction in our business we've recently announced a $15 million share repurchase program which we expect to begin when our trading window opens next week." "The real catalyst for growth this year probably into the beginning of next year are programmatic videos, still making programmatic video work on a buying and sell side and scaling that up. We're still super bullish about that and mobile video." "... I’d like to remind everyone of the accounting change that we disclosed last quarter. We determine that revenue from our sales side platform should be booked net of inventory cost, rather than on a gross basis as has been previously reported." This last point may eventually cause blinkx to have to start reporting revenue net of TAC on the sell side, although I don't know if US GAAP and IFRS are different here. Several of blinkx' competitors now refer to things like "total spend", "managed spend", "net revenue", "revenue net of TAC". In any event, it is something to bear in mind when comparing revenue figures between companies. http://investor.tremorvideo.com/press-release/earnings/tremor-video-reports-first-quarter-2016-financial-results http://seekingalpha.com/article/3972078-tremor-videos-trmr-ceo-bill-day-q1-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript

If you look at a 5-day chart on Yahoo! Finance and use the "comparison" option you can see the market's initial verdict on the 3 sets of 1Q ad-tech results in terms of share price performance over the 5 days. +7% YuMe -3% Criteo -20% The Rubicon Project I must say, ahead of the results I wouldn't have picked YuMe as the likely winner out of these 3. But if you start from a lowly position, give guidance, beat it and then raise guidance for the following quarter, you can please the market. Lesson for blinkx? TremorVideo tonight, then RocketFuel and TubeMogul next week.

Look pretty good, although they are still loss making bottom-line. Beat on guidance for both revenues and adjusted EBITDA and turned in positive adjusted EBITDA, apparently the first time they've done this in Q1 which is their slowest quarter. Guiding sequentially higher on revenues and adjusted EBITDA for 2Q. Presentation majors on their move into programmatic - more competition! They have a share buyback going on (started on Feb 18th). Link to Seeking Alpha transcript of webcast below. http://seekingalpha.com/article/3971496-yumes-yume-ceo-jayant-kadambi-q1-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single http://investors.yume.com/about-us/investor-relations/financial-releases/press-release-details/2016/YuMe-Reports-First-Quarter-2016-Financial-Results/default.aspx

Not a good start. Rubi share price down 20% and Criteo down 5%. Both falls attributed on Yahoo! Finance articles to disappointing 2Q guidance. Both press releases were very positive though, so it's all about what the market expects vs what the company delivers (in terms of guidance, not just actuals), I guess.

rusty - the ranking always used to be done on the people metric, although they seem to be de-emphasising people in favour of uniques in the "new" Quantcast, so maybe they're moving or have already moved the ranking metric to uniques. The reason for using "people" I think was that it was a measure of reach - how big the audience is, which ties in with how they measured other advertising media (TV, film, radio). If they are now moving to "uniques" then that maybe just because of the practical difficulties of coming up with algorithms to reduce uniques to people now that "people" have so many devices and so much is done on mobile devices and within apps. "page views" are measuring something else - important perhaps for us in assessing the monetisation opportunities of blinkx, but not a metric that has typically been used to understand audience size. So blinkx' Quantcast network ranking can go down because its audience shrinks relative to its competitors, but at the same time it can still have more monetisation opportunities because it's audience is loading more pages on average.

FWIW a huge step up in R1 (and in particular AdKarma segment) page views recorded by Quantcast during April. More details in my post on the ii board if anyone's interested.

http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings?keywords=&tag=&country=US&publishdate=&searchBtn=GO Click on "Digital Media" then "Top 25 Ad Networks"

For blinkx at this stage a buyback should very definitely not be about financial engineering. It should be about (i) using the credibility gap to deliver value for shareholders and (ii) sending a positive signal about management's confidence in the future. The shares are marked down (IMO) in large part because of the lack of credibility of blinkx management given their track record in value destruction (cumulative losses since IPO), their refusal to provide sufficient financial transparency and their apparent enthusiasm for playing games with words in their TUs to suggest things are better than perhaps they are. So if management are confident that things are really on the path to free cashflow generation, organic revenue growth and some form of sustainable profitability then they have the opportunity to buy the shares "cheap" (i.e. before the market realises that things are this positive). This is nothing to do with engineering the eps or other metrics and everything about opportunistic value creation for shareholders. I don't see where you get your assertion that the source of shares for a buyback would be "disgruntled" retail investors or your implication that this would be a "bad" thing. There are clearly a number of disgruntled retail investors on this board (I would count myself among them), but more broadly? There appear to me to be very few institutions left in blinkx (looking at Morningstar US data or the FT tear sheet). And given what looks like an almost complete exit of institutions on the Morningstar data then it appears a lot of retail investors (in addition to RG and Toscafund) must have come in over the last year or two. So I suspect the balance of retail investor holdings is towards the relatively new holder who has bought sub-30p looking for a quick bounce rather than the long-term holder who remembers 200p+ and is hoping to claw back significant paper losses. But whoever they are, surely the opportunity to sell at a slightly higher price than would be possible without a buyback would be a "good" thing. They can always choose not to sell. And if it turns out there is not sufficient liquidity to enable the company to buy back many shares at what management deems a "cheap" price then that is also OK. If they can drive the price up, through announcement and limited implementation of the buyback, to somewhere closer to what management fundamentally believe is fair value then again, that would be a "good" result surely?

Scorpionwinger. I'm intrigued. What has happened to change your view so dramatically on transparency? Today: "The company is well aware that it needs to beat expectations in its May results with proper transparency. I am confident they will do both." Your previous post (5th April): "Time for Tosca to effect their takeover and kick this board of slime-balls into touch. Their statements are random, inconsistent, untransparent and downright misleading."

I think closed period is 2 months isn't it, so they probably are in a closed period. But would that stop them announcing the intention to commence a buyback once the closed period finishes with the publication of the results? In any event, they could get everything ready to announce a buyback at the same time as the results are published. With a whole month to play with they might even be able to get a decent ambiguity-free press release together. The beauty of commencing a buyback in the month or so before the AGM is that they won't run out of ammunition in a hurry - they have the existing authority (approx. 40m shares or 10%) which runs up to the AGM and then they should get the authority renewed at the AGM.

Agree rusty - a buyback would be all about the message that it sends that the management believe the company is undervalued at the current share price. So they would have to make sure that they get that message across with the press release accompanying the start of a buyback program. And if they also believe that the company is cash generative going forward then they should also get that message across - perhaps limiting the initial buyback to the anticipated cash generation over the next x months. If they don't believe that the company is significantly undervalued at the current share price then please can they do the decent thing and get a turnaround expert in to replace BM?

Still got a silly spread this morning I see. It feels a bit like waiting at a level crossing; one train has already gone past but the red lights are still flashing and the barriers are still down - so there must be another train due.

He would still have to follow the takeover code though. So if he goes above 30% he should be on the hook for a mandatory offer (at the minimum price dictated by the takeover code), and if he wants to achieve full control he will have to achieve the required threshold of acceptances before he could delist or force purchase of shares from minority shareholders. The directors of Findel in setting out whether to recommend acceptance or rejection of any offer will have to make their recommendation I believe from the viewpoint of shareholders who only hold Findel shares.