Member Info for share4

Correction to first post should have been: between December 2022 and March 2024

This is from the publically available part of the note

"Bidstack has secured a guaranteed minimum US$30m revenue over a 2-year period commencing 1 March 2022. This represents a material commercial step forward for Bidstack and provides confidence in the revenue growth potential for the business. We believe that FY22E, with further substantial commercial progress anticipated, could be transformational"

Um, which way did you read the Cenkos note? Firstly they actually referred directly to revenue not a stream and not ad spend. Secondly they pencilled in a 6.1m increase in revenue for FY 2022 without publishing predicted 2023 figures. Given that the Year ends in December and the agreement begins in March, what puts it outside the range of possibility that they'll get the remaining revenue between December 2022 and March 2023?

big buys at the end?

If we went along with your reasoning Jimmy, there would be no advertising industry. Do you seriously think it's in the game owners and resellers interests to make BIDS unviable?

Also what do you think the reseller are doing, just passing it on to someone else? They will further package this along with other mediums to improve the proposition.

Instead of understanding why I classified BIDS as a media owner you focused on a semantic debate. If you read back what I'm saying you would take a different view on what you've just posted. Space in the prime audience games will get packaged up with space in games with less valuable games. This is how bulk deals are done on volume and margins made in the industry. You don't just sell of all your good stuff.

Also I'll be calling up Jcdecaux later on today to let them know they shouldn't be calling themselves a media owner because Jimmy knows better.

Fair enough Jimmy you have chosen to focus on short term revenue, cash burn, and dilution and missed the bigger picture. My choice is the this bigger picture will catch up with the market at some point and early stage investors like you who facilitated the growth of this company will have given away something valuable for peanuts. Best of luck.

I am choosing to ignore revenue and cash burn? Where are you getting that from? Their burn seems pretty normal for a company of their size, and their revenue seems pretty normal for a company at this stage. If they had the level of revenue you wanted them to they would be valued at 30p, not 3p, a point that seems completely lost on you.

What's your point? Same as jcdecaux don't physically own the TFL sites, they are still classed as an owner so people can understand the business model. Was there any reason that you're trying to make this distinction between non-owner and owner other than to make it look like you know what you're on about? Perhaps if I called it "virtual ownership" which I already have this would give you a better understanding, unless you think games owners want to invest their time in selling ad space, or that there's competitor that's going to drop by and snap this space up?

I even said it in the post " even if they do or don't physically own some form of virtual or physical freehold. ". Why are people so obsessed by real cricket? Maybe they found that they couldn't sell the audience easily.

That's like saying jcdecaux don't own bus shelter posters because TFL do.

Honestly I really struggle with some of these comments, someone said programmatic was the scalable part, guess they've never seen a reseller rebate deal being done in this industry.

"The key ingredient is revenue. They’ve missed every target and are still burning lots of cash. "

This is a poor argument. The way I see it is that BIDS is fundamentally an owner of advertising space, same as youtube, google, or jcdecaux are an owner of advertising space, even if they do or don't physically own some form of virtual or physical freehold. The simplified way an owner operates is:

1. Increase ad space
2. Improve the ROI proposition against other mediums and competitors
3. Sell ad space
4. Go back to 1.

Back in 2019 it was not understood what the ROI proposition of games is compared to mature spaces like online, tv, etc. BIDS are now in a later iteration of this cycle than 2019. Instead of the company having to firm up the ROI proposition to sell space, someone has effectively bought space in bulk for a couple of years, and will further improve the ROI proposition. Basically an external company is now doing a large amount of work on 2. and 3. This allows bids to focus on 1.

This is done a lot in advertising, it gives the owners an opportunity to guarantee a certain amount of their space will be sold while focusing on updating and/or expanding their space. The RNS made it abundantly clear what's happening.

This entire industry is based on VOLUME. Volume of space, volume of ad spend, volume of viewers, and volume of campaigns. Volume allows you to negotiate better terms on obtaining and selling space. If they get this volume BIDS will be in a great position to renegotiate terms with partners and games companies and that's when the real revenue jumps start kicking in. Therefore to me how much revenue BIDS will get in this iteration is less important than how much space they can accumulate via deals with games companies and how well the ROI proposition improves. Numbers such as number of campaigns, number of games (space), and global exposure are important for assessing this.

For a well known firm to guarantee a minimum of $30m ad spend on this medium over 2 years shows BIDS are way beyond where they were in 2019. I think they've crossed a major ROI hurdle which is why I'm in.

These disgruntled former shareholders are arguing that the most important thing is how much revenue BIDS can take off the table for their space right now. They are only saying this because they don't understand the business or industry so want it all simplified so they can do a 1990s calculation on what the company is worth. If they knew anything about this they'd know It's a rubbish long term strategy to try and maximise revenue in the short term at the expense of gaining volume.

expat, ffs, you were claiming this was going under at 1.6p when i was buying into it. it then went to 16p, i sold out a long time ago. are you still telling people this is doomed?

Let me quote your words back to you at 10p

"I think there are some people here deliberately clogging it up with their hyperbolic bull****e. Possibly paid for services. Clearly no position in bids, so why else would they be here?
Some here clogging it up because they are bitter and sold after the TU. Keeping an eye because they will jump back in when sentiment changes."

LMAO

The only reason I came here was because I got an email that said they'd won an award as part of an industry event I am on the list for, then I came here to see what was going on.

Yes it has it's been RNSed. The rude awakening happened some time ago. I am not buying this for the same reasons you lot bought it. Look at all the guff sloane wrote on this company when he was bullish on it, trying to work out what a cricket title is worth to the company, absolute nonsense with no understanding of this industry.

No I've just got into this. Funny how none of you were warning about this a couple of years back, you're a bit late aren't you?

Hence why there's a load of disgruntled people around here. Silly old James Draper, taking advantage of numpties who can't read an RNS properly to get a better placing price. I did warn you all back then.