Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkotron
It might be worth you responding to the latest comment by zoiezoie - a bit of a toy/pram ejection moment going on there.
Personally I'd go for the angle that airing these concerns on the iii website is doing a _service_ to those investors. They're investing in a business which is unpopular, deeply mistrusted, has almost certainly been involved in illegal activity with the BT trials, has MPs querying whether they should be allowed to go ahead, and whose clients are beginning to publicly discuss the possibility of pulling out (and have already pulled out in the case of The Guardian). A business where this is happening is not likely to be a particularly sound investment for anyone, regardless of whether they think it's ethically acceptable or not.
Personally I'd have dumped my shares by now anyway no matter what I thought of the technology, as I think it's extremely unlikely Phorm is going to be accepted by most customers in the form originally envisaged, and any watering down of what was originally suggested is going to massively impact on the attractiveness to advertisers, which is in turn going to affect the amount of money Phorm makes.
|
I'd go with Barkotron. Damn good idea.
We all have our own sets of values here, things that define us as who we are. That makes up peoples' perceptions of us. And as I've said before, the leaders with whom I've had the pleasure of working fervently believe that "perception is reality".
"Hi, we're Phorm and we've got this great idea for making you, advertisers, us and shareholders shedloads of money. What do you think?"
Due diligence always seems to miss the kind of information it should pick up. Dunno why but there you go. I've experienced it myself.
Then facts start coming to light. Not from due diligence as it should but from potentially affected parties - industry correspondents and customers. OK, shareholders might not care for the ethical stance of a company or brand but as more facts come to light and these become wider knowledge, questions start to be asked.
"Is this company all that it claims to be?"
"Can this company deliver on its technical claims? Many knowledgeable people think not. Why is that the case?"
"What are its clients doing about these concerns?"
"Why has one major client rejected it with a scathing announcement?"
"Why is the company so unpopular?"
"Why is the company getting bad press?"
"What is the company doing about these concerns?"
"Why is government getting involved here?"
"Why are there potential legal proceedings?"
"What is the potential impact on my brand in being associated with the company?"
I keep hearing that the markets are based on confidence. All of these questions should be aired so people can learn from our information and education (rather than Phorm's PR and spin) and then assess how confident they are in their investment. After all, it hasn't done so well recently.