Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by serial

80/20 have been slow to update their site, it still said they had carried out the PIA until last weekend when someone pointed out it should say "interim" PIA and Simon popped on to say it had just been changed.

Yes, these little "oversights" make all the difference though don't they? I'm not sure why but the expression "more faces than a town hall clock" has just sprung into my mind.

[mark777]

Rubber glove time.

http://www.phorm.com/user_privacy/pr...act_report.php

End of second paragraph.

"We will work with 80/20 Thinking on an ongoing basis throughout the year to complete the assessment and ensure we confirm our leading privacy standards." (my emphasis)

Anybody know if that's a recent change?

I'm certain the PIA won't be released if it is seen to be negative to phorm, but we have had our 'expectations managed' so i'm not expecting it to be.

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Kursk

That's a bit odd in itself though don't you think? 80/20 were commissioned to produce the PIA by the end of April. Would it be acceptable to their client to hear that "we're a bit busy at the mo so you'll have to wait". Seems unlikely. It is more likely that the PIA has been delivered to schedule. It's just not been shared with anyone yet. Like the video of your interview. Indeed, after all the time it has been talked about on this forum, do Phorm have to actually share it with anyone? I mean, if you didn't like it, couldn't you just rip it up? You may have wasted the commission fee but you'll have contained the damage.

Not at all, as Simon has stated on here himself he has been waiting for information back from the ISPs is he supposed to sit around on his backside and neglect his other duties just because the ISPs are dragging their heals?

Alexander Hanff

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Not at all, as Simon has stated on here himself he has been waiting for information back from the ISPs is he supposed to sit around on his backside and neglect his other duties just because the ISPs are dragging their heals?

Alexander Hanff

No, of course not. Nicely defended.

Originally Posted by mark777

.....snip....but we have had our 'expectations managed'.......

Spot on, which is why all this 'wait to see what the PIA says' lark is a complete waste of time.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Just look at the size of the trades, it is blatantly obvious that there is a very serious effort to ramp the stock, very small trades selling at high prices.

I would suggest someone has a lot of shares they want to dump but they don't want to make a huge loss on them (bought them at 20+) so they are trying to get the price up in order to dump them again.

There certainly isn't any news I can find anywhere (not even on Phorm's site) which can otherwise account for today's market activity.

Alexander Hanff

No it is not. This is a small cap, thinly traded stock with high volitility. When you buy or sell you are likely to be doing it through a market maker that needs to hold inventory to be able to make that market. Market makers don't like holding inventory that costs them money, a cost to carry and a cost or risk of price falling to less than you paid. To mitigate this latter risk the spread, the difference between buying and selling prices widens.

[Dephormation]

More thoughts on copyrights.

In the old days when 121Media were scamming copyright pages, it was difficult for people to know that someone was ripping off their content, or discover who was doing it.

Now BT/Virgin Media/Talk Talk are doing it, its very easy. They have made announcements on their web site. They have UK registered addresses. They will (presumeably) announce to advertisers '3% of our customers have opted in to Phorm!'

So it occurs to me. Its rather like a pirate radio station going legit.

How do I get from BT statistics for 'playout'?

We need a PRS for web content creators;

"The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 means that if you use copyright music in public, you must first obtain permission from every writer or composer whose music you intend to play. In the UK, we represent these copyright owners, so a PRS Music Licence gives you the legal permission to play just about any copyright music in the world repertoire. A PRS Music Licence is required regardless of the ownership of any other type of licence"

[mark777]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

No it is not. This is a small cap, thinly traded stock with high volitility. When you buy or sell you are likely to be doing it through a market maker that needs to hold inventory to be able to make that market. Market makers don't like holding inventory that costs them money, a cost to carry and a cost or risk of price falling to less than you paid. To mitigate this latter risk the spread, the difference between buying and selling prices widens.

Sounds like you might know a bit more about this stocky sharey thingy than most of us.

What's you take on todays events?

Given it is thinly traded, it does not take much to drive the price up. But, there is not much point in doing so if it's just going to come back down again, you just loose your money.

Someone decided that today, the shares would rise and there must be a reason. Any ideas?

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

More thoughts on copyrights.

In the old days when 121Media were scamming copyright pages, it was difficult for people to know that someone was ripping off their content, or discover who was doing it.

Now BT/Virgin Media/Talk Talk are doing it, its very easy. They have made announcements on their web site. They have UK registered addresses. They will (presumeably) announce to advertisers '3% of our customers have opted in to Phorm!'

So it occurs to me. Its rather like a pirate radio station going legit.

How do I get from BT statistics for 'playout'?

We need a PRS for web content creators;

"The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 means that if you use copyright music in public, you must first obtain permission from every writer or composer whose music you intend to play. In the UK, we represent these copyright owners, so a PRS Music Licence gives you the legal permission to play just about any copyright music in the world repertoire. A PRS Music Licence is required regardless of the ownership of any other type of licence"

You could be right there before there was noone like phorm trying to legit steal your work or customers now thye are just like the music industry you need protection from the vulchers.

[NTLVictim]

They did another buy at 4:29 if I've read it right..smelly.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Kursk

{ snip }

Spot on, which is why all this 'wait to see what the PIA says' lark is a complete waste of time.

I have to admit I have been wondering a lot about that issue lately. Not just in relation to the PIA but also the mysterious case of the vanishing video. Not sure what I think on it yet but it is on my mind.

Phorm do seem to be playing a wiser tactical game these days. They have reigned in the PR team (I bizarrely miss them too, how messed up is that? LOL) and do seem to have upped their game some.

[AlexanderHanff]

OK I had a reply from Nicholas Bohm. He pointed out that whereas a Judicial Review might be possible the risk is high since the loser may be liable for the other side's costs. Obviously if a litigant in person wins and the authority lose, the cost liability to the authority is going to be minor and gets paid for out of tax payers money anyway; the reverse however is a much heavier liability should the litigant lose as the authority are likely to have a legal team of barristers and Queen's Counsel.

He does agree that Parliamentary Ombudsman would be a reasonable avenue to pursue but warns that it is a very slow process.

I will therefore be pushing forward on that route and will have to forget the Judicial Review route.

Alexander Hanff

[Wildie]

them wise! never they conmen

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

More thoughts on copyrights.
{snip}
We need a PRS for web content creators;

"The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 means that if you use copyright music in public, you must first obtain permission from every writer or composer whose music you intend to play. In the UK, we represent these copyright owners, so a PRS Music Licence gives you the legal permission to play just about any copyright music in the world repertoire. A PRS Music Licence is required regardless of the ownership of any other type of licence"

And i'm sure a WCCRS licence would have to be very expensive.

[Bobcat]

This may be an old idea but keeping in mind "6 degrees of separation" if all the folk who use Facebook, Myspace, etc explained the Phorm/Webwise situation to all their friends and asked them to pass it along we might reach out to lots of people who are as yet unaware of the threat and who otherwise might opt-in out of ignorance of the true facts.

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Wildie

them wise! never they conmen

I didn't say they were wise I said they were using wiser tactics. Not difficult, though, considering they started off incredibly stupidly.