Ghost Sites: This Page is No Longer in Service
NetSlaves: Horror Stories of Working the Web
| the mission
| the media kit | advertising
| submit your story | steve_baldwin@hotmail.com
combat manual | interviews | between the lies | open source | shut up! award
How to Read a 10Q: Ask Jeeves
Posted Fri Apr 27 11:12:58 2001 by sbaldwin

By Steve Gilliard

Source Document: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1054298/0000912057-01-506504.txt

TECHNOLOGY AND OPERATIONS

Specifically, our technology allows users
to ask a question in plain English (or other language)
and receive a response pointing to relevant Internet
destinations. We believe that by providing an
intuitive way to access information on the World Wide
Web ("Web"), we make online navigation a more
satisfying experience for consumers. We also believe
that our natural language approach enables companies
to better acquire and retain valuable customers.

If you use Ask Jeeves for even the most routine of searches, you may get any answer. Some relevant, some not. To be fair, building a search engine in this stage of the internet is difficult, but Ask Jeeves is at best, in my experience, a mediocre search engine.


Our wholly owned subsidiary, Ask Jeeves
International, Inc., ("AJI"), was formed for the
purpose of marketing our natural language question
answering technologies and services outside of the
United States. To date, AJI has entered into joint
venture arrangements with local partners to provide
our services in the United Kingdom, Japan, and to the
worldwide Spanish-speaking market. In January 2001,
AJI formed Ask Jeeves Australia, a wholly owned
subsidiary of AJI, to provide a localized version of
our technologies and services for the Australian
market.

Why do you need to spend the money to deal with Japanese language queries when internet penetration in Japan is at fairly low levels, well, extremely low levels, with wireless dominating connectivity. Does that explain Jeeves running around the Olympics last year?

The Question Processing Engine, or QPE, is
the engine that drives our question answering service.
The QPE uses our natural-language processing software
to parse, or identify the linguistically significant
terms in, each user question. The QPE analyzes a
user's question syntactically and semantically and
reorganizes it into a structure that can be matched to
our "question templates." For example, if a user asks
"Who is the king of Siam?" the service can correctly
tell that this is equivalent to "Who is the head of
state of Thailand?" a question template that is stored
in the knowledge base. The matching question templates
are then displayed for the user as dialogue questions.
When the user picks a dialogue question, the QPE then
extracts an "answer template" from the knowledge base
that contains the information necessary to link the
user directly to a destination on the Internet or a
page on a corporate Web site.

In theory. In practice, it works differently. But not, in my experience, particularly well.

A. George (Skip) Battle was appointed
Chief Executive Officer in December 2000. Mr. Battle
has served as a director of Ask Jeeves since August
1998 and currently serves on the compensation
committee. Mr. Battle retired from Andersen Consulting
in June 1995. Mr. Battle joined the firm in 1968,
became a partner in 1978 and held a series of
management positions in the firm including Worldwide
Managing Partner Market Development and a member of
the firm's Executive Committee, Global Management
Council and Partner Income Committee. Mr. Battle is a
member of the Boards of Directors of PeopleSoft, Inc.,
Barra Inc. and Fair, Isaac and Company, Incorporated
as well as a director of Masters Select Equity Fund
and Masters Select International Fund, registered
investment companies.

Adam Klein joined Ask Jeeves as President
in July, 2000. From 1998 to 2000, Mr. Klein served
numerous early stage Internet companies, including
GetConnected.com, Nearlife Inc. and Bidders Edge.com,
as board member and advisor. From 1996 to 1998, Mr.
Klein was the executive vice president and president
of global marketing at Hasbro Inc. Prior thereto, Mr.
Klein was the President of Klein & Co., a consulting
firm specializing in managing strategic change.

And he is leaving. The company will not fill the slot

Steven J. Sordello has served as Chief
Financial Officer of Ask Jeeves since December 2000.
Mr. Sordello joined Ask Jeeves in June of 1999 and
served as Director, Financial Planning and Analysis
from June of 1999 until April 2000, when he was
promoted to Vice-President-Financial Planning
Analysis. From April 1994 to June 1999, Mr. Sordello
served as Senior Director of Financial Planning for
Adobe, Inc., a software company. Prior to Adobe, Mr.
Sordello served in various positions at Syntex
Corporation, a pharmaceutical company.

Cynthia Pevehouse has served as General
Counsel & Secretary of Ask Jeeves since January 2000.
From 1997 to 2000, Ms. Pevehouse served as legal
counsel at Compaq Computer Corp. From 1996 to 1997,
she was legal counsel to Canon USA, Inc. Prior
thereto, Ms. Pevehouse was in private practice in
Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; and Osaka,
Japan. Ms. Pevehouse holds a J.D. from Willamette
University and an LL.M. in Asian Law from the
University of Washington.

Christine M. Davis has served as
Controller of Ask Jeeves since January 1999 and was
promoted to Vice President and Corporate Controller in
November 1999. From January 1999 until April 1999, Ms.
Davis also served as Acting Chief Financial Officer of
the Company. From December 1997 to January 1999, she
served as Corporate Controller of TIBCO Software,
Inc., a software company. From April 1987 to December
1997, Ms. Davis served as Corporate Controller,
Assistant Secretary and Treasurer of TCSI Corporation,
a telecommunications software company.

George S. Lichter has served as President
of Ask Jeeves International since May 1999. From
January 1997 to May 1999, Mr. Lichter served as Senior
Vice President, Business Development of Havas
Interactive/Cendant Software. From 1994 to 1997, Mr.
Lichter served as Vice President New Business
Development of Knowledge Adventure, an educational
software company. From 1993 to 1994, Mr. Lichter was
employed as an attorney at the law firm of Rosenfeld,
Meyer & Susman.

The CEO is an Andersen escapee, and the rest seem to have no experience in either building technology or information sciences. Why does that matter? Because a search engine is basically about languages and information. These executives don't seem to have the basic grounding in anything but business deals. Think about this: Microsoft is run by a man who understands programming. Intel is run by engineers. Slate is run by an experienced magazine executive. While experience in the sector your business is in does not guarantee success, this indicates that the bosses may be more interested in selling the technology than seeing that it actually works.

Ask Jeeves' future success is
substantially dependent on the performance of its
senior management and key technical personnel, and its
continuing ability to attract and retain highly
qualified technical and managerial personnel. As part
of our business realignment, in December 2000 we
implemented a workforce reduction of approximately 152
employees, representing approximately 20 percent of
our staff. As of December 31, 2000, the Company had
565 employees. We have never had a work stoppage, and
no employees are represented under collective
bargaining agreements. We consider our relations with
our employees to be good.

Well, subtract 120 from that number. Wow, a Christmas firing. Tralalala, here's your pink slip.

We incurred net financial reporting losses
of $6,806,000 in 1998, $52,929,000 in 1999 and
$189,606,000 in 2000, as determined under generally
accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). As of
December 31, 2000, we had an accumulated deficit of
approximately $250.2 million. We expect to have
negative cash flows and net financial reporting losses
in the future. The size of these net financial
reporting losses will depend, in part, on the rate of
growth of our revenues from our advertisers, corporate
customers and electronic commerce merchants and on our
ability to manage our expenses. It is critical to our
success that we continue to expend financial and
management resources to develop our brand loyalty
through marketing and promotion and the enhancement of
our natural language question answer technologies and
other services. In December 2000, we announced steps
to narrow our financial reporting losses, including a
realignment of our business and a reduction in our
workforce. Although these steps are intended to reduce
our financial reporting losses in the future, we
cannot guarantee that these steps will achieve the
intended reduction in financial reporting losses or
allow us to achieve profitability.

As our expenses and other financial
reporting charges are likely to continue to exceed our
revenues in the foreseeable future, we will need to
generate significant additional revenues to achieve
financial reporting profitability. Moreover, given the
rapid and unexpectedly sharp deterioration of the
general business climate in recent months, we cannot
predict whether we will be able to generate these
significant additional revenues or when, if ever, we
will achieve positive cash flows or financial
reporting profitability.

Watch the losses climb. $6m to $52m to $189m. Wow. You have to wonder what management was doing to get their losses to exponentially increase every year, besides their silly commercials and marketing campaigns which no one seems to remember. Instead of losing $189m they might have spent money on improving their search engine to the point where it works better than its competitors.

Our Natural Language Question Answer
Technologies and Services are Novel and Unproven.

We will be successful only if Internet
users adopt our natural-language services and
popularity-based searches as a primary method of
navigating the Internet.

Once again, asking the user to bet on their technology, even if it doesn't provide a compelling reason to do so.

Our Geographic Properties May Not Be Successful

Our wholly owned subsidiary, Ask Jeeves
International, Inc., or AJI, was formed for the
purpose of marketing our natural language question
answering technologies and services outside of the
United States. To date, AJI has entered into joint
ventures to provide our services in the United
Kingdom, Japan, and to the Spanish-speaking market
worldwide. AJI has also formed a subsidiary in
Australia to provide a localized version of our
services for the Australian market. This expansion
into international markets requires substantial
management attention and financial resources. We
cannot be certain that our investment in AJI and in
establishing operations in other countries will
produce the desired levels of revenue. In addition,
AJI and its investment properties are subject to other
inherent risks and problems, including:

o the impact of business cycles and
downturns in economies outside the United States;

o longer payment cycles and greater
difficulty in accounts receivable collections;

o unexpected changes in regulatory
requirements;

o difficulties and costs of staffing and
managing foreign operations;

o reduced protection for intellectual
property rights in some countries;

o unanticipated tax costs associated with
the cross-border use of intangible assets;

o political and economic instability;

o fluctuations in currency exchange rates;

o difficulty in maintaining effective
communications with employees and customers due to
distance, language and cultural barriers;

o lower brand recognition for Ask Jeeves and
the Jeeves character in non-English speaking counties;

o lower per capita Internet usage in many
foreign countries, for a variety of reasons such as
lower disposable incomes, lack of adequate
telecommunications and computer infrastructure and
concerns regarding online security for e-commerce
transactions; and

o competition in international markets from
a broad range of competitors, including AltaVista,
Goto.com, LookSmart, Terra Lycos, Yahoo! and other
United States and foreign portals, search engines and
service providers.

Why don't they mention the difficulty of adapting their methods to different syntax and languages. Kanji is a tough nut to crack, and without endorsement from the larger internet services in Latin America and Spain there is a high potential for spending a lot of money and losing it.

A. George (Skip) Battle, a member of our
Board of Directors, has been appointed Chief Executive
Officer. We do not have an employment agreement with Mr. Battle for any specific term, and the loss of Mr. Battle's services could seriously harm our business.

Why? This seems odd. Why would they not lock down their CEO and a former director of the company?

Item 2. Properties

Our headquarters are currently located in
a leased facility in Emeryville, California. The
facility consists of approximately 76,000 square feet.
Our annual rent expense under the lease is $2.4
million. The lease expires in 2005.

In February 2000, the Company entered in an additional
lease agreement for facilities in Oakland, California.
The lease consists of approximately 60,000 square
feet.

In March 2000, the Company entered in an additional
lease agreement for its international operations in
Los Angeles, California. The lease consists of
approximately 8,000 square feet. Our annual rent
expense under the lease is $211,000. The lease expires
in September 2004.

As part of our acquisition of Direct Hit, Inc. in
first quarter 2000, we assumed their lease, which
consists of approximately 22,000 square feet. Our
annual rent expense under the lease is approximately
$500,000. The lease expires October 2002.

In April 2000, the Company entered into an additional
lease agreement for facilities in Oakland, California.
The lease consists of approximately 160,000 square
feet. Our annual lease commitment under the lease is
$6.5 million. The lease term is ten years and the
building is currently under construction with
anticipated completion in second quarter 2002.

We have also leased smaller facilities in California,
and New York, primarily for sales and marketing
personnel.

As part of the Company's business realignment
announced in December 2000, the Company closed
operations in North Hollywood and Oakland, California,
as well as its facility in St. Louis, Missouri. The
cost associated with exiting the facilities was
approximately $8 million.

We believe that as a result of our facility
consolidation, our remaining facilities will be
adequate to meet our needs for the foreseeable
future.

Why did this company need so much rental space? Especially in St. Louis? This company was renting so much space so quickly that consolidation in one larger building might have made a lot more sense. Why did they need all this space for a search engine? Wasn't there an old industrial building they could have rehabed? They didn't need warehouse space or massive offices. This seems oddly excessive and indicates unplanned growth. Even with mergers or acquisitions, most of that space should have been sublet immediately.

We have incurred significant net losses
and negative cash flows from operations since our
inception, and at December 31, 2000, we had an
accumulated deficit of approximately $250.2 million.
These losses have been funded primarily through the
issuance of preferred and common equity securities,
including our initial public offering in July 1999 and
follow-on public offering in March 2000.

We believe that we will incur negative cash
flows from operations in the future. Although we are
targeting positive cash flows from operations by the
third quarter of 2000, because of the rapid and
unexpectedly sharp deterioration of the general
business climate in recent months, we cannot predict
when we will achieve either positive cash flows from
operations or financial reporting profitability in the
future.

This company incurred the majority of that debt in 2000. Like the other companies we profiled, their expenses went up as ad revenue went down. It wasn't until they faced the harsh 4th quarter did they make the kind of hard business decisions that companies losing $189m in one year should make.

Revenues were $95.7 million for the year
ended December 31, 2000, and $22.0 million for the
year ended December 31, 1999. Web Properties revenues
were $58.4 million or 61% of total revenues for the
year ended December 31, 2000 and $14.6 million or 66%
of total revenues for the year ended December 31,
1999.

They goosed revenues up as losses exploded.

Sales and marketing expenses were $81.6
million for the year ended December 31, 2000, and
$35.3 million for the year ended December 31, 1999.
The increase in expenses are attributed to advertising
expenses related to our branding campaign, the hiring
of additional direct sales and marketing personnel and
sales commissions associated with the increase in
revenues.

They took in $95.7m, yet spent $81m on marketing. That is a lot of money to spend on marketing. The only problem is that they had to run a business after that. And the thing is that all that money for eyeballs didn't bring in enough in revenues to run the company. That is $81m spent on marketing in one year. What were they running? A nationwide chain of Ask Jeeves hamburger joints? If Krispy Kreme had proposed spending that kind of money, the CEO would be unemployed. Instead, KK made money.

In-Process Technology

For the year ended December 31, 2000, we wrote
off in-process technology of $11.7 million in
connection with the acquisition of certain technology
from Evergreen and Direct Hit.

More money wasted. Thank God it was OPM.

In May 1999, the Company adopted, as
amended, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. The
Company has reserved a total of 400,000 shares of
common stock for issuance under the plan. Eligible
employees may purchase common stock at 85% of the
lesser of the fair market value of the Company's
common stock on the first day of the applicable
one-year offering period or the last day of the
applicable six-month purchase period. At December 31,
2000, 346,167 shares were available for grant under
the plan.

Also in 1999, in conjunction with an
employment contract with an executive, the Company
guaranteed $1,200,000 in cash or stock to be paid to
the executive after 36 months of employment. This
amount has been recorded as deferred stock
compensation and is being amortized by charges to
operations using a graded vesting method over the
36-month life of the guarantee. Such amortization
amounted to $5,594,044 for the year ended December 31,
2000.

In 2000, the Company granted equity
interests in the joint ventures to certain executives
of AJI and recorded a compensation charge of
$1,223,000 in connection with these grants during the
year.

Wow. Options suck. These companies talk a good game of sharing the wealth, but they offer so few options to their employees. Of 500+ employees, if all had participated, they would have been able to buy less than 800 shares each. A fraction of what most officers could buy. What this means is that most employees are going to lose money in options. A option has to be well above the strike price to make money. If they go down to the strike price, you've lost your money. When you have 10,000 shares to play with, even a low share price gives you something, especially when the options are part of your compensation. But when you have to buy them, there is an illusory effect of making money with the company. But the reality is that this is set up to make the officers money regardless of what happens to the workers. Workers are very unlikely to sell their options until too late.

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into
effective as of December 1, 2000 (the "Effective
Date"), by and between Rob Wrubel ("Employee") and Ask
Jeeves, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").
Employee and the Company agree as follows:

1. TITLE AND DUTIES.

[blockquote](a) TITLE. As of the Effective Date,
Employee shall have the title of Executive Vice
President, Market Development.

(b) DUTIES AND REPORTING. Employee will
report solely to the Company Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"). Employee will be responsible for advising the
Company's CEO on opportunities for partnerships and
strategic relationships for the Company, as well as
performing all other duties reasonably requested of
him by the Company's CEO, consistent with Employee's
title and position. This will be a full-time position
and Employee will devote substantially all of his full
business efforts and time to the Company.

2. TERM OF EMPLOYMENT.

(a) AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT. The Company agrees
to continue Employee's employment, and Employee agrees
to remain in employment with the Company, from the
Effective Date until the date when Employee's
employment terminates.

(b) TERMINATION. Employee's employment
with the Company is "at-will" and the Company may
terminate Employee's employment at any time and for
any or no reason, and with or without cause, by giving
Employee fourteen (14) days advance notice of
termination of employment in writing. Employee may
terminate his employment at any time, for any or no
reason, with or without cause, by giving the Company
fourteen (14) days advance notice in writing.
Employee's employment shall terminate automatically in
the event of his death.

(c) TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. This
Agreement shall terminate when all obligations of the
parties hereunder have been satisfied. The termination
of this Agreement shall not limit or otherwise affect
any of the Employee's or the Company's obligations
under Sections 7, 8, and 10.

3. BASE SALARY, SEVERANCE PAYMENT, STOCK
OPTIONS AND LOANS.

(a) BASE SALARY. As of the Effective Date,
the Company shall pay Employee as compensation for his
services a monthly base salary in the amount of
$21,666.66, less applicable withholdings and
deductions, payable in accordance with the Company's
standard payroll practices and procedure ("Base
Salary"). Employee's Base Salary shall be increased to
$22,916.66 per month, less applicable withholdings and
deductions, effective January 1, 2001.

(b) SEVERANCE PAYMENT. Employee will
receive severance payments that in the aggregate equal
$275,000, less applicable withholdings and deductions
("Severance Payment"). Employee shall receive the
Severance Payment in installment payments (less
applicable withholdings and deductions) pursuant to
the below schedule:

Payment Date
Payment Amount ------------ --------------

January 1, 2001
$50,000 February 1, 2001 $50,000 March 1,
2001 $50,000 April 1, 2001
$50,000 May 1, 2001 $50,000 May 31, 2001
$25,000

In the event of Employee's termination of
employment prior to his receiving the entire Severance
Payment, then Employee shall receive a lump sum
payment for the balance of the unpaid portion of the
Severance Payment within ten (10) days after
termination of employment.

(c) STOCK OPTIONS. Employee's unvested
shares subject to his stock options shall vest
pursuant to the schedule shown in Exhibit B
("Options") attached hereto. The parties agree that
Employee is not a Section 16 officer (as defined under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) as of
the Effective Date and may exercise any or all of his
vested stock options at any time prior to each
individual Option's expiration (or one (1) year after
Employee's termination of employment if earlier than
the stated expiration date) and immediately sell any
or all of such acquired shares, subject to the terms
and conditions of his Restricted status as a member of
senior management and subject to the company's Insider
Trading Policy. Employee may exercise the Options by
delivering to the Company an executed stock option
exercise agreement pursuant to the Company's 1996
Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan"). Any such Options
will constitute non-qualified stock options if
Employee exercises them during the extended exercise
period for the Options effected by this Agreement. If
Employee's employment with the Company is terminated
prior to May 31, 2001, then any further vesting of the
Options shall be governed by Section 5 below.

(d) LOANS. The principal and interest on
Employee's outstanding loans with the Company shall be
forgiven pursuant to the schedule shown in Exhibit C
("Loans") attached hereto. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, the Employee may elect at any time
prior to May 31, 2001 (with such election (i) being
subject to the provisions in Section 5 and (ii)
requiring Company consent to become operative) to
defer forgiveness of the then-outstanding Loan balance
until January 1, 2002 (with such Loan balance
continuing to accrue interest until completely
forgiven or otherwise paid off). As a condition of
receiving the loan forgiveness, Employee shall deliver
a check payable to the Company in an amount equal to
the tax withholdings for the amount forgiven on each
loan as it is forgiven. In the alternative, Employee
may elect to use the Severance Payment described in
Paragraph 3(b) above, to pay the taxes due on the loan
forgiveness by informing the Company in writing of his
intention to apply such Severance Payment towards the
tax amounts. This written notice shall identify the
amount of the loans forgiven, the commencement date of
the forgiveness, and the taxes owing on each loan
forgiven. The Company shall then apply the Severance
Payment installment towards the taxes

The payments here. seemingly give him here over $500K and have his loans forgiven. Why he has all of these financial benefits when the company has lost $189m and spent $81m on marketing is beyond me. It seems that he has been given the kind of breaks which most employees would kill for. Wrubel has been forgiven $1,436,571.39 in loans. He was loaned $200K in separate loans on 6/18/99. He was listed as the CEO in a letter to former president Adam Klein, yet is listed as a senior VP under the current management structure. The current director and CEO, A George "Skip" Battle, is being paid $195K but with 360,000 options, which is worth more than $720K at today's stock price.

The irony is that while Ask Jeeves has been spending and losing money, its inside investors have been selling stock. What is interesting is who were some of the insiders selling stock.

05/12/00 Yale University Shareholder Planned Sale 14,495 - 347,880 - -

06/12/00 Vanderbilt University Shareholder Planned Sale 66,704 - 1,467,488 -

06/12/00 Williams College Shareholder Planned Sale 33,352 - 794,000 -

06/22/00 Duke University Emp Ret Pl Shareholder Planned Sale 13,341 - 240,100

07/18/00 Paternot, Stephan J. Shareholder Planned Sale 2,143 - 42,000 - -

08/23/00 Childrens Fairyland Shareholder Planned Sale 3,225 - 64,695

08/29/00 Ronald Mcdonald House Shareholder Planned Sale 1,250 - 32,500 -

08/30/00 Mayo Foundation Pension Shareholder Planned Sale 36,251 - 900,000 -

09/01/00 St Francis High School Shareholder Planned Sale 850 - 26,554

10/12/00 Krizelman, Todd Shareholder Planned Sale 2,143 - 28,000 -

11/13/00 Yale University Shareholder Planned Sale 102,235 - 1,584,642 -

OK, now look at the number of charities, pension plans and university endowments which bought Ask Jeeves shares. Now why the hell did they do that? What was so attractive about Ask Jeeves to become an insider about? There is a story there. This is a stock which reached 109. Of course, the great dump off came during the summer of 2000, but there was a clear spike of sales which reached its height in September.

02/21/01 - 02/22/01 Wrubel, Robert Executive Vice President Sale 37,500 2.00 - 2.30 75,000 - 86,250 com D 297,290

02/21/01 Wrubel, Robert Chief Executive Officer Planned Sale 150,000 - 343,500 - - -

My guess is that he was interim CEO before Battle. But there is a real question here: why is Wrubel being forgiven a million dollar loan and being paid hundreds of thousands a year? Despite the drop in title, his base salary will be higher than the CEO's. And there is the loan forgiveness. There is no record of him buying stocks at that level. Sometimes officers are loaned corporate money to buy stock, but the insiders have continually dumped shares into the market in sale spikes in May, 2000 and September,2000.

It seems as soon as the crash hit, the insiders began to sell their shares and kept selling those shares as the price fell. While Ask Jeeves is well above delisting, the rapid loss of share price and the sales do not inspire confidence.

What is clear is that Robert Wrubel, who guided the company to spend $81m on marketing, has done quite well for himself in his various roles at Ask Jeeves.


Why Ask Jeeves is Failing

The central problem is that their core product, the search engine, does not work as advertised. Anyone who uses it may find answers far less accurate than one would get from other services. It is amazing that companies would spend so much money on marketing and get so little in return. Their marketing campaign was less than successful.

Frankly, it is impossible to predict what will happen to this company. Obviously, it will not be spending anything like that in marketing this year. Yet, their revenues will also drop due to the tight ad market. Losses may be less, but the company's survival is anyone's guess. Cutting costs may work, may not work.

But what is of concern is the loans and payments to Wrubel. Any shareholder should be concerned about his level of compensation and the loan forgiveness of $1.4m. While the reasons are not explained, it seems unusual, as does the severance payments. Other executives were also give $150K in moving allowances and generous options packages. Which seem excessive, given the cost of cross country moves and their salaries.

Ask Jeeves seems to have had a very generous compensation package for their senior execs, while losing exponential amounts of money. One has to wonder if the company's generous payments were warranted given the company's financial condition.

Editor's Note: This is Part 6 of Steve Gilliard's ongoing series. You can read Part 1 (IVillage), Part 2 (Salon), Part 3 (Razorfish), Part 4 (Juno), and Part 5 (Ask Jeeves) on this site).
 
Posted Comments:post a comment!
Name: Email:

Comment:



Name: optionboy
Email:
Date: Tue May 1 04:54:09 2001
Comment: Mr. Gilliard please read up on the difference between a stock option plan and an employee stock purchase plan. Your ignorance detracts from the underlying point that the Execs were lavished with undeserved bonuses.

Name: El Blanko
Email:
Date: Sun Apr 29 00:47:21 2001
Comment: -------------------------
Reporters rarely hit companies hard because the PR flacks will cut off their access if they do. One negative comment can get a guy blacklisted.
------------------------
With ad revenue falling fast, the print media is now terrified of reporting any adverse news, lest these companies pull all of their advertising.
Look for puffy pieces even in the WSJ.

Name: Absolutely no relevance
Email: http://www.frankjump.com/022.html
Date: Sat Apr 28 03:50:26 2001
Comment: http://www.frankjump.com/022.html

It's pretty, that's all. Isn't that nice. A little bit of prettiness to offset such ugliness.

Name: steve gilliard
Email: sgilliard@netslaves.com
Date: Sat Apr 28 00:16:41 2001
Comment: Thomas,

Actually, the document is annotated, and I highlight the parts which strike me.

I make no claim to some great financial knowledge, but I have done business research and things do stand out in 10Q and 10K filings. Things anyone can detect and read.

I post the relevant sections so people can make up their own minds. Are the statements bombastic? Sure, but some of the practices are outrageous. No one has seemed to get that these companies are losing more money than many localities spend in a given year.

When an exec gets paid $519K a year when his company is failing, someone should be outraged by this. Simple financial accountability is lacking in corporations today, something Forbes agrees with in their current issue.

Shareholders are being ill-served by this kind of management. Which, when 50 percent of Americans are invested in the market in some form ,should be a big deal.

Name: Thomas Muntzer
Email: muntzer@peasantsrevolt.com
Date: Fri Apr 27 23:20:00 2001
Comment: Steve,

Will Leitch has a much wittier stalker then you do.

I think the point that Blank doesn't get is that Netslaves isn't the Wall Street Journal. It's not put together by people who get paid for it.

So it's bound to be a bit crude.

On the other hand, not getting paid frees you from the strings attached to the money. The slicker more professional treatments of a company's finances put them into a context determined by the (most likely) upscale writer. But posting the whole document and adding a few (admittedly at times bombastic) comments instead of covering it in sugar to make it go down easy will force people to actually read the things and demonstrate that it's not really that hard.

Name: BA
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 20:09:38 2001
Comment: I don't get why all the hostility. If nothing else this series is an object lesson in practical skepticism. And skepticism is like a muscle in that even once you've got it, you have to keep flexing it or it will atrophy. Rock on, Steve.

Name: steve gilliard
Email: sgilliard@netslaves.com
Date: Fri Apr 27 18:52:20 2001
Comment: Jeff,

Blank made an excellent point: Chris Byron did do this. But you never got to see how he made his decisions on these companies, what documents he used and if you could make up your own mind.

It's not old news. It's news. And we did do some of it a year ago or two. But now, we want to look at the last year, where it seems that companies have spent two, three even more times than they did in 1999. Why?

That's what we want to figure out.

Name: steve gilliard
Email: sgilliard@netslaves.com
Date: Fri Apr 27 18:47:04 2001
Comment: Blank,

Ah, you have returned. Why? I have no clue. But since you have:

1) Saying Chris Bryon wrote about Salon and Webvan is hardly news. He's the only one who's written critically about these companies consistantly. There was a whole industry dedicated to ignoring what he wrote.

So I should have said: no one but Byron wrote about these companies. That's still a pretty small group. Most of his peers were decidedly different in their approaches.

2)Most financial journalism is a joke. I have a ton of glossies which strove to make second rate businessmen into modern day heroes, disregarding the facts of their failures.

3)You claim errors and refuse to point them out. Which is like saying your mother is a drunk because she has a wine glass in her hand. Without evidence, it's an allegation, not a fact

4)You may find the actual facts boring, but I think they serve a purpose. People are free to see how I draw my conclusions. They may be wrong, but what I draw them on is there for the reader to decide upon. Unlike other publications, I think the readers are smart enough to decide whether my conclusions make sense from the evidence provided.

Also, most investors NEVER see these documents. Most employees never see these documents. Exposing them to the light of day is a good thing.

Yes, I may be patronising and wrong, although most of my conclusions come directly from the company's officers. The only difference is my conclusions.

So when I'm wrong, please correct. If not, you're just a coward hiding behind anonymity.

I use my name in public and let people take their shots. You're free to join me at any time. Although, I don't think you have the stones for it. But,as you often say, i could be wrong.


Name: vonbek
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 18:36:35 2001
Comment: jeff frerra -

I agree. I must admit that if I had been in the dot con world back then I would have formed the smae opinion - bad management, short term business plans, no understanding of infrastructure, blah blah blah

Jounalism - It's like the Whitehouse Pres Corp...if you fall out of the loop its probably because you annoyed a player

Name: jeff frerra
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 18:04:43 2001
Comment: Compared to the average stock market BBS, where short-sellers and flamers thrive, Gilliard is a pussycat. That said, all this is old news that really should have been brought out last year, if not the year before.

About business journalism: most of the craft is either rewriting/repackaging of corporate PR fluff and press releases mixed with leaked information that results from beat hacks who schmooze executives and employees into dropping tidbits.

Reporters rarely hit companies hard because the PR flacks will cut off their access if they do. One negative comment can get a guy blacklisted.

Name:
Email: pearware@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Apr 27 17:38:39 2001
Comment: Actually, I am really enjoying the series. I am using it to train myself on how to read my company's 10Q.

Don't cha find it fascinating that employees get raises & stock options based on merit, but CEOs never do??

Name: Bill Volk
Email: bvolk@youworkit.com
Date: Fri Apr 27 16:42:33 2001
Comment: Hey, why not Ask Jeeves himself?

When will AskJeeves be profitable?

>In the produce business, getting the first crops of the season to market is so profitable that growers will do almost anything to beat the competition. In Florida, for example, citrus growers pick grapefruit......

Why is Robert Wrubel being forgiven a million dollar loan?

>I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General I Can Always Find a Little Sunshine at the YMCA I Am the Monarch of the Sea I Am Going to Like It Here I Can't Give You Anything But Love (Baby) I Can't Believe That You're in Love with Me I Can Do Without...

Why did AskJeeves need so much rental space?

>Owning a home can bring financial rewards as well as a personal satisfaction that comes with knowing that you have a piece of the American dream. The financial benefits of homeownership range from the tax breaks that the owner can enjoy by...

How did AskJeeves get it's losses to exponentially increase every year?

>How To Dramatically Increase Your Real Estate Sales Using The Internet? Without Having To Know How It Works "How You Can Make Well Over $300,000.00 Per Year As A Real Estate Agent Working Less Than 40 Hours A Week.... Have A Top Income AND A Life..... And...


Name: lkjhlkj
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 16:34:05 2001
Comment: the subject peasant slipped in.

Name: ;lkjlk;j
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 16:33:15 2001
Comment: i was addressing the cnc customer at 64.2.69.12

Name: ;lkh
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 16:32:16 2001
Comment: uh, i wasn't addressing you.

Name: Thomas Muntzer
Email: muntzer@peasantsrevolt.com
Date: Fri Apr 27 16:31:37 2001
Comment: Watch it blank, little green men are trying to hax0r your computer.

Congratulations, though, you looked up my name.

ALL YOUR BLANKS BELONG TO US!!!

Name: Context, baby, Context!
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 16:13:56 2001
Comment: >> maybe if you put that much effort into your vocational life, you wouldn't be such a bitter, angry failure.

Actually, blank, I am not the poster who uses that name. But it seems to me that if you put even an ounce of effort into something constructive, you wouldn't have the need to keep checking back here to post and/or see your bitter words published.

Also, from a pure usability 101 perspective, even though we are all aware most people want anonimity here, it would help identify correct authorship of posts if you could space the effort it takes to type a single character into the "name" field. Even Prince has gone back to using a name, btw. At least give yourself a persona vs "hahaha, I am so successful I haven't the time to enter any extra keystrokes".


Name:
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 15:42:24 2001
Comment: heh, looks like "Thomas Muntzer" has time-traveled from the 16th century and is trying to lay a trojan on me. Say Tom, maybe if you put that much effort into your vocational life, you wouldn't be such a bitter, angry failure.

Name: Context, baby, Context!
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 15:41:00 2001
Comment: >> two scathing Christopher Byron pieces in the NY Observer

Blank, you are right. Your Link 1 = webvan story; link 2 = Salon story.

>> there is no lack of financial journalists examining these companies... There are TOO MANY business journalists.

Blank, this may be part of the problem, ironically. If there are all these journalists covering these beats, and they are all sprinkling their occcasional stories into their wide array of venues, where is a good place to get a contextual framework to examine the whole lot of them?

The thing is, people with decent knowledge base in any one sector of life (whether you follow sports closely, the stock market, VC funding, the latest on Linux, who are the best contestants on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, what have you), catalogue all the BB-gun spray of stories they find in their daily regimens which make them so knowledgable in first place. That's a good thing.

And I would suggest, in this case, with the topic area being "massive dotcom losses and why", you are a relative expert compared to most. So this series isn't aimed at you. Though it is great to have you read it and challenge the inaccurate parts and help educate. But many people do not have that knowledge base you have for this topic area, and putting together a series like this serves a good purpose -- IF:

(1) There is a contextual framework supplied which explains to the reader what is the purpose of these articles - what can it teach us - and

(2) The information is essentially accurate. I say essentially because it is very clear that Steve is very rapidly reviewing these documents and giving his interpretation of what they say, in layman's terms. And any reader of NS knows that he slides opinion into his presentations. You can debate about whether that is good or bad, hurts credibility, whatever, but if Steve is absolutely missing the boat and is flagrantly misrepresenting the facts, call him on it. That's good and useful.

But if you really just like to come here to rag on Steve, what's your point? What are you serving? I think the better use of your knowledge base would be to take issue with Steve's errors or exagerations, and give specific responses as food for thought.

It's not like he's getting paid here. Personally, I think he's trying to help educate people who are not familiar with this financial arena like you are. To me, that's a good thing. If he's doing it poorly, that's a bad thing. If you have specific clarifications to make, that would be a good thing.

With the dual phenomenon of our increasingly data-overloaded society, countered with Soundbyte Nation's downwardly spiraling attention spans, what we lack most is CONTEXT. And if you feel Steve's not providing it, then how about you taking a stab at it? Seriously. Or if a ready-made portal site exists where these kinds of stories and data are all neatly aggregated, by all means point it out. I'd be the first to bookmark it.

Name: flooz
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 15:30:21 2001
Comment: looks like this site is attracting too many teenagers from fuckedcompany.com. send 'em back!

Name: Jeeves
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 15:28:05 2001
Comment: Hey " ", could you at least make up a fake name so I can more easily tell you what a dick you're being.

Name:
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 15:01:44 2001
Comment: and they're still online! and the salon one's from jue of last year!

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=3975

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=2884

Name:
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 14:58:46 2001
Comment: Heh. I guess all the actual work done by the country's top business journos -- not to mention buy side analysts, fund managers, etc. -- has been a waste. Again, thank God for you Steve, for showing us The Way. For without you, we would be lost. Why, we might even think that Ask Jeeves, Salon and Webvan were really good investments if you had not cut and pasted excerpts from their 10Ks for us here. Thank You, Jesus; thank You, Steve.

Nobody's ever examined Webvan? Nobody's examined Salon?

Just off the top of my head, I thought of two scathing Christopher Byron pieces in the NY Observer that filet both companies -- and unlike you, they do it without the bizarre patronizing tone or the cutting and pasting of long, boring passages from SEC documents. These are just two I thought of -- I suppose i could go search the WSJ, the Industry Standard, and other databases for stories on both of these companies, as well as Jeeves, but you get the point.

Steve -- there is no lack of financial journalists examining these companies, and all of them (they not being insane) are doing it way better than you. There are TOO MANY business journalists. Why do you think you are accomplishing something here. What scary psychological phenomenon does your hubris spring from?

Name:
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 14:36:49 2001
Comment: OK, so you use the phrase "exponential amounts of money" and you expect anyone to bother to read further or take you seriously --- why, exactly?

I think the reason you are such an object of ridicule, Steve, is that you are so outrageously pedantic at the same time you are outrageously and hilariously ignorant, inarticulate, illogical, misguided, or just plain wrong -- often all in the same sentence. The disconnect between your tone and the substance behind your little pieces here is just amazing. I think if you were not so pedantic, nobody would really pay attention to you. So on that level, I guess you are a success.

Name: Ertischek
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 13:36:59 2001
Comment: Just noticed I'm quote of the week..I'd like to thank the academy..

Name: steve gilliard
Email: sgilliard@netslaves.com
Date: Fri Apr 27 13:31:39 2001
Comment: Actually, I'm picking companies I feel that have been poorly reported on. NetZero got scrutinized, but not Juno, at least not for their business practices.

The Street has been roasted over the last year, Salon has gotten a pass from sympathetic editors. IVillage is a stealth failure. What would another piece on the Street's failure do? It's been examined.

Ask Jeeves has never been looked at seriously, while Altavista has been examined in detail.

Starting today, we're going to look at the disasters which have been covered, but to place them in context. Everyone has looked at Webvan, but has never explained why it was such a failure.

Next week will see familiar names, but hopefully in a new context. I may have to add a company or two depending on the news.

It's a race to get there. A hard race.

Name: nan
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 13:05:22 2001
Comment: WN, there's a pretty simple pattern here: not only are these companies badly and grossly mismanaged, but they are losing unbelievable amounts of money in short periods of time. How can Ask Jeeves, a search engine (and a terrible one at that) justify losing 189 M in ONE YEAR? How can iVillage justify losing 300+ M...it boggles the mind. And since nobody's actually looking at the facts elsewhere, this series is sorely needed.


Name: Gee Whiz Jeeves
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 12:35:55 2001
Comment: Jeeves just seems to be front end to some tired advertising. I tried a few times and gave up. Maybe they should give up too.

Name: Jeeves
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 12:22:41 2001
Comment: AskJeeves is such a pathetic search engine it isn't even funny. This company is just a hollow shell waiting to implode. They simply don't have anywhere near the technical depth needed to compete with the likes of Google.

Name: Wrubel not
Email:
Date: Fri Apr 27 12:03:53 2001
Comment: Wrubel wasn't merely interim CEO; he was a company founder; there since 97 or 98 when co launched. His background includes Knowledge Adventure (Bill Gross' former company before idealab!)

Why was this company targeted for 10Q analysis. Is there a rhyme or reason guiding the pattern in your selections, or are you playing spin the barrel? It would help if we understood if you are trying to pick companies from various sectors that are representative of, in your opinion, poor management and doomed-from-start business models.

Please provide an overarching context for the entire series.