Reverse Spin

[ActDumb]

Dear Valued Customer

Let's be blunt here. ActDumb is in trouble. In fact we are releasing our next results on April 29 and our investors will be going ape. We need to prepare our defense now.

Look, we screwed up. At first we thought we would be able to drive lots of traffic to our Web site and make money out of advertising. When that didn't work, we had this great plan of charging a one-off fee to be in our database, then licensing the database to partners who paid us for our quality content. That worked well for quite a while, but now we have a problem.

The problem is that our partners have been making overtures that maybe WE should be paying THEM to list our content. They have all found another partner that does this on a CPC-basis for them.

Sorry guys but unless we do something we are going to the wall. Every regional variant of ActDumb is trying something different. Here at ActDumb.com we have decided to go PPC. We have been careful in setting up the model not to infringe on anybody else's patents for taking payment for advertising! This will put us in a position where we can pay our partners like they want us to.

You need not pay us another cent and we will continue to list you for twenty months and drive up to 100 clicks a month to your site. Realistically, you will never get anywhere near 100 clicks unless you spend some more money to set up some keywords. If you do it soon it's less than thirty bucks. Take the offer while it's on the table.

We're really sorry about this and we know we're screwing you. But what choice do we have? We have to kick and scream for every last breath of air because our investors demand that. We are a public company. We could have sent out a really smarmy jack-ass letter telling you this was an "upgrade", but we thought you deserved better than that so we're giving it to you straight.

In summary, without our partners we have no reach, no traffic and no business. And our partners have all had enough of paying us for our database. So, although we're spending your $300 in a different way than that which we told you we would be, we hope you'll appreciate that we're actually trying to stay in business and keep driving traffic to you.

Yours sincerely

The ActDumb PR Team

[symivisitor]

Lol-great post

[ihelpyou]

LOL.

That would have been the professional way to handle things. Instead, they opted for the unprofessional way.

"ActDumb" ... ??..... ;)

[MsSearch]

:green: :green:

Thank you for your honesty...i wish other companies would follow this example ;)

[Advisor]

Well that sure as heck explains a lot!

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Anyone wish to reply?

http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=22689351&tid=look&sid=22689351&mid=27832

[LS-Stomper]

*LOLOL*

Damn, I feel better now.

heh

Thanks for this, needed it!

[MazY]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Anyone wish to reply?

http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=22689351&tid=look&sid=22689351&mid=27832

Erm, nope. :)

[Advisor]

Looks like they've received a few replies...

J

[ihelpyou]

Stockholders don't seem to see what issues we have with LS now.

The issue is that they told their current listings one thing, and then turned around and did another. That is wrong.

One of the last posters in that thread has it right. If they would have simply left their current listings alone, NO PROBLEM AT ALL. They did not do that. That is wrong. They could have simply did this screw-job on new clients. They left all of us in the cold with nothing but a bunch of unhappy clients who already paid what they thought was a one-time fee.

Gee, do any of those stochholders even own a web site? If so, how many clients with sites do they have and in Looksmart? How many years have they praised and supported Looksmart by feeding the directory many thousands of dollars over that time?

[Advisor]

Guess what. According to LookSmart's wonderful reporting tools, I have a big whopping ZERO clicks from all 11 of the sites that are showing on my account. Guess I won't have to worry about refilling my account any time soon.

Oh wait, perhaps I should add some keywords to my listing for a mere $49? Yeah right.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

That is why Jill I will not be upgrading until the month of July if ever.

My sites are still receiving clicks and have not changed positions in MSN. I feel if you upgrade now, you lose all your positions and get thrown into the pond with the other PPC listings.

At least with the old way, our listings had keywords attached to them already. If you upgrade and don't buy into the keyword scheme, you probably lose your old listing completely including the keywords associated with it.

[Mel]

Originally posted by ihelpyou

At least with the old way, our listings had keywords attached to them already. If you upgrade and don't buy into the keyword scheme, you probably lose your old listing completely including the keywords associated with it.

ALL listings have already been "upgraded", they gave us no choice in that, and they are still charging the $15 per month against your free clicks until you either "activate" your account or they drop you in July 10th.

Everything I have seen to date seems to indicate that they are not changing your existing listing in any way, which makes sense in that there is nothing to be gained by doing so, and it would be a lot of work to edit each and every listing.

[ihelpyou]

ALL listings have already been "upgraded", they gave us no choice in that, and they are still charging the $15 per month against your free clicks until you either "activate" your account or they drop you in July 10th.
Okay. I am now more confused. Please explain what that means exactly?

Let's look at the front page of the forums. I will use up my 100 clicks a month VERY clickly. Maybe in a couple of days. If I don't activate my account, what happens then?

[Advisor]

Doug, I'm not sure, but whether or not you activate, your $15 may still be deducted from your account. (The "free" $15 they give you.)

I don't have any clients that were getting tons of hits from them, so I have no idea if it will change anything for me. Why don't you just activate, set your clicks to 100 and see. Then you'll know. It won't cost you anything, and I do doubt you gain by not activating. But who knows.
Jill

[Kal]

You don't need to set your clicks to anything. In fact LookSmart suggests that to get the best exposure for existing listings, current customers shouldn't set a maximum click rate. But I think I probably should for clients I no longer deal with so that I have more clicks available for current clients. It's a hard one.

[ihelpyou]

WoW. What a mess this is. We are all posting conflicting opinions in a big way.

Goes to show just how screwed up this all really is. Looksmart has NOT explained much of anything regarding their EXISTing clients.

[Advisor]

Of course they don't want you to set your click amount, that's where they make the money. Best impact for your client (more exposure), best impact for the (more of your money).

<edit> Kal, I don't believe the clicks are tranferable between client URLs, but I could be wrong about that. Pretty sure they're not, however (even though they don't say).

Jill

[Kal]

Yeah I am also confused about the ability to transfer clicks or not. But in the meantime, I'm not going to set click amounts for current client sites, because there is no need to (L$ will only charge you up to the set monthly budget - automatically set at the value of the "free" clicks unless you change it).

[Kal]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
My sites are still receiving clicks and have not changed positions in MSN. I feel if you upgrade now, you lose all your positions and get thrown into the pond with the other PPC listings.


The interesting thing Doug is that one of my clients got in to L$ when it was free to submit. Then just a month ago we paid $149 to get them listed in another category. They did NOT receive an email about the update to their listing AND when I log in to their account, they are entitled to 0 free clicks per month. There is no way to "activate" the account unless we add money to their zero monthly budget.

But the interesting thing is that their site is still listed and comes up under keywords within their description and title. I wonder what happens to this listing after July 10 or whatever? Seems they are only grandfathering sites who paid for submission, not those who got in for free and then paid for extra cats. What a waste of $149! I don't know how to break the news to my client :eek:

[JUMPMKT]

Great Posts everyone, exactly what is on my mind.

I just have a question of sorts and I realize this may be a dream but I'll ask anyway.

If enough people don't buy into the L$ extortion plan and they begin removing listings, what will this do to their beloved directory? Which partner sites will continue to use their non-existent, non-thorough and non-relevant directory? Will the likes of MSN turn to Inktomi. Do I dare pray?

I know for now all of our clients listings are fine and we are awaiting the results of the fallout. We simply refuse at this point and time to send another dime to these pirates. For now, we wait.

~Continued Success to All!~

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums JUMPMKT! :hi:

Good question and one we will just have to see about. I know that some stockholders say things are in the works right now and we will be hearing about them soon. Member Tex in here says that. For Looksmart's sake, I hope they are right, but at this point I am very skeptical of them. The way they 'upgraded' us is simply too much for me. We promoted them heartedly over the years and were given the big boot in the arss.

[Chris_D]

Your post was classic lookdumb.

Imagine if the business telephone directory (yellow/pink/blue/white whatever pages) - pulled the same stunt..... with their electronic on line telephone directory version.

Imagine if they turned around - half way through their 'directory year' - and said - "we know what the contract said - buy an ad in the paper one and you'll be in the electronic one too - but we've decided that from tomorrow - you pay per click on the electronic version"... "but heres a few free clicks in the meantime"...

I wonder what the chookfart shareholders (who had their own business with a paid advertisement or business listing in this ficticious telephone directory) would say then???

The issue is the way chookfart did this; the fact that .com has changed - and .com.au hasn't; and the lack of disregard for 'grandfather clause' customers. When they changed from free to paid - new players happily paid. But they grandfather claused existing clients. But this time - .com have alienated their existing 'clients' - in a manner which clearly has infuriated many (yet they HAVE grandfather claused their .com.au clients). I think this is the part that the shareholders don't quite understand.

I'd like to see the ROI stats (compared to Google adwords/ Google Adwords select - and of course Overture) - and their agreement with MSN (maybe the page prominance of the PPC listings could change at MSN's whim?) before I consider them as a PPC supplier- and I would't ever sign their 'standard' documents as a matter of principal ... would you?

[tlacaelel]

This is just misleading and aggressive marketing of a new recurring charge service. LookSmart wants you to log-in and then "Activate" your credit card. These are multiple steps. You can log in without activating anything. I have logged in to look around, and I have not activated my credit card for CPC.

- - -

What LookSmart is guilty of is:

(1) Confusing their existing "Submit" listings customers by sending these agressive announcements about their new CPC offering, which is compulsory for all existing customers.

(2) Aggressively leading (misleading) these customers to "log-in and activate" so they "don't lose valuable traffic".

(3) Worrying existing customers into believing that their directory listings are going to disappear if they don't sign-up for the new "Small Business Listings" product. They haven't said they'll disappear but they haven't said they won't disappear either. They are being intentionally non-informative about this.

- - -

Everybody should send LookSmart (bassub@looksmart.net, feedback@looksmart.net, investor@looksmart.net) their forceful (but not abusive) opinions about this horribly conceived and bungled product launch.

Tell them you won't accept this horrible treatment. Ask them a lot of questions you have about your existing listing ("what is going to happen to it?"). Make them respond to your email, tell them you expect answers to your questions (make sure to reference your registered site, possibly the original order number and date), and make sure to cc yourself on any emails so you keep an audit trail of your communications (especially if they don't answer).

I suspect that the entire LookSmart customer service staff is suffering a withering and unyielding barrage of customer complaints. (Remember, keep emails/posts constructive, not abusive. The LS staff didn't force this stupid new CPC product down your throat, the execs dreamed up this scheme). I imagine that they are going to be slow responding to emails since they are probably being deluged by tens of thousands of angry hornets (irritated customers).

You might also call them at 415.348.7000, or call some regional office, see LookSmart.com : For Investors : Company Profile : LookSmart Offices. All the phones numbers are there.

The best course of action with respect to your listings is to DO NOTHING. Don't activate your listing and absolutely DON'T CANCEL YOUR LISTING. Don't do anything apart from repeatedly complaining and asking them questions they must answer.

Don't threaten them with lawsuits (unless you can back it up) and don't tell them to cancel you listing. Just tell them you are not going to activate your CPC account and ask them what they will be doing to your listing, whether it will continue to appear and where, whether it will be deleted or suppressed, and so on.

Another poster suggested sending complaints to the Better Business Bureau (online). I think that's a great idea since it will tie up more resources at LookSmart handling the response issues since they don't want a bad BBB record. LookSmart is wasting vast amounts of our time, so channel your ire into wasting their time and causing them many headaches until they start communicating honestly about this new program, giving customers more options (to leave listings the way they are), and until LookSmart starts respecting their customers instead of strong-arming them into this unfair profiteering scheme.

*** THE BOTTOM LINE ***

I suspect that this is an aggressive ploy to get people to sign-up for monthly budgeted CPC "Featured Listings". I really doubt that LookSmart will start cancelling listings fpr customers which don't activate by July 11. Why would they start flushing directory listings down the toilet when they've struggled for years to build the directory. It would be monumentally stupid.

I think they will leave all existing listings alone. I do expect that they'll deny CPC credits ($15 x 20 months) to all of us who refuse to "activate our new accounts" (with minimum $30 monthly buys). I think all that will mean is that you won't show up in the "Featured Listings" which precede the normal "Directory Listings" (on MSN and other LS syndicate partners). I think we will all continue to show up in "Directory Listings".

It stands to reason that if they stopped delivering "Directory Listings" to their syndicate partners that their partners (e.g. MSN) would drop them because they're not a directory any more, just a premium listings service. Go figure. Sure, MSN is going to want a revenue share on the CPC Featured Listings, but I'm sure that MSN wants the directory too.

If LookSmart stopped distributing the directory to MSN etc, i.e. if they started suppressing all listings which aren't activated as CPC customers, then all they would be is a CPC syndicator, no longer a directory. MSN would have no use for them, since as a CPC syndicator alone, LookSmart would be a distant third in {quality, functionality, value, flexibility} to Overture and Google AdWords. Any of LookSmart's partners would just drop them and go with Overture or Google because they're much better.

So ...

Let's all start barraging LookSmart with questions and complaints.

Let's all start complaining to the BBB about them, for misleading and unfair marketing practices (switching exsiting single-payment registrations to recurring charges listings) and profiteering (some sites go from paid-up once and $0/monthly to $600/month!!!).

Let's all do nothing about our registered listings. Don't activate your CPC account and don't cancel your listing.

LookSmart will eventually have to give in on this and clarify the product offering, make CPC optional, and add back a directory-only "Submit" offering.

If we all boycott LookSmart (no CPC activations, and no new signups), then LookSmart will quickly "get the message" when their monthly new registrations drops to a 3-year low and stays there.

Also, any of you who are proliferant web publishers, ought to start putting up some "Boycott LookSmart" pages on your sites and making sure they get linked and indexed. Make sure to provide links to these fiery forums.

We should also tell all of our existing customers (and new customers) that we are boycotting LookSmart for misleading and unfair marketing practices and profiteering.

LookSmart will lose this battle and retreat. If they don't have fair product offerings for their customers, they won't have customers and they will die the dot-com death.

---

You might also want to check out the LookSmart raging forums at www.webmasterworld.com and www.searchengineforums.com. There's lots of thoughtful posts there as well.

[nuzelonde]

I replied to the Yahoo investor forum

[LookDummy]

I have read the post at Look's stock board
http://messages.yahoo.com/?action=q&board=LOOK
and they really don't want to hear it. Looks like Tex aka ET
has Doug right where he wants him off his stupid board.

[Advisor]

Well, we'll let them deal with Nuzelonde for awhile. It should be an interesting run...

J

[Mel]

More interesting to me is what MSN is going to do with the new, more irrelevant results, since without MSN L$ may just as well pack up and go home.

MSNs new search now in beta (http://www.beta.search.msn) seems to me to place less reliance in LS results.

For the search term search engine optimization the beta search returns 188 L$ directory results, where the normal search returns 289 L$ results.

For the term search engine optimization guide beta returns only one L$ result before displaying Inktomi results, where the regular search returns 8 L$ results.

If this trend continues in other search terms it would seem to mean far fewer clicks for L$ listings and more for Ink.

Check it out for yourselves, and tell me what you think.

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums LookDummy! :hi:

Thanks for your inciteful and informative remarks. :)

[Mel]

Wondered why those guys at yahoo are so hot on L$ so did a bit of lookup on L$.

They lost half their assets in 2001 ($96 million) , lost something like $0.15 per share on 2001 operations and are projecting a loss of one cent per share this year.

Not the kind of company I want to invest in.

[ihelpyou]

Good points Mel. I did some searches on that msn beta thing and found what you did. I tell ya, Google must be sitting back with big o'l smiles right now. I hate to see Google gaining more of the market than they already have, but other engines just don't seem to get it.

Hopefully, newcomers can see the mistakes being made and adjust accordingly to not make the same ones.

[Lance]

More fuel for the LS bonfire:

I've been down on LookSmart for a while now. This latest bit just cements my resolve to never work with them again. Why do I dislike them?

I'm running a LookListings account for a client now. It was painful to set up, the account rep didn't understand how the products worked, their reporting system was/is a joke, etc. But I worked through that, completely revamping the campaign and renegotiating pricing after the initial launch to make it deliver a good ROI. When I went to renew last month, we agreed on a price, they sent me an IO, I signed and sent it back... and then they reneged on the pricing, claiming they made a mistake. All of this was after I had told the client the campagn was a go. They eventually relented and agreed to honor the pricing for 3 months (we initially signed a 12 month IO), but the damage was done with the client.

I just can't see LS making it in the long term. My guess is they'll burn through their pile of funny money in another year or so and then flame out. Don't count on seeing me at the funeral.

[Advisor]

Welcome, Lance!

Betcha there are hundreds of similar stories out there. Each one more amazing than the next. Hopefully you were able to work things out with your client.

Jill

[MsSearch]

:hi: Lance and welcome to the forums....

I am a firm believer in 'what goes around, comes around'...so it is only a matter of time til looksmart disappears and burns in SE h-ll....

[pageoneresults]

http://www.traffick.com/article.asp?aID=53

[tlacaelel]

ActDumb
3 Star Member

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1Hi ActDumb :hi:

I just wanted to take this opportunity to give credit where it is due. It was the post from ActDumb that initiated this thread. That post, including his invention of ActDumb.com, inspired me to register the domain actdumb.com, and create a rudely satirical site to express all of our frustrations about this current situation, as well as to offer the most up-to-date links to more meaningful information on the controversy.

So thanks ActDumb. It was your post that inspired www.actdumb.com (http://www.actdumb.com) :thebomb:

I encourage anyone to check out the site, I've got links to some new industry articles on the topic, and links to all of the forums that I've found having LookSmart CPC coverage.

The following is my opinion, you should decide for yourself:

(1) Don't activate your CPC account. (You have until July 10 to decide what to do. That's 10 weeks, plenty of time to watch what happens and consider your options). Let LookSmart see an incredibly low activation rate.

(2) Don't cancel your listings. Why waste your time doing that? It would eliminate any further options you might have, after all LookSmart may decide to backtrack (I doubt it). Besides, LookSmart has said they will gladly remove all your (existing paid-up) non-activated listings for you (after July 11). Isn't that nice of them?

(3) Call L$. Email L$. Make them spend a lot time explaining their actions. Complain about them to the BBB. Contact your state's AG if you feel you have been defrauded (esp. you recent listings buyers). Post your experiences here on this and other forums. Speak up and speak out :1:

And (4) Don't sign up any new LookSmart listings for your customers. Let L$ see their new listings rate drop to a 3-year low and stay there. Somehow they have to learn the lesson that like any company,

LookSmart should earn their customer's continue business, not force it with compulsory, expensive, and incompatible product upgrades. :steaming:

[Advisor]

Ya better watch out, tlacaelel, ActDumb may just go out and sue your butt for stealing their name!

J

[ActDumb]

Strong Growth in Listings; Earnings Beat Our Expectations

SAN FRANCISCO, April 29, 2002 – ActDumb (Nasdaq: DUMB; ASX: DUM), once a global leader in search targeted marketing, today announced financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2002.

Financial Highlights:

Revenue Grows to $20M: First quarter 2002 revenue totaled $20.1 million, up from revenue of $19.0 million in the fourth quarter 2001. Revenue increased despite the expected seasonal downturn and was above expectations even though in the same season in 2001 revenue was $28.0 million. Go figure.

Listings Revenue Up!

Paid Clicks Increase!

Small Business Revenue Increases!

"Gosh, we are doing well" said Elliot, spokesman on Earth for ET, our chairman and CEO, who was on a conference call at the time. Or was he phoning home?

Business Strategy and Highlights

“We are intensely focused on three growth drivers for ActDumb: retaining distribution, adding more paid listings to the database and optimizing the relevance of existing listings” said ET. He went on "Unfortunately the latter two are mutually exclusive, but cash wins because we need to pay for retained distribution. Simple."

“Our financial results demonstrate that we are extremely dependent on our customers for survival. We are desperate that by appealing to our customers’ better judgement and not treating them like idiots, we will stay in business just a little while longer. Maybe something's just around the corner that will save us, who knows!”

Improving Distribution

ActDumb expanded its relationship with AdSpace to continue to provide search results on Dogturd and MetADrawler, and, in addition, to distribute ActDumb results to AdSpace’s meta-search product soon to launch on both Dull (www.dull.com) and Duller (www.duller.com), their massively unpopular engines. Does this improve distribution? Not really, but it may improves clicks.

ActDumb acquired PrizeNut, a next-generation search engine technology that generates highly relevant Internet search results. We cannot have too much competition in the market delivering relevant results so we thought we would take this one out while we could still afford it. ActDumb has begun dismantling PrizeNut's technology. This dismantling is scheduled to be completed during the third quarter 2002.

Adding Paid Listings

In the first quarter 2002, ActDumb added more than 80 new large online merchants and direct marketers as advertisers.

During the quarter, more than 13,000 small business customers paid to be listed in ActDumb’s directory for a one-time fee, increasing the total number of paid listings to 90,000. With the April launch of Big Business Prices ActDumb will now completely piss off those 90,000 but since our original model doesn't require them to pay us any more money, that doesn't matter. Maybe some of them will be daft enough to pay us something, which is more than we would have got out of them. The new product is designed for advertisers without the uncertainty and overhead of participating in a real-time auction, but with the uncertainty and overhead of not knowing the search terms we are targetting them for. Big Business Prices enables ActDumb to charge small businesses more for something they had already paid for. ActDumb anticipates small business revenues to decline in Q2 but then we don't really expect to be around by Q3 so what the heck?
“To date, the model we've always told you was great in the past had to acquire 10,000 new small business customers per quarter just to generate flat small business revenues,” said Elliot. “With this new product, that is great by the way, our customer base will at best just go away angry, at worst sue our butts off.”

Improving Relevance

Voted CNUT's Editor's Choice for "Up and Coming Search Engines" in December 2001, PrizeNut is a patent-pending next-generation search engine technology that combines toffee analysis with hazelnut clustering. The large scale rendering of the technology into a gigantic ActDumb cash register will result in advertisements masquerading as search results for users of ActDumb’s distribution network. More cash not only improves our bank balance, but it also improves our bank balance and the balance in our bank.

Conference Call
ActDumb will hold a conference call today, May 1, 2002, to discuss its first quarter results at 6:00 p.m. ET (8:00 a.m. Australian ET, April 30, 2002). For more information about the call, please contact ET at +1E6 LIGHTYEARS.

About ActDumb

ActDumb used to help businesses of all sizes generate cost-effective sales leads. Now we're just trying to stay afloat. Please help us all you can.

[tlacaelel]

ActDumb used to help businesses of all sizes generate cost-effective sales leads. Now we're just trying to stay afloat. Please help us all you can.Great writing Actdumb. Biting satire! I hope you do that for a living.

Congrats on a super post. Thanks again for conceiving Actdumb.com, which led me to build ... Actdumb.com. I hope you've checked out the banner page at Actdumb. I may pick a few new award-winning marketing slogans from your post.

Thanks again! You are a great writer!

--david, aka tlacaelel
Actdumb.com webjanitor

Latest Actdumb haiku:Once Near Death
Eluded Delisting
Now This Mess

[Kal]

Originally posted by ActDumb
Strong Growth in Listings; Earnings Beat Our Expectations
OMG! :green: :green: I just had to wipe tears of laughter from my eyes. PrizeNut & DogTurd LOL! You've missed your true calling "ActDumb" ;) That deserves a link from my next newsletter. Gonna send it to Danny too. Thanks for the laughs.

[ActDumb]

We forgot to mention that we've also hired 4090 little old ladies and high school girls to enhance your clickthrough rate by steadily clicking on your listings as fast as they can. But don't worry...the clicks won't show up in your server logs, just your ActDumb account.

We urge you to activate your ActDumb listings as soon as possible so as not to miss out on this highly relevant traffic.

ActDumb

[Climber]

LOL LOL at least we get some humor out of this mess.

John

[USACARAUDIO]

I just did the sign-up for this Look Smart today but it told me that my upgrade was for free they just needed the card for verification...they also told me that my previous information had never worked because I did not have any keywords...when I got in I put in 10 keywords. I have my email they sent to me today and it says nothing about paying for anything rather that it was a free listing for the next 20 months because I was a previous subscriber. Since I paid with a credit card I am sure I wont have too many problems reversing the charges but I am wondering if my situation is any different than what you are speaking of... I did see where you could pay for the 49.99 thing but I did not go there, I just went into my account and added good keywords. It seems to me to be much like Google Adworks where you pay for a certain amount of clicks and once your done with credits you buy more or not...I gave them $1000 and my money was gone in 4 days...so is it best to use good keywords or not? I get 5,000 different visitors a day to my website but with the increasing amount of competitive websites that seems to be an issue we are dealing with too. Please email with any insuight into my questions you have at m_alexander@usacaraudio.com

Dear Valued Customer:

On April 11, we emailed you to announce the launch of Small Business Listings. Now we'd like to clarify a few points raised in that message.

When we migrated your listings to this new, improved product at no charge, we also started giving you a Free Monthly Account Credit of $15 per listing. Your listings are already using these free clicks. However, unless you act soon, this Free Monthly Account Credit will end after your 3rd month in the program.

We urge you to take advantage of this offer to extend your Free Monthly Account Credit to 20 months -- giving you $300 in free clicks for each listing currently in your account. To receive this offer you must activate your LookSmart account.

Activation is absolutely free -- There is NO charge and NO obligation.
Once you activate you can cancel at any time and pay nothing.

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums USA! :hi:

1000 bucks in 4 days? Sheesh, I hope you are loaded with money then. Hope it works for you but it certainly would not work for me. You are talking about $8000 per month?

I ain't givin LS a dime more of my money.

[ActDumb]

AUSTRALIA, May 8, 2002 - ActDumb CEO Australia, Damien "666" Thorn, agreed to an exclusive interview with "Enemy SEO Company" (ESEOC).

Below is a transcript of that interview.

(ESEOC) = Enemy SEO Company, (DT) = Damien "666" Thorn

Question 1 (ESEOC) - Why did ActDumb Ltd decide to change ActDumb.com from a Paid Directory to a Pay Per Click model?

(DT) Our customers told us to.

(ESEOC) What, people actually asked you to start charging them for clicks they were getting for free?

(DT) No, not those customers you idiot! I meant our distribution partners. OK, so they're not our customers any more, they're our suppliers. But they used to pay us, you know. Now we pay them and we need cash to do it. Hence the Big Business Listings program.

With the old model, the users’ need for a relevant search result and the webmasters’ desire to provide relevant search results were perfectly aligned.

With the new model, the distribution partners' need for revenue is taken care of. That's all that matters for the foreseeable future. Without it, we're history.

Question 2 (ESEOC) - Why did ActDumb Ltd decide to force their customers to rollover into the new model instead of grand fathering their listings?

(DT) We need the money to pay our distribution partners. They want to be paid on a PPC basis. We can't do that if we're not also charging on a PPC basis.

Question 3 (ESEOC) - Why wasn't the model introduced for ActDumb.com.au? Did local consumer protection laws or other legal issues prevent this?

(DT) They probably would, yes. We haven't checked it formally because, at the moment, our local distributors haven't been putting the screw on us like the US distributors.

Question 4 (ESEOC) - If there was no move to a PPC model, why did ActDumb Australia see the need to increase the paid submission fee and introduce an annual fee here?

(DT) We’ve always intended to move to an annual fee, and think that’s a perfectly reasonable basis for directory inclusion. And we need the money.

Question 5 (ESEOC) - Under the revised DumbListings submission model for ActDumb.com.au, is there a limit to the number of sites and/or URL's you can submit?

(DT) Yes, you can list up to 3 URL’s from the same domain via this process.

Question 6 (ESEOC) - Looking at your new DumbListings TOS for ActDumb.com.au, it appears the only way to request a change or update a listing is by re-submitting and paying an additional AUD 440 for a complete review. How do you expect small businesses to afford this?

(DT) Well spotted! Would you like a job? We will introduce a new product shortly to allow small businesses to pay us to make our results more relevant. We should have full details on this product in the next week or so. I'm just doodling it on the back of an envelope as we speak.

Question 7 (ESEOC) - Will ActDumb Australia be switching to a similar PPC model in the near future? If so, can you guarantee existing customers of ActDumb.com.au won't be forced to rollover like those of ActDumb.com?

(DT) Given the possible legal ramifications and the fact that the demand is less pressing - see question 3 above - we won’t be moving to a CPC model for SMEs. If we see a way past the legal loopholes, and particularly if our distribution partners demand it, sure we'll do it.

Question 8 (ESEOC) - Because of the recent outrage caused by ActDumb.com's move, many Australian and New Zealand customers of ActDumb Australia feel that ActDumb.com.au is tarred with the same brush and are hesitant to remain as customers. What do you say to them?

(DT) Please stay with us. We need the money. We promise we won't screw you over unless we really have to.

Question 9 (ESEOC) - How sustainable is it to operate completely different business models in various countries in a global market? How do you expect SEOs and resellers to explain the different ActDumb search models and recommend competing services?

(DT) It’s pretty reasonable business practice to adapt your products to the local market, especially when the laws in those markets allow different things and your partners in those markets demand different things. SEOs - what are they?

Question 10 (ESEOC) - For a long time now, ActDumb Australia has claimed to reach 66% of the Australian search market via various partnerships. Given the changes to the industry, is this figure still accurate?

(DT) I could use statistics to prove anything I wanted to. But it’s pretty simple. If you wanted Australian traffic, inclusion in the ActDumb directory was once essential. As for the future, who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. Better, probably.

Question 11 (ESEOC) - Given all the negative feedback they're currently receiving from existing customers, do you think ActDumb Ltd should have handled the model merge differently?

(DT) We had two choices: either (a) admit we had a failed business model and hope that our customers would understand and help us through it, or (b) pretend we had been planning this all along and try to carry it off as an "upgrade". We did not want to insult the intelligence of our customers so we chose to be as up-front and honest as possible.

Question 12 (ESEOC) - ActDumb Australia recently announced a deal with Yodel! Australia & NZ to provide "pay-per-position" search results to Yodel users. What are the benefits of the deal for ActDumb Australia customers and is the deal with Yodel ActDumb Australia's way of breaking into the Pay Per Click market here?

(DT) The product has a very simple benefit - more short-term cash for us. Our customers can give it a try and see if it works for them. It either will or it won't.

-------------

ActDumb thanks ESEOC for taking the time to listen to our spin, and sincerely hopes this interview sheds some light on our new business model. Please activate your accounts today!

ActDumb Reverse Spin Marketing Department

[tlacaelel]

:cool: Cool, very cool.

Of course, Actdumb.com (http://www.actdumb.com) has been updated to reflect the new interview hot-off-the-presses.

We should have full details on this product in the next week or so. I'm just doodling it on the back of an envelope as we speak.I don't think that ActDumb has fully implemented the Envelope Quality Planning Process. They are still preparing for their ISO 15000 assessment. I imagine that their envelope creativity should improve considerably in future.


:hi: ActDumb: How about having some fun with yesterday's latest release: L$ Expands Strategic Relationship With InfoSpace, Bringing Its Search Results to Excite and Webcrawler (http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/pr/?story=/news/stories/pr/20020507/SFTU052.htm&symbol=LOOK) (Tue May 07, 2002)

It seems like monumental news to me, and would serve as excellent fodder for your PR cannon. Over on Y!Fin mymymyword said in post #30234: Five years ago signing partnership agreements with WebCrawler and Excite would have been huge. Today that is about as important as getting an appointment with Michael Dukakis.I'm sure you can get some excellent mileage with this one!

- - -

New Actdumb slogan: Our Implementation Of Secondary Stupidity Will Optimize Irrelevance And Minimize Revenue.

- - -

Alternate: Under Our New "Paid Exclusion" Model, First You Pay Us, And Then We Exclude You.

- - -

Thanks for the fun! :cheers:

Looking forward to more. And credit is cheerfully acknowledged for your conception of ActDumb.com, which led to the real ActDumb.com. Or vice versa.

[Kal]

ESEOC? Oh My. :green:

[Kal]

Originally posted by USACARAUDIO
I just did the sign-up for this Look Smart today but it told me that my upgrade was for free they just needed the card for verification... Since I paid with a credit card I am sure I wont have too many problems reversing the charges but I am wondering if my situation is any different than what you are speaking of...

Hi USACARAUDIO :hi: and welcome. The "upgrade" you refer to is what existing sites in the Looksmart.com directory receive out of this new PPC model. Basically if you had paid to be listed in LookSmart before the change over, you are entitled to 100 "free" clicks per month for the next 20 months. To activate your free clicks, you are required to enter your credit card details - as you did so correctly. Some people are finding that not activating their site results in LookSmart activating it anyway.

As long as you don't increase your monthly budget above your free click limit ($15 per listing), your card won't be charged, apparently. All the info is on the Looksmart.com site. Not sure about the free keywords thing - as far as I know you are only entitled to those if you were a previous Site Promote customer or if you pay extra. Regardless, many are finding their free clicks are used up within a few days, so it's up to you if you think it's viable for your site. Hope this helps.

[Advisor]

I've heard from others who have successfully reversed the charges on their credit card if they had recently submitted under the old rules.

Personally, I'm waiting for a reply to my last email. Nothing yet. May have to go the credit card route after all.

Nice interview, ActDumb!

Jill

[ActDumb]

ActDumb Expands Strategic Relationship With SpaceCadet,
Bringing Its Search Results to Exuberance and Webtrawler

ActDumb's Search Results, Found Within SpaceCadet's Next Generation Meta-Search Product (not to be confused with Star Trek Next Generation), Launches Today at Exuberance.com and WebTrawler.com

SAN FRANCISCO and BELLEVUE, Wash., May 7 /PRNewsfire-SecondCall/ -- ActDumb (Nasdaq: DUMB; ASX: DUM), a global leader in screwing their customers, and SpaceCadet, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPACEY - news), a provider of wireless and Internet software and application services, today announced that they have extended and expanded their search relationship.

Under the agreement, ActDumb pay-per-click ads will now appear on SpaceCadet's newly-launched, Star Trek next generation, meta-search product found at Exuberance (www.exuberance.com) and WebTrawler
(www.webtrawler.com). Exuberance was one of the leading personalization portals on the Internet (about 5 years ago), offering world-class content and functionality from more than 75 useless sources with more than 14 million monthly
in bills.

Additionally, ActDumb will continue to provide results for SpaceCadet's other meta-search solutions, which include DoggyDoo (www.doggydoo.com) and MetaTrawler (www.metatrawler.com). SpaceCadet's proprietary
meta-search technology allows users to find irrelevant results from multiple spamgines at once, really, really fast.

"ActDumb is pleased to expand its relationship with SpaceCadet by playing a significant role in the new search product that is served on Exuberance and WebCrawler," said Scott Stantheman senior vice president of business screwups for ActDumb. "ActDumb will meet an immediate need for irrelevant search results and we look forward getting paid at some point for these."

"ActDumb's search listings produce highly irrelevant results for users of our spam products, including the Star Trek next generation engine launched at Exuberance and WebCrawler," said Yogi Bear, SpaceCadet executive vice president, wireline and broadband. "We are thrilled to continue to build our longstanding relationship with ActDumb, as its really bad business model fits right in with ours."

About ActDumb

ActDumb screws businesses of all sizes by generating sale leads for inappropriate terms. ActDumb's very expensive paid listings enable us to screw 77 percent* or nearly four out of five U.S. Internet users. ActDumb's joint venture with BT, will not effect listings in the U.K. and Japan...yet. ActDumb is based in San Francisco, California, with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Montreal, London, Melbourne and Sydney, until we can't afford it any more and have to close up a few of those shops.

About SpaceCadet, Inc.

SpaceCadet, Inc. buys up and partners with bankrupt and nearly bankrupt dumbass companies, while watching old reruns of Star Trek, the Next Generation. SpaceCadet corporate information can be found at www.SpaceCadetinc.com.

SOURCE: ActDumb, Ltd.

[tlacaelel]

:hi: Thanks ActDumb!

Great PR :D as we've come to expect from you!

Actdumb.com (http://www.actdumb.com) has been updated with your latest release! Keep 'em coming!

- - -

Selected ActDumb slogan: Based On Feedback From Our CFO, We've Launched This New Product.

[ihelpyou]

LOL Way to go ActDumb! :cool:

[kneelsit]

Really Great posts ActDumb :D :D

Have you thought about sending a selection of your best to the Wall Street Journal ?

[ActDumb]

Since you all seem to be so interested in our Management Team, here are a few bios of our senior management team. More to follow once they send them to us.

Ewen Thorpely, Cofounder, Chairman and Chief Extortion Officer

Before founding ActDumb in October 1995, Ewen was a consultant at Monkeys R Us, the global consulting firm, in its New York, Kuala Lumpur and Melbourne offices. He groomed clients in the jungles, rainforests, and zoos and was the dominant male in the global online fraud group. Ewen holds degrees in vine swinging from the University of Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

Jonas Kluckerman, Chief Larceny Officer

Kluckerman joined ActDumb's San Francisco team as director of e-Extortion in March 1999 and later headed the Company's revenue losing business models. Kluckerman oversaw the advertising operations group and forced all other groups within the company to do his bidding, before becoming chief larceny officer for ActDumb Australia in July 2000.

While CEO for ActDumb Australia, Kluckerman stole revenues from
the Company's customers to gain over 35 percent of total revenues over a 12-month period, while shredding the books, and moving the business strongly toward bankruptcy and doubling losses. He was appointed chief larceny officer for ActDumb in July 2001.

Prior to joining ActDumb, Kluckerman was a principal at Monkeys R US Too. Kluckerman graduated from Princess Diana University with high honors and earned B.S. in marketing speak.

[WebSavvy]

ROTFLMAO!!! :green: Ewen holds degrees in vine swinging from the University of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. :green:


This one gets a 2 :thumb: :thumb: 's UP!

[texas4qld]

Hi Doug and clan

I noticed some references on this site to me, and it's been awhile since I have posted.
There still seems to be alot of confusion on this board about where this is all going.
I have been trying to find a link or post on this board about a so called "class action", but cant find it as yet.
I have been involved in a class action myself, and would be interested to see the link if you could provide it ?

There is one thing I can tell you, by changing someones name or company name, does not relieve you from the responcibility of a word called "slander" when the content of the meaning is evident.
e.g. if I say Michael Slackson is a doing the wrong thing with children (on a forum that discusses a rock star) I am still guilty of slander, such as a paste of the comment below.


#About ActDumb

ActDumb screws businesses of all sizes by generating sale leads for inappropriate terms. ActDumb's very expensive paid listings enable us to screw 77 percent* or nearly four out of five U.S. Internet users. ActDumb's joint venture with BT, will not effect listings in the U.K. and Japan...yet. ActDumb is based in San Francisco, California, with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Montreal, London, Melbourne and Sydney, until we can't afford it any more and have to close up a few of those shops.

About SpaceCadet, Inc.

SpaceCadet, Inc. buys up and partners with bankrupt and nearly bankrupt dumbass companies, while watching old reruns of Star Trek, the Next Generation. SpaceCadet corporate information can be found at www.SpaceCadetinc.com. #

I also see that an investor is called a "chookfart" gripping and very classy stuff !

The sediment on this entire thread seems to be "force Looksmart into submission", please correct me if I'm wrong ?

I was attacked on the Yahoo forum by a bunch of you guys the other day, and in those posts many unthruths were posted.
The way these guys were operating was "take some truth and mix it with some B/S" and hope no one notices.

I find it hard to believe that all of these posts were for real.
I'm happy to express my views, and can take flack as well as the next guy.
But if you want a debate then keep it real, I see another post on here saying Looksmart have projected a .01 eps loss for the year, really ?
So now this forum is discussing finacials, and not accurate ones at that....try .10c esp profit.

So it's clear what peoples intentions on this forum are "shoot down anyone that posts fact" and pat anyone on the back that chooses to denergrade and/or slander looksmart, why don't you use Evan Thornleys real name and take any doubt out of the equation ??

Now if you want me to paste a heap of slanderous lies from the Y board on here I will.
But my suggestion would be stick with what you know, and the fact is your still not sure whats going on.

Take this post how you will, I have no problems with people that post facts, but dont mix it with B/S.

Tex.
8)

[ihelpyou]

hey tex, there ain't a whole of bs in here, that's for sure. What Looksmart did to all of us is very well known across the internet. NO secret there at all. Why is that bs? It ain't.

But I do see lots of bs on that yahoo forum. Oh yes, lots of it.

You can post here whenever you like. No one here has any problems with that. As far as the ActDumb saga, nothing wrong with that either as it gives all of us very good s h i t s and giggles. :) Besides, if anyone wishes me to take it down, I will. Until that time, I think it's funny.

No business that I know of has ever treated it's customers the way Looksmart has. Not a one. Never. Period.

[texas4qld]

Thanks Doug,

Did you find that "class action" link for me, or was I misinformed.

Tex.:cheers:

[ihelpyou]

I'm in private with that with many others. Don't know if it is in here or not.

[Advisor]

I would imagine that the ActDumb stuff is strictly satire and would be protected as free speech. Anything else that has been said here, that I've noticed has simply been the facts as LookSmart has stated themselves. We can't help it if what they did was so outrageous as to come across as terrible, perhaps criminal, etc., in my opinion, of course. Obviously you think it sounds pretty bad too. Cuz it is! It's so freakin' unbelievable, that I'm sure most people would never believe it. But the true facts are that they dug their own grave. We're simply posting the facts (aside from the ActDumb satire, of course).

As to a class action suit...yeah right, do you really think anyone is dumb enough to tip you (LookSmart) off about the points that will be taken up in it when it gets moving full force. Obviously, the attorneys handling things warned everyone of that from the start. So, sorry Tex, your not on the list of people that are receiving info on it.

Jill

[texas4qld]

Hi Jill

Thats total hogwash, theres a big difference between satire and slander.
And as far as a class action "angle" thats hogwash as well.
In all cases a class action is circulated by the lawyer using a letter or email, and the reasons are stated.

Once again, misinformed hogwash.
If you feel that slandering someone is funny or within this forums rights, think again.

As for the so called "trap" you think I'm setting, spare me your paranoia, nothing in a class action is confidential, your dreaming or bluffing, possibly both.

Anyway, all of this stuff is treading an awfully thin line.
Looksmart has provided you with an option that have two choices, take it or leave it.

And next time I want your opinion I'll ask for it, my question was directed to Doug, at least his posts right or wrong, have some sort of balance.

Tex.:cool:

[Advisor]

If you don't want the opinion of forum members, then don't post in the open forums. There is a private message function where you can discuss things privately with Doug. Would you like me to tell you step-by-step how to use it? It's really rather simple.

BTW, Tex, have you ever watched Saturday Night Live? Take for instance last night when they were making fun of President Bush. They said that some foreign head of state had given him a book to read about their situation, and that George had finished coloring it in one day. :green: Is that slander? No, it's satire. And it's free speech. There was a whole lot more where that came from too.

And yes, I think the ActDumb posts are HUGELY funny and satiricle. There's a whole site devoted to that kind of satire...can't think of it's name right now, but I never laughed so hard when reading it. Oh yeah, I think it's SatireWire.com.

Now what f*ckedcompany.com does seems to border closer to slander to me, and as far as I know, no one has successfully been able to stop them.

What's at the ActDumb site and posted in this very thread has nothing whatsoever to do with slander. Go ask your attorney.

Jill

[Advisor]

Looksmart has provided you with an option that have two choices, take it or leave it.Wrong, wrong, wrong! LookSmart took my money for something they had no intention of giving me. They knew when they took my money two hours before they sent that first email, that they would not be able give me what I paid for, and they took it anyway, and refuse to give it back. When they give me that money back, then I will "leave it" as you suggest.

Jill

[Advisor]

Here's some similar kind of satire: PHILIP MORRIS TO CHANGE NAME TO ALTRIA;LUNG CANCER TO CHANGE NAME TO PHILIP MORRIS (http://www.satirewire.com/news/0111/altria.shtml) And they even use the REAL names. Could Philip Morris sue (and win) for slander? Of course not. It's satire. :rolleyes:

Jill

[texas4qld]

Thanks again Jill

One thing I know about Lawyers is, they will tell you you have a case and take your money.

See how you go getting it back off the lawyer when you don't win ?

And also see who has to pay the other sides legal costs.

Lawyers love angry people, because they will part with lots of money, without considering the outcome.

And satire or slander on political figures, is the same word, he can't sue the masses, but he sure as hell can sue a publication.

So get your facts straight, and muzzel that foul mouth of yours.

Tex.:eek:

[Advisor]

Of course, now that I think of it...if people are actually confused into thinking that the real ET holds degrees in vine swinging from the University of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, then perhaps it really IS slander. :eek:

J

[LookDummy]

Hey Tex,
I've seen other companies partnerships end with lesser negative posting on the internet. I see you sold at $3.40 and now have bought back in, Get out!!! this Turkey is about to EXPLODE!!! Tex really, do you buy stock and than become a crusader for the Paper? Your to smart to be so simple. I really think there's more behind Tex than a day trader?
LookSmart decided to take on the Largest group of people that are the internet (Webmasters and SEOs) not to BRIGHT!!
LookSmart is out numbered by about 10,000 to 1 !!!
(not a good bet) :cheers:

[Advisor]

You will never muzzle my foul mouth!

[Advisor]

Have you ever heard of attorneys who work on a contingency basis, Tex, old boy?

Or how about someone who just happens to be married to a very conservative attorney who NEVER thinks there's good reasons for suing companies. He usually says, nope, can't do it, it's in the contract. Not this time. He wholeheartedly believes there's a HUGE case that would be easily won in this circumstance. It's really a no-brainer, actually. Which is probably why LS thought of the whole plan. No brains.

Jill

[texas4qld]

Jill

Yes I have heard of Lawyers that will take on a case without cash up front.
Ask them if you pay or if they pay when they don't win the case ?

The reason this law is in place is so there is a deterent for any Joe that wants to take someone to court.
They will all tell you that you have a good case, because it costs them squat, and hope for an out of court settlement.

How do I know this, because I have suckers try it on me every week, and guess what my lawyer says ?
The exact opposite of what their lawyer says, funny that isn't it.




:thebomb:

[ihelpyou]

Yep. Free speech is free speech and satire is satire. Saturday Nite Live is a good example of it.

Jill's example of coughing up $300 bucks 2 hours beforehand, thinking she was getting one thing, but ending up getting something ENTIRELY different?

What do you think of that Tex?

[Advisor]

Whatever you say, Tex. This is an obvious open and shut case, so I'm not concerned. Just want my $299 back, that's all.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

They will all tell you that you have a good case, because it costs them squat, and hope for an out of court settlement.
Good call there Tex. Yep. Looksmart will HAVE to settle out of court. They will have NO choice. :)

[Phoenix]

May I suggest getting a dictionary and looking up the difference between slander and libel? Using the wrong term when you are implying knowledge about something does nothing other than to make you look ignorant of what you are discussing.

As for satire vs. libel, any public person or entity is not protected the same way a private individual is. Check out U.S. court case verdicts on this subject...you can find them online.

MB

[texas4qld]

Hi Lookdumby

You say.

#LookSmart decided to take on the Largest group of people that are the internet (Webmasters and SEOs) not to BRIGHT!!
LookSmart is out numbered by about 10,000 to 1 !!! #

Have a read of Looksmarts Q1 results, you get a mention about how much 10000 are worth.
Is it wrong for then to want to make a buck, and spare me the $299 bleet, I've heard enough on that subject...lol.
Also don't forget how you guys were showing your clients the way to fly under the radar, and get even more milage for their $.
Another sore point, another fact !!

I trade when I see fit, makes no sense to hold when I can see a correction coming.
As to my identity I'm sure Doug can trace my details ??

If you guys choose to leave looksmart, then so be it, their will be others only too happy to take your place.
The main reason you are now shooting looksmart is that you have advised your customers to go else where, and it doesn't make you look good if Looksart start kicking google or Overtures butt.

So I see where your coming from, but it could be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire !!.

:cheers:

[texas4qld]

O.k. guys

This has be an interesting chat.
Good luck with it all, I'll keep watching and make sure that the facts don't get washed away with the B/S.

Many thanks for letting me express my opinions.

:hi:

[tlacaelel]

texas4qld said:There is one thing I can tell you, by changing someones name or company name, does not relieve you from the responcibility (sic) of a word called "slander" when the content of the meaning is evident.tlacaelel, Actdumb.com creator, responds:

That is a very poorly defined statement which can only lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. You are making a representation about law and speech, but the statement itself demonstrates that you do not have a sufficient understanding of slander, libel, parody, satire, free speech, the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and the precedents in law for its application.

Slander - n. oral defamation

Libel - n. defamation in print or broadcast

I believe you mean libel. You should try for a better understanding of the legal terms, their significance, and their application in the context of First Amendment rights to Free Speech, and Court precedents with respect to parody, satire, consumer opinion, and editorial speech regarding public affairs, public figures and organizations.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/18.htmlIn Falwell the Court refused to recognize a distinction between permissible political satire and ''outrageous'' parodies ''doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most.''80 ''If it were possible by laying down a principled standard to separate the one from the other,'' the Court suggested, ''public discourse would probably suffer little or no harm. But we doubt that there is any such standard, and we are quite sure that the pejorative description 'outrageous' does not supply one.''81 Falwell can also be read as consistent with the hierarchical theory of interpretation; the offensive advertisement parody was protected as within ''the world of debate about public affairs,'' and was not ''governed by any exception to . . . general First Amendment principles.''82
When dealing with public affairs, public figures or organizations, the principal legal risk to a speaker of parody, satirical criticism, opinion or editorial, is how their representations are understood by the viewer, reader, or listener (observer). When representations are made -- especially sensational or outrageous ones -- which could, in the reasonable mind of the observer, be misunderstood as factual or misconstrued as representing the organization in question, then that organization may in fact be able to prove injury to its reputation, worth, business, etc and win an injunction against further such speech and possibly win damages for injury. But that is very difficult to prove, especially the more outrageous, ridiculously satirical, and sensational those opinions might be, and more so still when the speaker has clearly defined and carefully declared the satirical or editorial opinion nature of their speech.

- - -

Others on this forum, or other forums, or the Yahoo!Finance board, may carelessly bandy about speculative assertions which could be unclear as to whether they are factual declarations or wildly excited personal opinion, and which directly or indirectly refer to LookSmart, but I am not one of them. I try to be more thoughtful in my choice of words.

The content and presentation of Actdumb.com is 100% protected free speech. I clearly identify that the site is parody, satire, opinion and editorial and that the content in no way can be assumed to be meaningful, objectively factual or complete. I clearly identify that the site is not associated with LookSmart, Ltd. I declare their trademarks and those of others. The Actdumb.com site exists for entertainment and amusement and is completely non-commercial. There is an extremely low chance that someone could misunderstand the purpose of the site. It revels in ridiculous satire. Only a moron could misinterpret the satire and parody and take it seriously.

There is a very, very low probability that LookSmart could win a lawsuit over Actdumb.com. They are welcome to attempt action if they feel the need to do so, but that road runs both ways, and you never can know exactly where it will take you.

- - -

All that said, even though you did not evince a clear understanding of what speech would likely enjoy full protection under the law, you are still correct in asserting that there are serious risks of libel for persons on forums, here and elsewhere, including Y!Finance, when those persons make very serious representations which could potentially be damaging to LookSmart, and which could constitute libel. Those individuals are exposing themselves to elevated risk, if they make wild assertions (class action possibilities, financial difficulties, decline in business, etc) without specifying whether they are stating factual knowledge or personal opinion, truthful declaration or satirical humor. They should certainly be careful in making their statements.

Before making chilling assertions that negative speech about LookSmart be reigned in, dampened, shut down, suppressed, or otherwise discontinued, perhaps you had ought develop a clearer understanding of the field of free speech, and its boundaries with respect to libel and slander.

Very truly,

David E. Huddleston
Cincinnati, Ohio

Various forums ID: tlacaelel
Actdumb.com webjanitor, and proud of it.

[Phoenix]

Very nice, tlacaelel. That was the direction I was going with my last post, but you said it much better and much more thoroughly.

MB

[Advisor]

Thank you for clearing that up, David. Which is basically what I meant in a tongue and cheek way when I said: Of course, now that I think of it...if people are actually confused into thinking that the real ET holds degrees in vine swinging from the University of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, then perhaps it really IS slander. I suppose I should have said libel, however, I'm sure I've heard before that the definition of slander can sometimes apply to things in writing. I don't remember exactly what it was I'm thinking of, and perhaps I just misinterpretted something.

The other part of what you said, also is nice to hear. The part about editorial. When I write about LS, I tell the facts at what they did, then express my editorialized opinion. It's always very clear that's what I'm doing.

The thing with this whole situation that's so interesting is that the people who are not being very kind to looksmart, are simply stating the facts of what they consider to be outrageous behavior on looksmart's part. I personally believe it's outrageous to take someone's money for something and then not provide, but try to get even more money from them. Maybe others don't. But I won't stop saying what I think about it, especially if it helps clarify things in other people's minds.

I've said it a million times, and will say it again. It's all about ethics, honesty and trust. Some of us have it, some of us don't. People out there in Internet land are smart enough to figure out the ones that do and the ones that don't. And eventually the courts, or the police, or whomever, will straighten things out in the legal sense if necessary.

Hate us all you want, Tex. It's your people/company/stock/friends/whatever that have made their bed by choosing greed over good business sense (in my opinion, of course).

Jill

[Advisor]

So, here's a weird "coincidence" for you. I'm posting over at the finance boards at Yahoo, and suddenly my reply links won't work! I tried it with both IE and Netscape, and just keep getting a 404 error! I can still view the lists of messages, but can't reply! I sure hope that it's just a glitch and I'm not somehow cut off. That would be totally weird. Gonna keep trying, as I have to answer their idiotic statements. It's not even fun because what they say never makes sense...it's really too easy...

Jill

Well, I guess I'm being censored. Can't post any posts over there, with either of my screen names. Yet it seems that other people are still posting fine...

[WebSavvy]

Tex,

Here's the link to the class action law suit against LookSmart that you don't seem to believe exists:

http://classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=907

[nitewing2]

This is terrible!!!!!!!

They are roasting Doug on "those" boards this morning..........

http://messages.yahoo.com/?action=q&board=LOOK


Ann

[ihelpyou]

I truly don't care. I am enjoying all the links they are posting. They are really helping pages out big-time. I am also enjoying the many hits from Yahoo right now. LOL :cool:

I have to say though, that talking about my daughter like that is certainly not cool at all. That boy/girl is scum.

[WebSavvy]

It's truly amazing. Half of them can't spell or let alone make a complete sentence and yet they try to attempt to show the world they have intelligence. Taking pot shots at Doug's daughter is not a way to validate your intelligence boys. My how grown up they must feel.

I don't however fault them for their lack of intelligence. I fault their parents, as they should have known that procreating with a blood relative can have disastrous results. Just LOOK at them and you shall see the proof.

[nitewing2]

Sorry for butting in but I read that about your kid and just freaked!

Decent people, angry or not, young or old, do NOT attack a persons children....

Unfreakin' believable!

Ann

Huummm, it must be all the filth that got them such a high page rank for that place?????

Can't figure it out.....unless they hired a, horrors,.....SEO!

[Advisor]

And I'm still banned from posting there it appears. Oh well. I wonder how they managed that? Seems my ip can't reach the reply page, doesn't even matter what id I'm on. Thought it was a glitch and I'd be fine this morning, but apparently, I'm being censored for telling the truth. Just as well, I'd probably say something I'd regret anyway.

Jill

[WebSavvy]

Jill, don't waste your breath on those blithering idiots.

[Advisor]

That's an old class action regarding the stockholders, isn't it?

Jill

[WebSavvy]

No, it's not old. Look at the filing date notation up at the top. It was barely 9 months ago. This suit is currently still active.

[Advisor]

Originally posted by savvy1
Jill, don't waste your breath on those blithering idiots. Yeah, reading there today, I'm kinda glad they banned me somehow!

There's no sense even trying to discuss things with people like that he obviously don't have one brain between them. Hard to believe there are really people like that in the world. It's a shame. If they don't want to hear the truth, I guess there's nothing any of us can do about it.

Jill

[Advisor]

Sorry, didn't mean old. Just that it didn't have to do with this new issue. I'm sure that one will be posted there soon. I was hoping that's what that link was!

BTW, Dougie, thanks for the pump and dump yesterday...LOL :green:

Jill

[ihelpyou]

?? huh?

Is this something on Yahoo that I missed?

[Advisor]

LOL...yes, Dougie, apparently you've been pumping and dumping me and Mel too! Sure wish I could remember it though. I musta been drunk...oh well. Maybe we can do it again some time when I'm sober?

Jill

[Advisor]

Did you guys see the latest LS press release? It actually reads as if ActDumb wrote it! I don't think it even needs to be altered it's so funny as is! OMG, I can't stop laughing. They actually are trying to make the fact that you can rank high for irrelevant words a GOOD THING! hehehehehe They crack me up! Can't wait to see what they dream up next.

Jill

[WebSavvy]

ROTFLMAO! Yeah Jill, I read that same trash there too. And, here I thought Mel and I were such close friends! He never gave me the scoop on the threesome! LOL!

My God, what will those stooges come up with next?

[Mel]

I think I am beginning to understand the Pit on the Yahoo forum. I made the mistake of letting them get under my skin yesterday, but went back in today and aswered every one of thier posts with facts and logic.

They tried the vulgarity and and threats mode, they tried to drag up supporting evidence (Look$mart Press releases are definitive to them) but after a bit they went away.

I am not going to let this pump and dump shop alone, but I think they are going to have a hard time with any pumping until the Q2 results come out, and not then if then if the results are as I anticipate them to be.

I am particularly interested in what L$ are not saying in their PR they use vague phrases like "thousands are signing up" "8000 customers have signed up" and so on but never really give us a handle on how manyof these are old customers paying the ransom to keep their sites alive and how many are new, but 8000 customers in a month is way below the old figures.

BTW Doug more than one poster called them out for taking shots at your daughter.

[WebSavvy]

Good to see you have your logic back about you my friend. That's the Mel I have come to know, love, and respect.

You never sank to their level and that's something to be quite proud of! :D

[Mel]

Even funnier is that the idiots on Yahoo are citing that PR as the reason that LS is going to start climbing.

Me too Jill, next time I'll have to remember not to drink so much before I get into a pump and dump session.

[Advisor]

It's like being in Junior High all over again over there! Only they're not quite as smart as most 13 year olds, unfortunately.

I'm sooooo glad they banned me! Now I've got to set my browswer to not be allowed to read over there. Unfortunately, it's like watching Jerry Springer or Howard Stern. You're so revolted, yet you can't quite seem to change the channel!

Oh well, it's obvious that there's no signs of intelligent life over there, so whatever. Let them buy all the Look stock they want. I hope they buy thousands and thousands of it.

BTW, last night I emailed LS to get them to remove my credit card information from their site and to UNauthorize any charges they may decide to make when I'm not looking. I only activated my account because it appeared to be necessary at the time. Now I want it UNactivated. I have no faith or trust in that company...certainly not enough for them to have my credit card info on file. At least now, I have it in writing that I want it OFF their records.

J

[ActDumb]

SAN FRANCISCO, May 13 /PRNewspin-LastCall/ -- ActDumb (Nasdaq:
DUMB, ASX: DUM), a global leader in untargeted search marketing, announced today that more than 8,000 businesses have been screwed by ActDumb Small Minds Listings
since the product was launched on April 9. We rock!

Small Minds Listings is ActDumb's first performance-based, search coercion product for naive businesses, designed to provide money to keep alive our management team of clowns, pirates, monkeys, llamas and angry customer service reps. Search inclusion hijacks money from search engine marketing campaigns by forcing them to show up for all irrelevant searches, even if they haven't selected those exact keywords.

This includes the handful of search terms that are obvious for a company's business, and also hundreds (or in many cases, thousands) of highly irrelevant keywords they may not think of or wish to manage. For example, an advertiser who is relevant for the keyword "jeans" could be irrelevant and appear in search results for terms like "boot cut," "button-fly jeans," "501s(TM)," "play clothes," or even the misspelling "jeens" or even Jean Stapleton. Search inclusion allows us to make money on all of these terms without the administrative burden of having accurate reporting results, nor explaining where these clicks came from. Are we smart, or what?

"Cost per click rates are becoming expensive on many performance-based search engines," says Catherine Zeta-Jones (wife of Michael Douglas, and screen actress). "Growing competition for popular keywords can kill a small business budget. That's ActDumb's ingenious goal! ActDumb's fixed, low-cost click rates now enable new advertisers to reach a large Internet audience. Obviously, it doesn't matter what the clicks are for, it's just 15 cents after all. This service promises to produce a high return on investment for many companies. Really."

With Small Minds Listings, merchants can promote their Web sites in searches across ActDumb's entire distribution network of partners, but we can't tell you exactly where your clicks come from. You'll just have to trust us on this.

"The demand for ActDumb's Small Minds Listings has been very strong and has exceeded our expectations," said Jonas Kluckerman, ActDumb Chief Larceny Office. " The gazillions of new customers signing on show just how easily small business owners can be duped! It's like taking candy from babies. We should have thought of this years ago."

ActDumb launched the new Small Minds Listings platform on April 9, even though they continued to take money from businesses for their previous Site Submit and Site Promote products right up until the last moment, because as Kluckerman recently stated, "We're pretty slick."

Benefits of the new platform include:

* Cost-effectiveness: Pay-for-performance pricing, based on a very competitive cost-per-click. Advertisers pay lots of money.
* More sales leads: Businesses receive untargeted traffic flows from a 15% expansion in distribution. Advertisers pay lots of money.
* Targeting: You don't really care about that, right?
* Easy to manage: We tell you how many clicks; you believe us. What could be easier?
* Free trial for returning Site Submit Customers: ActDumb is offering returning customers $300 in free clicks. That should give them about a day or two. After that, they'll pay us thousands of dollars for more. Okay?

[ihelpyou]

:green::green:

Oh my. That is very funny. The thing is, is that not only is it funny, but ohhhhhhh sooooooo very true. LOL

[Advisor]

Sheesh...it's hard to recognize the difference between that one and the original.

Good one, ActDumb!

Jill

[Matt B]

That is very nice, ActDumb - right on target! I am still wiping the tears off my face. I am literally in pain from laughing.

I decided to take a look at the Yahoo forums to see what all the fuss was about. It is like a train wreck. Absolutely hideous.

Take order, rules, and common sense out of a society and you would be left with Yahoo forums and MTV's Jackass.

[WebSavvy]

LOL! SEO Guy, your comment nails it! ;)

[judyblueeyes]

savvy1 - the lawsuit you directed us to at:

http://classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=907

has absolutely NOTHING to do with Looksmart's recent changes. It was filed on 7/27/01!

[tlacaelel]

judyblueeyes:savvy1 - the lawsuit you directed us to at: classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=907 has absolutely NOTHING to do with Looksmart's recent changes. It was filed on 7/27/01!:?: Your powers of perception have failed you if you cannot understand the post in question.

I hope that in other endeavours in life you enjoy greater perceptive skills. :idea:



Selected Actdumb marketing slogan, for LameListings: Easy-To-Manage: We Tell You How Many Clicks; You Believe Us. What Could Be Easier?

[judyblueeyes]

Thank you so much for your helpful reply. I was simply commenting that the lawsuit savvy1 directed us to has nothing to do with the current LS changes. So sorry if I misinterpreted her post. Perhaps you can enlighten me, in your oh so friendly manner?

[Matt B]

Wow.

As you pointed out to someone else, scroll up and read the rest before you make a hasty judgement. Most others have read the prior posts to gain the knowledge needed to understand the reference of the link.

As far as my "enlightened response" to you, it's over in the hypocrite thread.

[tlacaelel]

The most recent press release (http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/pr/?story=/news/stories/pr/20020513/SFM079.htm&symbol=LOOK) from LookSmart, nicely skewered here (above) by Actdumb :hi: (and also featured on Actdumb.com :thebomb: ), mentioned some "users" of the new Small Business Listings product, and how swell they thought the product was. Additionally, the PR author picked up on that LookSmart blather about "boot cut button fly 501 jeens jeans jeeeeens ...".

I just checked in at the Y!LOOK moshpit :debate: and found an interesting post addressing that.

online_entreprenuer (sic) on Yahoo! Finance LOOK message board, said in this post http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=22689351&tid=look&sid=22689351&mid=314352. This includes the handful of search terms that are obvious for a company's business, and also hundreds (or in many cases, thousands) of highly relevant keywords they may not think of or wish to manage. For example, an advertiser who is relevant for the keyword "jeans" could also be relevant and appear in search results for terms like "boot cut," "button-fly jeans," "501s(TM)," "play clothes," or even the misspelling "jeens."

OE: What kind of idiot would select "jeens" or "boot cut" or "button-fly jeans". NO ONE IS EVEN BIDDING ON THESE ON OVER!!!! PLEASE! Makes me wonder if this "RETARD" who wrote this press release :circle: even knows what they're talking about, and the validity of the other claims posed in this press release.Great point. He also made some other worthwhile and amusing observations. Check it out.

Just be forewarned about the raging nonsense :1: :1: :1: going on at Y!LOOK. There is a very low order of civility. SEOGuy :thebomb: accurately said:I decided to take a look at the Yahoo forums to see what all the fuss was about. It is like a train wreck. Absolutely hideous. Take order, rules, and common sense out of a society and you would be left with Yahoo forums and MTV's Jackass.


Selected Actdumb slogan: We Keep Telling You "You're Our Valued Customer." Why Don't You Believe Us? :?:

[judyblueeyes]

I'm sorry, I did scroll & don't understand why savvy1 posted that link. If you can fill me in, fine. otherwise, please just say nothing rather than insult me.

I don't know what you're talking about in reference to another thread. Does it answer my question about this link or not?

Originally posted by SEO Guy
Wow.

As you pointed out to someone else, scroll up and read the rest before you make a hasty judgement. Most others have read the prior posts to gain the knowledge needed to understand the reference of the link.

As far as my "enlightened response" to you, it's over in the hypocrite thread.

as for making "hasty judgements" I'd be glad to point out many more of those evidenced here.

[Advisor]

I can't speak for Savvy, but I believe she posted the link to the class action suit because someone asked if there were any class action suits against LookSmart. There are. She posted it.

Jill

[judyblueeyes]

great - I just couldn't find the original question about the lawsuit.

wish the others could have simply answered my question, instead of tryng to intimidate me by posting BS like "Your powers of perception have failed you if you cannot understand the post in question.

I hope that in other endeavours in life you enjoy greater perceptive skills. " why????????

then "Wow.

As you pointed out to someone else, scroll up and read the rest before you make a hasty judgement. Most others have read the prior posts to gain the knowledge needed to understand the reference of the link.

As far as my "enlightened response" to you, it's over in the hypocrite thread."

just answer the questions please people.

thanks again Jill.

[Advisor]

Judy, apparently some here assumed you were here to cause trouble, thus the somewhat rude responses. Many are on their guard because there are a number of people from LookSmart who are not happy with what's been said in these forums about them. The way your posts went, it appeared as if you were one of the LookSmart moles. Perhaps you are, perhaps you aren't.

Doesn't really matter. LS can try and make the forums look bad all they want, but they'll never make the forums look even a fraction as bad as LS already looks (and is), in my opinion.

Some in here may once in awhile say something that comes off as mean. But the regulars would never do anything to purposely hurt anyone, or steal their money, or anything like that. They're just humans upset over the apparent disgrace that a company they trusted has suddenly seem to have become. Yeah, it's very upsetting because you feel totally tricked. So no one here wants to be tricked again and they're on their guard against it.

That's the long answer to why you may have been treated rudely. If your intention was not to stir up trouble, then I think I can safely apologize for the others here who thought you were. Only you know your true motives.

Past my bed time.

Nighty night!

Jill

[Kal]

Once again, Jill takes the words right out of my mouth. :p Stick around judy, enjoy your stay. :cheers:

[judyblueeyes]

thank you Kal and Jill. I'd appreciate being treated as if I'm "innocent until proven guilty" too. If you attack anyone new with a dissenting opinion, no one new will want to join in here, and that's what it's all about, right?

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by judyblueeyes
savvy1 - the lawsuit you directed us to at:

http://classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=907

has absolutely NOTHING to do with Looksmart's recent changes. It was filed on 7/27/01!

Here, this should help you, you poor confused dear;

texas4qld
......I have been trying to find a link or post on this board about a so called "class action", but cant find it as yet.
I have been involved in a class action myself, and would be interested to see the link if you could provide it ?......

Answer: http://classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=907

Does that clarify my response to texas4gld any further for you? Let me know if you're still having trouble digesting it. I have tried to make it as
SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND AS POSSIBLE!

[LookDummy]

Here is the REAL DEAL

http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=22689351&tid=look&sid=22689351&mid=31825

[Advisor]

Whoohoo!!!

:D

Jill

[judyblueeyes]

Originally posted by savvy1


Here, this should help you, you poor confused dear;



Answer: http://classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=907

Does that clarify my response to texas4gld any further for you? Let me know if you're still having trouble digesting it. I have tried to make it as
SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND AS POSSIBLE!

thank you again savvy1, for another one of your professional, courteous replies.

LOL:hi:

[Advisor]

This link (http://realtimefilings.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html/2002/05/15/0000898430-02-002023.html#D10Q_HTM_TX643_9) goes to the actual part of that document where it mentions the law suit. There's some other interesting information in that document also.

Like on page 25.

J

[peter_d]

bettyblue...I mean, judyblueeyes (it gets soo confusing):

there's also notice of a new class action on the Looksmart Yahoo share forums today.

[judyblueeyes]

peter_d - or is it peter_d**** - I get so confused.

thank you so much.

[Advisor]

Yeah, the blue theme kinda runs rampant around here...

J

[peter_d]

Sigh. They take us for fools.

Look (in all senses of the word), do you have any legitimate questions? If so, we'd be happy to answer, debate and speculate.

[peter_d]

Jill,

LOL

I'm thinking of changing my name to peter_blue. Seems to be a trend and I want in!

[Advisor]

Trying to figure out what word was used here: peter_d**** hmmmm...I can't for the life of me figure it out!

I'm sure it was appropriate though, since Peter is quite the scoundrel!

Jill

[Advisor]

Speaking of the class action suit...I've been reading all about it to my kids as a bedtime story. They're loving it. They've been hearing so much about the evil company, and are glad to have an apparent happy ending to the story to prove that good will always triumph over evil. I know, I know, it hasn't even gone to court yet, but given the facts of the case, that's just a formality, I'm sure!

:cheers:

It's a beautiful day!

Jill

[peter_d]

I can't figure it either :)

I prefer to be insulted with terms I understand.

[tlacaelel]

Advisor:I've been reading all about it to my kids as a bedtime story. They're loving it. They've been hearing so much about the evil companyHi Jill,

Sheesh, LookSmart's been giving enough adults nightmares, aren't you afraid your little ones will have nightmares about it too?

:D

Selected Actdumb slogan: The Market Leader In Perform-for-payment Directory: "No Pay, No Perform."

[Advisor]

Originally posted by tlacaelel
Advisor:Hi Jill,

Sheesh, LookSmart's been giving enough adults nightmares, aren't you afraid your little ones will have nightmares about it too?

:D

Selected Actdumb slogan: The Market Leader In Perform-for-payment Directory: "No Pay, No Perform." Well, you know kids these days. They need to hear scary or it's boring!

Mostly they're just amazed at what a company could do (or try to do). Well, actually, we're all amazed at that. It almost seems like a nightmare because it is so surreal. It's like they woke up one day and said, what can we think of that would be the kookiest, nuttiest plan in the whole wide world to make us some money? Probably would have been easier (and less bad press) to simply rob a bank!

J

[Matt B]

I am very interested to see how this plays out.

Do you think we will have to commision a coast to coast Look$mart bus to carry all of the plaintiffs and witnesses to the trial?

Judge Wapner, here I come . . .

[Advisor]

Well, that would be fun! But I imagine the company that is bringing the original suit will probably be witness enough. Although either side will probably bring in some 'expert witnesses' if necessary.

Probably they'll just settle, imo.

J

[Matt B]

HHmmmm, can anyone prove lost traffic and sales in the past 2 months?

[peter_d]

Yes - use the Looksmart click count estimate.

If the LS count is admissable as evidence for the existence of clicks, then let Looksmart provide the lost click count evidence as well...

"Based on your current traffic performance, LookSmart recommends....".

Divide the figure LS supplies by .15. That is how many clicks that Looksmart estimates you are losing by having your listing dropped and, convieniently, they've helpfully placed a value on the lost traffic :)

[Advisor]

I wonder how they figure the new billing period begins on May 22. Hasn't it already been like 2 months already? Wonder how fast I can use my 100 clicks up this month? :rolleyes:

BTW, they still have my credit card on file, even though I've asked them twice to remove it over the past few weeks. Plus (and this will not surprise anyone), I'm still not seeing a refund of the $299 they duped me out of 2 hours before they announced their friggen upgrade.

I love you looksmart. You rock.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Very strange the refund thing as I know of people who did get a refund. They seem to pick and choose as to who gets their 299 back. Nice way to do business.

[Advisor]

You know people who got a refund? Or who charged back their credit card? I didn't do the chargeback thing. Am trying to get them to refund.

J

[ihelpyou]

On SEF someone requested one and got one.

[Matt B]

Great. I have been trying to get a refund for one of my clients since this started, but all I get are these *&$@* messages telling me how valuable a customer I am. I think it is a brainwashing technique, I saw it on the X-Files last night.

[Advisor]

I wouldn't hold your breath for a refund from L$. However, a chargeback should work nicely as many have received those. I'm holding out for a refund though, for now at least. For some reason, they keep ignoring my repeated requests. I wonder why? I think they have my emails filtered to their delete folder. :D

Jill

[ihelpyou]

hey Jill, I just read your post in that crazy Y-finance board. Good one! Ya know, I am very happy that they are separating out all the url's under my account. I have to say though, the way they have went about to 'downgrade' all of their current client listings is so unbelievable and so sorry/unethical/unwanted/unjust/unprofessional and so many other words I could use. I just don't understand why they did this. I wish someone out there could explain this all without the spin and bullshit we have heard so far.

I do think ActDumb hit the nail on the head with the reasons but I truly wish LookDumb would at least acknowledge this and come clean with all of us. If they would simply tell the truth we might all be happier and they could at least save some face. As it is, they clearly look like they could care less about us, and that is what is so sad.

[Advisor]

You know it!

Hey, I just got an email from a reporter who wants to discuss the issue. Gonna call him right now and will let you know the scoop! :D

Jill

[Advisor]

I just had a great interview with Wired News! Whoo-hoo! Check the Wired News site later this week for the story. Hopefully, I'll find it and post it here.

I told them the whole sordid truth of the matter so it should be a great story.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

lol. That is great! Talk about some unwanted publicity? The yahoo forum thinks this place has it but wait until some news sites get ahold of it. :eek:

[WebSavvy]

Holy double headlines Batman! :eek:

[Advisor]

Yes, it will be nice to see a bit of "mainstream" press (if you wanna call Wired News mainstream!) finally pick up the story. Hard to believe it took this long.

Jill

[Matt B]

Congrats Jill - I can't wait to see it!

This ought to be great . . .

[MakeMeTop]

Good :)

:cheers:

Well done, Jill.

I find it amazing that the Press aren't picking up on this yet.

[Advisor]

Don't know exactly when it will be out, but I can't wait!

I also emailed the reporter back to let him know about the ActDumb site, in case he has missed it!

J

[kneelsit]

Yes Jill that lad definitely has a future in comedy.:D

Have you signed him up yet for copywriting duties - at least!:)

G

[peter_d]

Doug - "why they did this"

L are responsible to their shareholders.

IMHO Look no further than the markets for the reasons behind this move. They had to construct a product that appealled to those who actually fund L - those who buy the shares. L obviously haven't been making any money from their customers as their balance sheet shows.

The shareholders want to hear phrases like "pay-per-click" and "restructure" and "repositioning in the marketplace". They don't understand how the products compare to other search products like you do. They certainly have no contact with LS customers, like you do.

How long will the market (L's money supply) continue to buy the spin (which is the REAL L product)? If L really have a gameplan, IMHO it's yet to be fully revealled.

Q2 will be very interesting :)

Disclaimer: All this is in my humble opinion. It aint fact. You'd be an idiot to believe a word of it without researching for yourself. Blah, blah, blah...

[Kal]

Originally posted by Advisor
I just had a great interview with Wired News!
Congrats Jill! :thumb: Looking forward to reading it.

[peter_d]

Yes, good stuff Jill.

Another good thing about Wired is that the blogging community watch it very closely, particularly the news commentators.

Hopefully this debate will go mainstream very soon :)

[tlacaelel]

Originally posted by peter_d
L are responsible to their shareholders. (...) They had to construct a product that appealled to those who actually fund L - those who buy the shares. (...) How long will the market (L's money supply) continue to buy the spin (which is the REAL L product)?I don't see the support for this assertion. What do you mean by "those that fund the company, those that buy the shares?" It doesn't make sense.

While in principle they must appeal to shareowners in order to preserve beneficial and sustained access to the capital markets, their only recent and current utilization of said capital markets is for debt (bonds, notes), not equity (shares).

LookSmart long ago harvested the equity market in their IPO. On August 20, 1999, LookSmart sold 9.0 million shares of 85.359 million shares outstanding post-offering, or 10.5% of common stock, in an IPO (Edgar: S-1/A (http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/edgardoc/finSys_main.asp?dcn=0001012870-99-002950)) which raised $108 million dollars for "General corporate purposes, including working capital, marketing and promotional activities, new product development, increased personnel and potential acquisitions."

So that $108 million, less underwriting costs (maybe $7 to $10 million), went to LookSmart's treasury. That's it, and that happened almost three years ago. I don't recall seeing any secondary offerings or other sales of common stock from the LookSmart treasury. And if there is a substantial holding of LOOK in the LookSmart treasury, or substantial authorized shares not outstanding, they certainly wouldn't be selling or issuing shares to generate two bucks and change a piece. (That would surely displease their current shareholders and undermine market confidence in LOOK.)

So apart from the initial 9.0 million share float in the IPO, after the 6 month lockup period, any subsequent share sales were by the other stockholders of LookSmart, and the proceeds belonged to them alone.

- - -

While you are correct that any public company is dedicated to the interests of its shareowners, most public companies have articula