VentureBeat

Spot Runner says that smaller merchants are not advertising, but that is not true. For example, the first international dotcom online TV ad agency, Cheap-TV-Spots.com, is booked for months, and is expanding worldwide. Small businesses in a down economy often advertise more because displacing competition via TV advertising is a cost-effective way to survive during recessionary times. That's why good agencies are doing well. Spot Runner should not blame the clients or the economy for their failures. Remember Spot Runner was known to charge substantial fees to place air time for their canned ads. It only took a couple of years before clients figured that out and shunned their blog-hyped look-alike service. In regard to Spotzer, they'll fare better in Europe because their contacts there may be strong, but their template ads (like Spot Runner, Visible World, and Jivox) are a turnoff and clients demand true custom-made ads - but at a real discount. None of the template based ad makers know how to produce - or make a profit on custom-made ads. That takes real talent and real production managerial skills. Google TV Ads affiliate, for the most, part with 2nd-rate producers, whose reviews and ratings are friends and family of the producers. One has an F-Rating by the Better Business Bureau according to one blog. Google is way too big to manage and to make a legit profit on these sideline businesses (Google already failed with Radio and Print ads). TV advertising if done legitimately is a very, very, very low-profit business. Google investors would have a baby if they understood the actual economics. They only way for Google to make a profit at all, is to monopolize the industry, make clients bid up against each other to inflate the actual cost of air time, and make deals that border on anti-trust or restraint of trade like they did with EchoStar/Dish Network. Can Google get away with that? Depends on how much of your data-mined personal info they let trickle through to the federal government in return for the Feds looking the other way. That's just speculation, of course. But, often there's lots of truth in fiction.

Spot Runner long ago found no value in their local advertisers for TV and Nick stated so in an interview. "To sustain the shift in theeconomy we need to focus our resources in better suited directions for growth and long term sustainability."

Efforts of the company quickly went from "local" to national focusing on what the company called i2000 accounts. Companies who saw no value in television and could be convince that the company (Spot Runner) had developed online analytic tools of ROI and exact Cost Per Actions to to traditional media. Well, I would have to say, I think i2000 companies where a lot smarter than Nick gave credit to any of them.

It's a sad state at Spot Runner. For those left, they have been lied to by Nick time and time again. You would hope that Nick can set his ego aside, fall back to fundamentals or move step aside and bring someone in who is both a business savvy leader and someone with the correct skills to move this company back from deep within the bowels of the toilet bowl he's created.

stop spamming . . . the web is full of this guy astroturfing on anything spot runner related . . .

About.com choose 3 websites where job seekers got the best results -

http://www.linkedin.com (networking for professionals)
http://www.indeed.com (aggregated listings)
http://www.realmatch.com (matches you to the perfect jobs)

For those looking, good luck!

Spot Runner continues it's fictional spin that its massive erosion is a response to economic woes. They went from over 400 employees to a mere 100 or less in just eight months(!), and they made cuts completely across the board - not just in local. According to SR staff they made cuts in production, creative, administration, and both national and local TV. Is Nick trying to fool himself or just the world? Is Ms. Tao comfortable lying to the press or is she fidgeting....?

Joel, just for the record, I never said the cuts were "just in local." Press/blog reports didn't necessarily quote my complete responses. It's constructive to understand the full situation before making slanderous accusations under the cloak of anonymity. If you have any questions, I welcome you to contact me directly.

I just clipped this from another blog entry but I thought is was important enough to post here:

"The End is here for blog credibility. It appears that Spot Runner is using the influence of its venture backers to manipulate the press and blogs.

Check this out: Spot Runner’s Wikipedia page has just had all the negative entries cleaned! In the place of the former critical entries and references to outside opinion, there are only listings of company polished hype. No kidding.

The Wikipedia is dead. Internet journalism is dead! Spot Runner or its agents had also allegedly twisted an arm at CNN Money to get them to change their previously posted headline “Video Start-Up Spot Runner Burns Out,” to “Spot Runner a Video Start-Up Slashes Staff.”
Tech investment has become a true Ponzi Scheme. I know that this company must be in desperate straits, but this just stinks out loud.

I am now convinced that this is not just the fault of Spot Runner management. This was done by the hand of the puppetmasters - the very same people who sunk the USA economy. Take a bow, and another big bonus at the taxpayer’s expense, why don’t you?"

Well, that's a pretty good off-the-cuff indictment, but if true means that no tech investment is valid for anyone other than an insider . :-(

FROM: The Circle of Five

TO: Nick Grouf, the Executive Staff, and the Spot Runner Board of Directors

We are a small group of existing Spot Runner employees that feel all is not lost, but recognize the witching hour is at hand. We are all vested at Spot Runner, for all of us came with our focus on an equity investment and payout as a result of our hard work.

We observe the fundamental problems that still exist at Spot Runner, even after the recent round of layoffs, and as a result of Nick’s and other executive’s illegitimate staffing decisions. We believe that if the following recommendations are not executed apropos, our equity investment will be at an infinite risk, a risk we are no longer willing to take.

The following are listed in order of priority:

IMMEDIATE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Marginalize Ken Grouf. Ken has proved his ineffectiveness as a strategic leader and shown his tactical inability. He has single-handedly destroyed the Marketing department, turning it into a dysfunctional group of otherwise talented individuals. It is understood that family members want to look out for their own, but this is only considered acceptable by giving said person a distant office with a view and no direct reports.

2. Negotiate David Waxman’s departure and hire a legitimate CTO. David has proved his inability to manage any of the Engineering or Product leaders for the duration of the company. Oddly, this recommendation has been made by a number of people at their exit interviews with little notice and no action–an obvious sign that management does not listen to a valuable resource. Few will mind if David keeps his earlier cash payout, for what is done is done; however, the company must move forward if viability is a desired option.

3. Increase efforts on hiring the open VP of Product Marketing headcount. Marco is a useful resource, but only if managed well (see number 2 above). As anyone from the first .com generation knows, an Engineering organization that lacks balance with inbound Product Marketing (that is, the voice of the customer) will ultimately fail. The collective and ravaging “Spot Runner Technology Ego” has caused the majority of our current and past product failures and stagnation. We fail to test our hypotheses against the fire that is our customer. The Malibu auction model is a current, perfect example. Product Marketing should make this call and own it; the loudest voice should not win. Marco does not have to be at fault for much of the product failure to date, yet he is allowed to skirt the issue as he forces his opinion and then sidesteps ownership and responsibility. David’s personality is too timid to create the proper and necessary dichotomy between customers (that is, the “business”) and technology, and Ken is otherwise incompetent as earlier described.

4. Hire a VP or Senior Director of Product Management with Media Platform experience. We all know that Tom complained about a promotion a year ago and received–what was thought of at the time as an inconspicuous role–the Director position of a product that was the butt of company jokes. Now that we are trying to make it a legitimate product (Hail Mary or not), stronger leadership and industry knowledge in this position is a hard requirement.

5. Stop all efforts on Local TV and reduce Z’s access to resources. Early friend of Nick or not, Z uses infinite depth of knowledge to produce faulty business ideas. He focuses on what he finds complex and interesting rather than what could be profitable. Unfortunately, David Waxman is to blame for allowing Z so much access to company resources, but Z continues to exist as an “untouchable”, promising dreams of a business venture that can only exist in theory. Regarding Kurt Weinsheimer, carefully remember from the lesson of the .com bust: when anyone in Sales says you need to keep a piece of technology around (that is, Local TV and the self serve platform) due to “contractual obligations” something is amiss. Much of this is unfortunately due to John Gentry’s background in Sales and lack of experience in building all the functional, operational, and necessary components of technology organization. Remember, prior success in a booming economy is not proof of capability.

6. Formalize a legitimate business plan where egos are checked at the door. Create and evangelize an honest vision. Treat your employees as though you care. Let us all share in the reward of our hard work.

Sincerely,
The Circle of Five

TheCircleOfFive at Google Mail

I'd bet that Spot Runner (probably someone in a corner office PR position at Spot Runner) was illicitly cleaning up their stinky marks on Wikipedia because they are getting ready to dump the company. That's just speculation, but it makes sense.

My guess is that the assets are not worth more than the original 10 million from Index or Battery. Maybe less, if you count management's bad will, market alienation, and the fact that Spot Runner's foundation of pre-produced template ads turned out to be a short-lived fad.

Their software is also probably worthless in an environment where their desired client is resistant to paying high premiums for services that agencies can easily do themselves.

Anybody want to bid? $500K? Okay, throw in the furniture from the New York office and Wilshire and I make it 555K. I'm making a joke, but how far off could I be?

Spot Runner sued for fraud! Investor WPP claims that Spot Runner was a Pump-and-Dump scheme.

Spot Runner will have great difficulty defending itself. It appears that it never had tangible prospects in a traditionally low-profit industry. It appears that it primed bloggers with impossible and grandiose objectives of no interest or value to actual clients. And it manipulated the press and Wikis to bait potential buyers and additional investors. I think that is probably the tip of the iceberg. If Spot Runner could possibly survive the lawsuit, it still will never break even. Not possible. Even Google will fall on it's face with television and for many of the same reasons.

WPP has requested a Trial by Jury naming Grouf, Waxman and other directors. I wonder if the judge has considered collecting the passports of Spot Runner executives and mid-level managers? I wonder what the Spot Runner P.R. team will say if indicted? That would surely be interesting. Is this is starting to smell like another Silicon Valley style Ponzi Scheme? Stay tuned!