Comments on: Why Is Netflix Supporting A Penny Stock Touter?

By: PR Pro

PR Pro — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:10:23 +0000

I work in the public relations industry and used to handle a respectable publicly traded company. We were approached by WallSt.net to arrange an interview with the CEO. We investigated the outlet and, based on the parent company and affiliated media, found it to be credible. After we granted the interview and responded to preliminary questions, we received an email about improving the “distribution” of the interview by purchasing additional exposure…what we irritatingly deem “pay for play.” I have not seen the touting of penny stocks as a result, but perhaps we were lucky. Unfortunately, these types of “media” organizations have gotten very astute at how to play the game and take advantage of corporate comms. professionals. As a fellow PR practitioner who had an unpleasant experience with this outlet, I can offer that it seems an honest mistake on the part of Netflix PR. Why they would have granted a second interview is beyond me…but, it’s altogether possible that WallSt.net repurposed material from the first interview and claimed a “second” feature.

By: davis

davis — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 04:52:05 +0000

I’m not sure that I understand your question EF? My issue isn’t with Netflix not granting me an interview, it’s with them allowing a penny stock promoter to soil the reputation that they’ve built. Whether or not it makes sense for a CEO to talk to me is a different issue, although I would argue that Reed Hastings benefited when he did take the time to talk with Hacking Netflix about his business. Certainly that was a better use of company resources then talking with WallSt.net and letting them tout their penny stocks.

By: EF

EF — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:00:25 +0000

Yes there are companies mentioned/interviewed that are not penny stock scams. However, how good would a CEO be to get near this site?

By: davis

davis — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:03:21 +0000

Being open about conflicts of interest doesn’t make their shenanigans morally justifiable. They receive payment from companies or investors for thinly traded stocks and their mission is to try and boost share prices. If there is a compelling story to be told, that’s find, but to attach those penny stocks to a legitimate company is slim shady. It’s a clear case of WallSt.Net trying to use their association with legitimate companies to forge a sense of trust with their readers. The disclosures are in the fine print and their track record for the companies that they’ve been paid to promote certainly raises a few eyebrows.

By: The masked blogger

The masked blogger — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:05:34 +0000

I’ve been using WallSt.net for a few years now, and although they do advertise for ‘penny stocks,’ they clearly disclose what they were paid. The press releases that they issue also include disclosure from the companies that they received payment from.

By: Henry Peglar

Henry Peglar — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:32:32 +0000

WallSt.net is owned by Financial Media Group, Inc. which is itself publicly traded under the ticker symbol OTCBB: FNGP

By: Psychology of Compliance & Due Diligence Law

Psychology of Compliance & Due Diligence Law — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 20:12:32 +0000

How to Spot Suspect Experts and Avoid Bad Surprises…

Davis Freeberg wrote a fascinating article about the apparent authority Netflix conferred on what Freeberg called a “penny stock touter”. The are applications of Freeberg’s……

By: IR Daily » Beware of IR Vendors Trading on Your Good Name

IR Daily » Beware of IR Vendors Trading on Your Good Name — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:22:38 +0000

[...] I raise this because of an interesting blog post I’ve just read by a San Francisco Bay Area investment advisor who writes under the pen name “Davis Freeberg.” [...]