(ownership of craigslist) Craig's story blows up...

EVEN MORE: notice Jim's "hostile takeover" inuendo... with no basis given... D.

MORE: corrected prior mistakes (left the Forbes link in just so it makes some sense...: "Ebay holds a minority ownership interest stake of 28.4% in craigslist"[my emphasis]; this clearly implies this is the percentage ebay currently holds, AFTER the dilution if that's what happened... Jim is vague, ambiguous and melodramatic again... without giving any facts whatsoever... just take a look at Jim's "response" -- in the addendum, in the body of the entry -- to the one relevant question in the comments: did they dilute ebay's shares? "To be perfectly clear, Ebay’s stake in craigslist has not been unfairly diluted as they have claimed." ---> not at all clear... all he's saying is that ... they didn't do it unfairly... which is for the court to decide... the question had been if they diluted the shares... not if they acknowledge they did it unfairly... Alexander Muse: " Did you dilute the minority shareholders? ") D.

ERRATA (please read the comments!) :

Hi, Anonymous!

I tracked down the ebay release just before seeing your comment. (I initially thought Forbes was reliable enough as a source...my bad!) but anyways... the contradiction remains: craigslist claimed ebay acquired only 25% of craigslist in 2004, ebay says it was 28.4%... right after the ebay acqusition Craig specifically said ebay had ONLY 25 %... this core contradiction remains regardless of the details of the dilution...

Delia

MORE: ok, I better go to bed... (sorry if it was a bit confusing -- I just tried very hard to be as fair as possible -- it should be reasonably clear by now... let me know if it's not... thanks!) D.

STILL MORE: Craig retold the 25% story less than a month ago to Sarah Lacy... (0.52 time mark: Sarah:"so ebay owns 25% of craigslist..." Craig: "yes") --> ebay says their shares got diluted by more than 10%. So how could have ebay possibly had 25% in March? NOT strictly impossible but it appears very, very improbable... (they would have had to start with 25% in August of 2004, as Craig said, recently acquire more -- Craig's been telling his story unchanged since 2004 -- than get diluted to 25% or quickly sell the acquired amount... just in time for Craig's interview... ) D.

EVEN MORE: the Chron appears to be so gullible that it makes craigslist's words fit the facts... after the fact --> "In August 2004, eBay acquired a 28.4 percent stake in Craigslist when it bought shares from a former employee" (beginning of 8th paragraph) -- if they would have bothered to check they would have seen that was not what Craig said.... they would have also noticed the discrepancy between 25% and 28.5%

MORE: The New York Time's story on the topic is, again, surprisingly shallow... D.

... and Owen's story sounds even more plausible (that Phillip Knowlton was forced to sell because Craig and Jim were squeezing him out by diluting his shares): ebay is charging that craigslist has been illegally diluting ebay's shares...

Delia

P.S. surprisingly, people -- even Owen -- don't seem to realize that ebay holding 28.4% shares in craigslist (1st sentence of 2nd paragraph) contradicts Craig's story. He said the craigslist former employee sold 25% to ebay -- Craig was also specifically asked on the ebay and craigslist forum if he sold any of his shares to ebay at the time... he said no... so... how did ebay end-up with more than 25% of craigslist? Did Craig lie or did someone else, such as Nancy Melone, also sell shares to ebay? if so... did she do it at the same time? (again, that would mean Craig lied) or later on?

(Mozila help: (ownership of craigslist) Craig's story blows up... )

(looks like) Craig planned an accident...

Craig: "craigslist is a company, well... let's say accident"...(3.20)

let's see... Craig registered a commercial website on his own name "cnewmark.com" as "Newmark Enterprises" but he didn't plan it... it was just an accident... (how much more ridicuous can he get?)

Delia

P.S. notice his ambiguity again...

Craig: Charlie asked tough questions...

well, it's good Craig acknowledges this (answer to second question) -- it's just that plenty of Charlie's good questions, such as those about ownership and profits had been asked before... it was just that Craig never answered them... so... Charlie's real merit was getting Craig to answer...

Delia

P.S. makes you wonder why would Craig answer only when Charlie asked these questions but not others... D.

(more dust in your eyes) Craig's control over craigslist

Craig:"As a result, I don't have anywhere as much control [because I own less shares]" (16.52mi)

regardless how many shares he owns or doesn't own, he is still the chairman of craigslist (so he does have control)

Delia

P.S. I've been spending way too much time on this lately, I need to go back to spending no more than a couple of minutes a day and before that... I'm going to take a week break... take care! D.

Charlie's interview was a great start...

His was the best interviewer ever... by far! he left the competition in the dust by stopping Craig's tap dance and calling him on things... but there are a couple of things that Craig still managed to pass unchallenged...

Here's the worst of them:

#1 philantropy: given all the talk and all the profits why doesn't Craig/craigslist help out those in need?

Craig: "They don't need our money"(19.49) what??? he looks at the Gates foundation and the like and decides that since those are well founded there is just no need for Craig/craigslist philantropic contribution in that arena?

Craig:"the money is better spent when I talk up OneVoice (...)"(19.57) what money? let's say he just onws 25% of craigslist --> that's still a WHOLE lot of money... giving Jay $10,000 to start his project and founding a restroom in a high school in West Bank are both good things... but they are nowhere where his philanthropy should be given his profits AND his talk...

and let's not forget craigslist itself... would they have NOT started as a non-profit, asked for and accepted peoples' contributions and would they have said nothing about the "philanthropic mind set" and "moral compass"... the normal expectations would have been much lower

OR would craigslist had spent the profits on customer service and improvement and just provided normal salaries like it was supposed to do... there would have been no other "philanthropy" to worry about -- craigslist would have been in fact the community service business operating like a public trust Craig claims it is...

Delia

P.S. But we all know that's not at all the case.... craigslist is NOT a non--profit (hasn't been for a long long time) so let's stop him from continuing to peddle all that bullshit... and insulting everybody's intelligence... Charlie's interview was a great start! D.

Charlie did better than I thought...:)

he did get some answers! Craig currently does NOT own 75% of craigslist (16.38 min) ; he owns no more than 50% (17.04 min) -- not a surprise... (to me... but it should give David a shock...)

But can Craig be trusted to tell the truth? He conceeds that he has an interest in both the reality and the perception (17.33 min) --> this suggests that, contrary to his normal spiel (he is still for the most part repeating in this interview), he is keenly aware of the situation... he does know what's going on! and he is also well aware what impact the truth/myth have... which means he's apparently easy going, I-don't-know-I-don't-care-thing is not to be taken seriously... This was Charlie's biggest accomplishement with this interview... I think... (making it clear he is not buying the non-sense and pressing until he got some "confessions"...)

Delia

P.S. In a way I'm relieved -- it would have been kind of sad to find out he actually meant all that non-sense and for all this time I've been trying to make sense out of the ramblings of an idiot...

Alright, then! He is NOT an idiot... but is he a crook? quite possibly... Did he already sell out? (related or unrelated to the ebay sell) contrary to telling the craigslisters and the public that he would never do that... and what's with the non-sense self-congratulation on an almost nonexistent customer service? and what's up with the retarded development of the site? the apearent answer is: it all saves money! and this is in his financial interest... -- it smells too much like deceit (#8) and fraud... D.

Craig is getting irritated? (now... don't do that! Charlie Rose...:)

about time... prominent interviewers are finally asking the real questions... and pressing for answers! (even if Charlie didn't get the answers -- Craig has been hiding inconvenient info for about a decade... like how much he's been profiting from what was supposed to be a non-profit... this stuff should have been out it the open all along.... -- firmly asking these questions on PBS is good progress!)

Delia

P.S. there are still plenty of dummies in the audience, though... :)
(not Charlie's fault...) D.