Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I come to this board to talk to others who have invested in this stock, not to persuade anybody. I suck at persuading, arguing, you name it, so I'm flattered you think I am so good. I enjoy discussing Skins with nala, itlogic, and stervc and I will continue to do so. I would love to read more of your opinions regarding this stock and find out what you have researched and learned.
I'm glad you care about others. I do to.
So you don't have a "job" following this stock, but I'm on a crusade?
I have called this company before, several times. Sometimes I have talked to someone, sometimes I have not.
I haven't "caused" anyone else loss. Everyone is a big boy or big girl that does what they want. I have money in this stock, so why would I bash it? I am going to find every angle I can to still see the light. My money is where my mouth is.
Also, where was the pumping? I just said the company is literally a pile of sh*t until it talks.
Let's keep this message board at discussing, not assaulting.
Just to cover the base, I contacted Sportie LA and asked if there were any issues with the recent collection of Skins (as far as technology and fit go), since that had been the main problem in the past. Sportie LA got back to me and said, "No, we haven't had any problems at all with the Skins."
This, at the very least, is somewhat refreshing. This means that there is nothing holding the company back as far as product development. They have a viable product. The research, the trials and tribulations, and the long, harsh pain of it all did pay off.
With that being said, the green light should be flashing--and I mean a big, ol' honkin' green light. That has not been the case yet. Why are they still in hiding? That is the biggest question. If you have a product ready sell, why isn't the infantry on full attack, guns blazing, canons blasting? They have money, they have credit, and they have a product. What is the hold up?--especially when your stock is getting obliterated.
I want to know the answer to that question.
This company's history sucks--it's horrible; it's worse than horrible. But, the company still has the ducks lined up to move forward. So regardless of whatever smack can be said about this company (though well deserved), they have the potential of exploding into the market. That is what my money is still riding on.
And besides--I'm not sure if you have looked on Amazon recently--but Skins has not sold a single shoe from that outlet. If there is no sales rank on a product, that means it has not sold even once. If something has a sales rank of in the millions, it means a product has sold at least once. No sales ranks for Skins = No Skins sold on Amazon. Not hard to believe with the incredible effort needed to find the things.
I agree with you, kezzek. It was even stated in the article that I read that Amazon wanted to keep Zappos the way it was--one of the reasons Zappos agreed to the deal.
The main problem right now is marketing. There is none.
Where did all of the money go if not to another launch?
Either I'm on the worst journey of gloom and torture to my death or perhaps a star is still waiting to be shined.
Right now I'm choking, but I can still be saved.
This silence is maddening--it was in the past and always will be each succeeding time. I don't really understand why we have these periods. Normally, based on the past, it's because the elves are in the workshop working, not because of impending death. Thus, that is more than speculation.
Silence + Money + Pieces (travel lady, PR guy, online outlets, retail outlets) + Marketable, Functional Product = Something on the Horizon
That's my equation for this mish-mosh.
stervc, how come you haven't come back on as the moderator?
I definitely did not mean you any harm. I apologize. I did not know about the policy. It is rather strange (even to you, I'm sure) that both events happened at the same time. I would never have even assumed it if they did not happen so eerily close to each other. My bad.
P.S. Even if my assumption were true, it would have meant no harm to you. I was implying that maybe the company did not want old images, etc. up when the new website launches. That was my reasoning behind it--not that you were doing anything wrong. But it's not true, so no worries!
Whoa there. The sales from the last report do not just disappear. They were not much to be proud of ($32,125), but it was more than "no" or "0" sales. And those sales were made before the bulk of the launch of the spring/summer collection (which means more sales will be on the upcoming report in August*).
*The sales will not be reported before the next 10Q.
The vanishing of the moderator was, however, as mentioned, well timed with the vanishing of the website. If I had a guess, I would say that the company had something to do with the disappearance of what was once on this page and the moderator. Too much of a coincidence.
Truly words of wisdom. Your perspectives are irrefutable.
Once again you've stated the same points that I have dominated.
If one ad in a slot shows "Ads by Google," then the entire slot is run by Google Ads. If one ad in a slot shows its root coming from AOL, then the entire slot is run by AOL. I think you should research ads before arguing me here. Code is involved and just because one ad says "Ads by Google" and the next does not does not mean that both are not from Google. I have ads from Google on my own website and when they are flash ads the "Ads by Google" is not shown.
You yourself say that Skins has no money, so how are they paying Footwear Etc. for the ads? There may be some agreement, but Footwear Etc. is definitely paying for the majority of the advertising fees.
Once again, you saying that promoting shoes on a stock message board is unusual is an oxymoron when content is the basis of when and where ads appear.
I'm still in disbelief of your audacity to repeatedly bring up points that I have continually shot down well and succinctly.
There is no leaving it to the readers when it is clear who is wrong. Like I said, keep fighting--it's great for me!
I'm glad you keep fighting your loss on this discussion. It proves what you are up to on this board to the readers. I have twice shown evidence of your loss regarding the ads and yet you keep arguing. Keep fighting!
http://www.sharkchild.com/images/other/ihubad2.tiff
Bam! Proven wrong again in the face of your own post! What does it read on the lower right corner of the top ad?
Your ad purchase link means diddly. These ads are run by Google and AOL. No one needs to decide anything. I have shown the evidence. Evidence also for your futile rebuttal.
Why would you show that link (http://adserv.stocksite.com/media_kit.html) again??? I just proved to you as simply as A, B, C that iHub uses ad rotation for specific slots. They may sell space direct, but not on the Skins message board here--this board is run by Google Ads and that AOL platform.
I am very confused still as to why would you revert to that point again? Your argument got destroyed.
You keep answering in riddles. I know that what I write is clear to you, but you always try to loop around it.
The ads are content driven.
Footwear Etc. uses Google Ads and the AOL ad platform, so their "Skins Ad" is in the mix of ads that Google and AOL uses to fill their ad slots.
There is a lot of SKINS content on message boards.
Google/AOL's analysis sees there is a lot of content on these pages with the words "skins" and "skins footwear" and "skins shoes."
Google/AOL looks through their available ads on hand and sees the Footwear Etc. ad with the words "Skins Footwear."
"A perfect match" Google/AOL tells themselves.
Google/AOL inserts the Footwear Etc. ads on those pages.
No manipulation. Straight programming. Nothing unusual except your argument.
P.S. The debate was not about whether or not the ads were Footwear Etc. ads; the debate was whether or not Footwear Etc. was paying iHub directly to place the ads.
CONCLUSION: Footwear Etc. is NOT paying iHub to place their ads; they are paying Google and AOL.
Can you for once admit you were wrong?
Yeah, I actually do know why. That particular ad slot comes from bannerfarm.ace.advertising.com (a.k.a. platform-a.com) which is an AOL ad interface just like Google Ads--content driven just like Google Ads.
Why do you keep fighting? So now we know the top and bottom ad bars are Google Ads and the block ads next to posts are AOL ads. All of these are ads used based on content on web pages. Come on. Why do you keep trying to argue something you may not fully understand. You hit a dead end with this one. Do you lack the courage to say you are wrong?
Looks to me like you got caught in the wrong and are trying to weasel your way out of it.
The ads that you see on these stock specific pages are Google Ads. Google Ads are solely content driven. Google analyzes the content of the page and then places an ad from its pool of users that it finds as a good fit. Just like I said before.
Why are you so quick to prove everyone wrong? You acted a little too fast this time and slipped.
Here is a little proof to run you through.
http://www.sharkchild.com/images/other/ihubad.tiff
Kezzek, you should learn more about web ads before making such a point.
Internet advertising is content driven. Ads appear based on the content of a particular web page. Now, where would we be seeing the most Skins content specific pages? These message boards!! Thus, the ads show up on these message boards at a much higher rate.
I have also seen the Skins ads on eBay, MySpace, and several other sites, but I mainly see them on this message board and on Yahoo's message board because the content is 24/7 Skins, Skins, Skins.
And of course, you can pay a lot more money to have your content appear, but for the most part, when you are trying to have an effective, cost efficient campaign, you allow content to find your target market.
Who is manipulating what??
I posted a link that can be found with any search of Skins on Google news.
Skins has now been taken off of the naked short list.
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2349269/
Yes, quite the miracle. We almost lost it there back in the fall (can mean the season or the verb) of 2008. But, we are still moving forward. A miracle.
I agree. It would be foolish to advertise if your own website was not ready to promote relevant information or sell shoes. I think this IS why we have not seen any advertising yet. MK and crew might actually be taking the right approach this time, but we are just getting insanely impatient.
Here is a good list of past times:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_ldate=2006&as_hdate=2009&lnav=od&q=sknn+naked+short+list&ned=us&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&sugg=d&btnG=Search
If the list doesn't come up, go to news.google.com and search for "sknn naked short list" and select all dates.
It's been on and off these lists forever. I don't think it really means anything as far as I know, but I'm sure someone gains a little manipulation power from it.
I've actually seen Skins put on and taken off that list several times throughout the past.
10-Q out. First revenues.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1300744/000114420409028598/v150353_10q.htm
Revenues of $32,125! First revenues ever!
Long, long ways to go, but they had to start somewhere. Considering that the launch didn't really start until April and this 10-Q period ended March 31, there undoubtedly has been more earned from the current spring/summer collection (correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm with ya. Even between our last PR and now, more shoes have been turning up on the online stores. Perhaps, like you say, they were waiting.
Deja Vu.
The retailers--like Zappos.com--did sell the shoes and did make revenues; only Skins did not.
Yes, there were shoes for sale two previous times, but let me explain.
Mark Klein and company embarked upon the two launches as if they had nailed their product. Then they found out that their technology did not comfortably accommodate all of the average day people. In turn, they had to correct the technology twice, thus being the reason we are on the 3rd Generation bone right now--the third try. The first two tries resulted in products that they could not market--or sell--because of issues with the fitting and so did not receive any revenues as to maintain their relationships with the retailers. Now Skins has a product, finally, that represents the technology they so tirelessly set out to attain. With this product, they can acquire revenues for the FIRST time. I think I explained that clearly enough.
There is a lack of past results because the company has never had anything to have results with. This is the first time that Skins has a marketable product. Yes, we thought we were there two times, but we never were. The results have only started to be measured now, with the 2009 spring/summer collection.
A positive remark! Thanks.
I don't think money is the issue. Like you said, itlogic, every company has to start from somewhere, so it would be foolish to say that any start-up company has all the cash it needs to succeed. Skins has what they need to see if they can make their product work or not. If they can't make it work with the money they have now, then they can't make it work. I say it will work, especially with the perfectly portrayed brand image on the new website page.
Website has been updated. It's not the full, new version yet, but it is a very nice stepping stone.
I just proved a point about you because you didn't follow directions.
I agree money is needed.
Can you answer another question: Can you stop talking about the finance until we actually see what happens to Skins? I think we all understand your view and your purpose on this board, so now I think it's time we see who is right. I'll let you say "I told you so" if this company diminishes, but right now, they are still moving forward.
Kezzek, so do you agree branding is important to the success of a company? (One word answer)
Yup.
Yes, that is exactly my point. You can't create a brand or image and then easily change it. Sometimes the brand alone can cause the downward spiral. There have only been a few brands that have successfully done it. Jack in the Box did back when they had the food scare, and recently, Target has been very successful at re-branding themselves as more of a department store. It is hard though--it takes a lot of creativity and a lot of money. That is why it is crucial that you begin within the "image" you want immediately. Skins' price point is something that is in line with what they want for the image.
Then you aren't the person Skins is selling their shoes to. And that is fine, most of the people investing in Skins or posting about Skins aren't the target audience. But try to convince your 15-year-old daughter that a $40 pair of some unknown brand of snuggly shoes is equal in quality to a pair of $300 Uggs.
I am talking about brand. Regardless of what people think a good shoe is or is not, there are differences in price based upon brand alone.
For example, generic brands cost less than name brands at the grocery store, even if the quality is comparable. And yet, even if the quality is comparable, people still buy the name brand more. Why? Because the marketing of those name brands associate "quality," "emotion," "story," and other specific traits with their products even though they are an illusion. That's just the way our marketing world works.
I'm saying this because Skins is trying to create a brand that conveys certain traits. They haven't done the best job yet, but I think they have yet to fully try. Pricing is one of those traits. It is all psychological. First, you must have a product, and second, and equally as important, you must give your product (your brand) an image.
The Clarks I see range from $80 to $140, on average. Most are over $100.
The Eccos I see range from $120 to $250, on average.
The prices you stated are not valid, and strangely manipulative. On amazon it says $38.99 - $102.00 for a Clarks shoe with special offers. I'm talking about legitimate pricing.
A company can't succeed JUST with a product, but they sure can't succeed in spite of it.
Crocs is trying really hard to find that "product" again. Skins now has it.
I always get bugged a little bit when people say Skins is too expensive. I have never once thought that, but maybe that's because even I, in my little research of the shoe industry, know the standard price for a higher-end brand shoe is $130 and up. Skins is not trying to compete with a Crocs, or a Nike, or a Puma right now; they are trying to get in with Mephisto, Clarks, Geox, Dansko, Ecco, etc. Have you looked at the prices of those brands? I have. Some of those brands are priced much higher. Like I said, there is a lot more to a company than financials. You say that people need to do ALL of the research. You haven't yet.
Financials and management aside, what do you think of the product?