Nervous... too funny. I just read your post after I submitted mine. We both have the same concern.
I've been a VP level officer in a number of IT companies... all the way from running sales in a start up through its successful IPO, to several mid size firms, and even running sales and marketing for a Division within a billion dollar software company. If it's me running the show, I would take a very aggressive short term strategy to further reduce expenses and direct all resources to growing revenues...but, I certainly wouldn't concede or give in.
I've helped turn around IT-based companies in much worse straights than this company. The only issue they have is the dilutive financing they have. In a Machiavellian sense, they shouldn't care. All that matters in the long run is achieving profitability, or building and proving the business model for acquisition by larger company that can sustain the costs.
In fact, for a start-up, this company has a lot going for it. Proven products... a growing listener and content provider customer base... increasing revenues per listening minute... decreasing costs... and sustained revenue growth... for three quarters in a row!
So, I'm just not getting why that section was written as negative as it was. It's almost as if the CEO took a position that would further keep the share price in the mud. That won't help stop the dilution... nor do I see how it will it make the company an attractive acquisition target.
