Replies to post #105955 on Verb Technology Company Inc (VERB)

[tedpeele]

dizong, while a lack of patience can be a character flaw, it also can be a good investment move when expectations are not met. You blame 'their own warped timelines', but while that is sometimes true, it is at other times not consistent with reality, as the timelines and expectations over and over have been set by our visionary - yet overly optimistic - CEO.

Should I put together a list of expectations of timelines raised by our CEO over the last 2 years, dizong?

*$143 million revenue projection for 2018?

*$48 million for 2017?

*16,000 stores carrying a one-of-a-kind Visa Debit Card for ORU, of which FUSZ would be a high percentage of sales?

*NotifiAir being completed not 'tonight' as stated in one video but MONTHS later? Or

*V1 being awesome

*cash flow positive in 2 months time - before the end of 2017


AND, just this year:

*V2 being awesome

*blow past 20,000 subscribers - will not let us wait to find out

*Joint PR with Oracle on CEO desk just prior to the conference

*'Most' CRMS integrated within 90 days


Did flippers raise these expectations? No. These were raised by our CEO.

Have expectations set by the CEO become more tempered? No. They continue to be set by him, and missed. Q1 becomes Q2. Q2 becomes Q3. Q3 becomes Q4. Now 2019. You weren't here 2 years ago, but guess what? The same thing happening in 2017.


And yet YOU seem to think there is an unjustified 'lack of patience' by people having 'character flaws'.

I do agree that patience is needed. What other choice do you have?

True believing 'investors' have lost a lot of money here and it isn't because of 'shorts' or being on the OTC IMO. It's because of everything that I just posted here. Rather than accepting the reality of where these expectations come from, investors only find one excuse after another for them, and then to top it off they insult those who won't do that.

[tedpeele]

There are very clear flaws in reasoning of the longs, who believe the following:

In the long term the product will be widely used. This is an assumption based on the following IMO:

A. video is everywhere
The reality is that while video IS everywhere, it is passively consumed. A very small percentage of people want to actively engage when watching video.

B. the 'technology' is exciting
The reality is that a lot of people do NOT find the 'technology' to be exciting. They find it to be just another way to bombard people with unwanted information and to try and coerce them to buy something. Some find it annoying. The people that find it exciting when they see it for the first time IMO tend to be non-techie types who are looking for an investment opportunity or an entrepreneurial opportunity. Those can help push the stock in the short term but in the long term it doesn't matter near as much if the reality is that the end user doesn't find it to be exciting. And IMO the end user does not find it to be exciting.

C. the 'technology' works to significantly increase sales of the company using it
This is the most important thing. And despite claims to the contrary, the evidence so far is on the side of it NOT increasing sales. If it increased sales IMO it is a no-brainer that the sales NFUSZ reports would be increasing too, and dramatically.

D. the 'technology' is proprietary
The value of the platform is unknown. It is open source, and it is not clear how many lines of code really are necessary to do what they do. Logically it is hard to support the assertion that they are 'light years' ahead when it appears that the bulk of what they have achieved has been done by hiring a team of perhaps half a dozen foreign programmers to work for 2 years. That's perhaps 24,000 man hours. Reverse engineering may be able to replicate the results in 6,000 man hours which would be a team of 20 people in 2 months -- well worth it for a big company to do if this really has billion dollar potential.

E. thought leaders say that interactive video is the future of marketing It is unclear how large a role it will play, as it is still unclear how beneficial it is going to be. VIDEO - for sure. But INTERACTIVE VIDEO - very unclear.