Re: Jupiter Sold for $250K to Internet.com parent INT

From: John Gaskill <jg_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Mon 24 Jun 2002 20:41:00 -0500

Rick Bruner wrote, in part:

>Jupiter has got to be one of those love/hate relationships, like the banner
>ad. Sure, it's easy for us all to mock them both, and many of us were
>critics of them all along, but let's face it, banners and Jupiter did their
>parts to help many of us live pretty fat in the late '90s. :-) Of course,
>you could probably argue that Jupiter itself bears some responsibility for
>helping drive the whole U.S. economy into recession, given its
>disproportionate and enthusiastic role in over-hyping the bubble, so
>perhaps it deserves what it got.

I got a kick out of reading your comment Rick -- especially the part
about Jupiter bearing "some responsibility for helping drive the whole
U.S. economy into recession..."

Jupiter certainly did not create the excesses that collapsed before
the beginning of this recession. Looking at the Big Picture, it is
hard to believe that the Internet's growth had a lot to do with this
recession. More likely, it was the tendency of the youngest fully
employed generation to believe the hype promoted on TV, i.e.,
that the expansion could go on forever and 30,000 on the DJIA
was possible. That greater fools kept putting more and more
money into the stock market, and companies intent on going
public as opposed to making a profit, had a lot more to do with
the bubble and its bursting than one online research company
promoting its products and offering opinions as research.

No, Jupiter was just another overcapitalized company with
a poorly thought through business model. More evidence
that instantly big does not work.

My $ 0.02


John Gaskill
jg_at_Info-Central-USA.com
http://Info-Central-USA.com





Received on Mon Jun 24 2002 - 20:41:00 CDT