In his latest response, Dave brought up one question that I am sure have had many who have looked at the MPE site wondering:
What happened to to the Metropolis 3 sheet poster listing and why was it removed? (Is it no longer available?) It isn't in the 'Sold Archives' section, so presumably, it hasnt sold (or has it?) And best of luck, too, once the auction portion goes live. -Kerry On 4/20/12, David Kusumoto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Sean - That was a very thorough and well-written e-mail. Thanks. I hope > this is the last e-mail I have to write about this subject. > > * Cut to the chase: GavelSnipe's terms and conditions were modified > yesterday as a result of recommendations by ME (via another MoPo pal) to Jim > Halperin, who is Heritage's co-chairman (whom I've met and know personally). > Visit http://www.gavelsnipe.com/policy_terms.php - and please note the new > paragraph that was added during the last 24 hours. > > * As to my involvement, people keep focusing on the errant impression that > GavelSnipe is being used nefariously. That wasn't my original "angle." It > evolved and "turned" that way after I was hit with a lot of private e-mails > after my first post, including one from within Heritage itself. As Kirby > noted, any automated proxy system is subject to abuse under certain > circumstances. I think Heritage is an honest company and I myself have no > concerns about being "run up" on a sale. > > * I just think that it looks better if an auction house partners with a > third party sniping company than owning one outright. You yourself, > although you glaringly did not mention it - know that "one of many reasons" > you and Peter chose NOT to own a sniping company - and went with GavelSnipe > for your MoviePosterExchange.com site - is because you guys wanted to ensure > your customers would know "that there would be no funny business." In my > view, you made the right choice going "third-party." For me, it's all about > transparency and removing the "appearance" of potential impropriety. I may > have arrived six years "too late" to this, but news is still "new news" - if > information previously undisclosed by GavelSnipe - is revealed for the first > time to most consumers. > > * If I was a true detractor of Heritage, I could've easily pored through its > 10K and 10Q filings online with the SEC to find more dirt. I've already > gotten e-mails (remember, every reporter's best sources are "disgruntled > employees and disgruntled ex-spouses") - which suggest how Heritage might > use the info it gathers from GavelSnipe, which is run "in-house" - and that > its chief runner is a guy named Ryan Sokol, who's on the Heritage payroll - > with a dedicated Heritage e-mail address and phone. Information IS/WAS > being shared. I just have to be careful and "vet things out" because I > require more proof, e.g., specific incidents with dates, lots and - the > names of department personnel who've allegedly visited GavelSnipe and come > out with sheets filled with "intel," e.g., "reports" which reveal which > items will go "big" and which bidders spend more. The competition between > departments is a little intense and the culture is loose, perhaps too loose > for a publicly traded company. > > * I'm 100% sure that if I carried a grudge, I could still make the > relationship between the two entities - front-page news based on the > information that has poured into my damn e-mail box since my first post the > other day. But I'm not the same rabble-rouser who routinely took down the > NY and London auction houses a few times, armed with my list of national and > international editors. I'm pretty persuasive because I think like a news > guy and they all know it. I know how to package stories. This is what I do > for a living. I'm generally a civil guy who's in an ugly business. I could > have a lot of fun, for example, with how your $850,000 "Metropolis" was used > by you guys as a publicity stunt - and explore why it's no longer plastered > on your website for sale. Without the lure of "Metropolis," there would be > no stories in the Hollywood Reporter or elsewhere. You'd be buying ads > instead. As far as Heritage, a big reason why I haven't moved forward (and > won't unless the chatter continues or someone gets in my face), is because I > personally LIKE Grey and Jim Halperin. That makes a huge difference - and > reveals why I went after FedEx, Sotheby's and Christie's "back in the day." > In those cases, I didn't like their people and their attitudes toward > "non-VIPs." So I went after them. > > * Finally, you rhetorically ask why a nearly billion dollar company would > risk so much by doing something small - that's exponentially more harmful? > In my view, that's a little naive. History is strewn with the carcasses of > people whose reputations have been ruined - because of "minor infractions" > in gigantic companies. Specific to auction houses, all I have to do is to > cite the price-fixing and collusion convictions that sucked Sotheby's and > Christie's into a whirlpool of unwanted media attention - leading to firings > - and jail sentences - for Sotheby's majority owner Alfred Taubman and CEO > Diana Brooks, the latter who avoided prison by testifying against Taubman. > > * I didn't want to be involved in this. I've got better things to do. But > because of my relationship with Grey and Jim - I'd rather things be "cleaned > up" - so that shit NEVER hits the fan. This is why yesterday, my > recommendations - which are designed to help put Heritage in a "less" > vulnerable position - were provided to Jim Halperin - and the first steps > aimed at shoring up the walls between GavelSnipe and Heritage - are being > made as we speak. -d. > > Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:23:08 +0000 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > When > Peter and I (who by the way are the sole owners of > MoviePosterExchange.com) were first talking about adding a sniping > capability to our website we investigated and contacted several > companies to see if we could find a good fit. One of the first things we > found out was that most companies had no interest in adding any > affiliates (certainly not JustSnipe that David mentioned), and those > that would still charged members for their services (either by way of > monthly/yearly fees or by purchasing snipe bids in bundles). We were > determined to keep costs as low as possible for our customers and were > not satisfied with these answers. > Then we talked with GavelSnipe. > The > GavelSnipe story as we understand it is that they were a company > offering eBay snipes and struggling to stay afloat finding affiliates to > work with when Heritage stepped in with some needed capital and > partnered with them to offer exclusive sniping capabilities for > Heritage’s auctions (and this happened 6 years ago, certainly a very old > story for newshound David Kusomoto to finally dig up). > To me this makes Heritage more transparent rather than less. > Would > you rather Heritage offer sniping capability in-house? Would it make > you feel better entering your snipes directly on Heritage’s website? Or > perhaps they should have partnered with one of the dozens of companies > that has gone out of business in the past few years? How would it look > to their 700,000+ members to tell them they are changing sniping company > affiliates again? Of course it is better for them to partner with a > company and have stability in this area. > The > issue of Heritage peering into your high-bids and shilling you up to me > is a non-issue. Nearly all of Heritage’s most expensive items are > offered in their signature auctions – which you CAN’T snipe. So it’s not > even applicable to a majority of their revenue. > Yes, > Heritage auctions thousands of items a week through their different > divisions. But is the risk/reward worth it to break the law this way? > Let’s say you have placed a $250 snipe on an item that would have > naturally ended at $200 without shilling. Heritage’s buyer’s premium on > this extra $50 bid is less than $10. The risk? Potential treble damages > on a multi-million dollar class-action suit and the loss of license. Is > that worth it for a company that does almost a billion dollars a year? > My guess is no. But you would have to draw your own conclusions. > Remember > Heritage is a licensed auctioneer. They are subject to review and > regulations. The main reason we have not started auctions on our site > yet is that we had to finish the certification required for our state. I > believe we are the only company that deals exclusively in Movie Posters > that will be a licensed auction firm. To us this is an important > distinction. We will be subject to the laws and penalties of the state > of North Carolina (which have some of the strictest regulatory laws in > the country when it comes to auction houses) and wish to be as > transparent as possible in our dealings. I don’t believe any other > weekly poster seller (besides Heritage) can say the same. > So > for us, partnering with GavelSnipe made good sense. We are branding > ourselves with the company that provides sniping service to the two > largest movie poster portals in the world (eBay and Heritage) We have > paid GavelSnipe to integrate our software with their site and pay them a > monthly fee so that we can keep the service free for our customers. > Bruce > you are correct when you suggest that we would like to shield our > customer accounts from Heritage, or any other dealers for that matter. > You know this from when you offered to list items on MoviePosterExchange > but requested you be allowed to ship directly to the customers. We > certainly appreciated the offer of support, but ultimately we chose our > customers privacy and security over being able to have your items listed > with us, and if we suspect that Gavelsnipe has violated the trust we > have placed in them (which we have no reason to believe will happen) we > will pursue the matter to the fullest extent of the law. > As > for the answer to Dave’s final question: “Who signs Gavelsnipe’s > paychecks?” I know that the answer to that lately has been that I have. > Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:51:28 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Ha-ha, Rich. In sum - I could be wrong on some of these, but as far as I > know: eBay doesn't own a sniping company. Sotheby's doesn't own a sniping > company. MoviePosterExchange.com doesn't own a sniping company. Bonham's > doesn't own a sniping company. Christie's doesn't own a sniping company. > Profiles in History doesn't own a sniping company. eMoviePoster doesn't own > a sniping company. The reasons are economic - and also because of how it > would look to consumers, regulators and politicians. If ONLY DEALERS have a > blind spot about this, I'm not surprised. Or, shoot, this could all just be > a "specific-to-Texas" anomaly. > > Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:30:15 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > > > There's no story here, move > along. > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:27:52 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > > > > > * My goodness, Dale, there are so many huge holes in your rebuttal that I > could fit a freight train through each one without touching any of its > sides. But why bother? In my view, you need to reboot your writing skills > and come up with a debating strategy more substantial than, "what you're > writing about is fire and brimstone over nothing and I personally think you > just hate Heritage." > > * What has Heritage done to me personally that would warrant an accusation > like that from you, Dale Dilts, a person I know nothing about, who doesn't > register anything on my radar at MoPo - nor do I care based solely on your > inability to string words together in a way resembling intelligent thought? > Your note does suggest, however, that you're ignorant of what's been > published in the business sections of news sites since 2008. I've already > disclosed that I've personally gained as a consignor and buyer of Heritage. > I think its movie poster department is run by an a blue-chip, top-flight guy > named Grey Smith, who built his operation out of nothing 10 years ago. > Unlike Geraldine, I'm not a disgruntled Heritage client in any way. Or > maybe you, Dale Dilts, think it's classier to observe a "gentleman's > agreement" about things that seem odd, you know, keep everything under the > table where it belongs, and not stir up "trouble" - that we should all just > leave things with a "wink," and as you say, "move on." I hope you're not > working in P.R. or in the customer relations operations of any company. > Because never in a million years would I hire you. You're poison. > > * BTW, did you know that your last line, "There's no story here, move on," > is the CLASSIC cliché rebuttal that editors mock every day in newsrooms > around the world? When ANY person utters it, it means there IS a story. > Didn't you get the memo that I've been on both sides of this ugly business - > and have professionally handled "conflict of interest-type stories" as a > news guy - and as a P.R. guy? You really think a story about this - would > NOT resonate with a news editor? Really? You're the one who's not thinking > this through. And I'm sorry, but your line, "There's no story here, move > on" - sounds like famous last words etched on a tombstone. You sound like > Richard Nixon. -d. > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:47:32 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > OK, I tried to put these mails on auto flush, but come on stick a pin in it, > who cares. > > Heritage is in the auction business last time I checked. Ebay allows people > to use their API to build sniping programs because it makes bidders feel all > warm and fuzzy making bids, so why shouldn’t Heritage pilot their own with a > smaller user base. > > These mails have really come across to me as you have a chip on your > shoulder for heritage plain and simple. > > Your second point makes no sense to me at all. Banks cannot own investment > companies, soft drink companies cannot own a snack company. Oh my god, > Disney owns ABC and ESPN and don’t forget…. Marvel Comics… the sky is > falling. > > There is no story here, move on. > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:26:23 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Thanks, Kerry, for that bit of info below. > > * Meanwhile, I'm sorry, but the word, "conspiracy" implies seamy dealings > involving more than one person or companies gaming a system or flouting a > law. I haven't suggested that about Heritage. And as an ex-news guy, my > litmus test is to demand things in writing - or to get personal testimonies > backed with dates, numbers and other facts - not conjecture. Every company > or person, including Heritage, deserves that. Kerry's sleuthing shows that > Heritage registered the GavelSnipe domain name - but this doesn't > necessarily mean it still owns it. > > * However, whether Heritage is a "financial backer or an owner" - always > matters in the world of business - in the same way that it matters to us > that Bank of America owns Merrill Lynch, that PepsiCo owns Frito-Lay, that > Disney owns ABC and ESPN, that ComCast owns NBC and that Rupert Murdoch owns > the NY Post, Fox Sports, the WSJ and movies and shows produced or > distributed by 20th Century Fox. I have not suggested Heritage is breaking > the law nor is running up bids - yet the mildly defensive responses thus far > - address only that specific element. I don't care about that part > personally (although it is a salient concern) - because my experiences with > Heritage have been largely positive. > > * But I always care about transparency and proactive disclosure. So if we > say that "the ownership of Gavelsnipe by Heritage corporate was never > hidden," what does that mean exactly at the level of a consumer? Does > "never hidden" mean it is being disclosed proactively, being disclosed upon > request, "never disclosed officially" - or is this simply "universal common > knowledge" among those "in the know?" I could not find a one thing > addressing this on GavelSnipe's site. That's odd, I thought. It's like > having a light bulb go on while I'm visiting a website. I always want to > know who owns or runs it. And I was led to this only because of my > curiosity - in relation to my praise for the MoviePosterExchange.com site > and reading its FAQs. MoviePosterExchange will use GavelSnipe as a third > party service, rather than doing it by itself. No conflict there. > > * I repeat: Doesn't your objectivity get tested when you replace the word, > "Heritage" - with the word, "Sotheby's?" Or how about with the words, > "Rupert Murdoch" or "Keith Olbermann?" I think it does make a difference. > In sum, all of this then becomes a personal preference based on the level of > trust you impart to a Sotheby's or a Murdoch or an Olbermann - combined with > the number of positive experiences or relationships you have or have had > with these people or entities. > > * Would it bother me a little if Sotheby's owned a company like GavelSnipe > and integrated it into a timed auction? Speaking for myself, the answer is > yes. For Heritage, the answer is no, but I think disclosing its > relationship with GavelSnipe is a "pre-emptive" strike to prevent others > with ill intentions from "discovering" it on their own. When you've got > material info that may be controversial - my P.R. rule is to always get your > message out FIRST to prevent being placed in a defensive position and/or > losing control of a potential story about your brand. -d. > > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:37:44 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > I found this ownership info, not on the Gavelsnipe.com website (I > looked thru their Terms and Conditions and FAQs--and could find > nothing about who it's corporate owner is on either page), but on a > third party site, called website.informer.com. > Heritage is stated as the owner/registrant. > > Created: 2006-03-14 > Expires: 2013-03-14 > Owner: Heritage Auctions Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC > (http://www.godaddy.com) > Hosting company: PSINet, Inc > Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC > IPs: 38.107.251.34 > DNS: ns1.gavelsniper.com > ns2.gavelsniper.com > > Registrant: > Heritage Auctions > Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com) > Domain Name: GAVELSNIPE.COM > Domain servers in listed order: > NS1.GAVELSNIPER.COM > NS2.GAVELSNIPER.COM > > -Kerry > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:20:07 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > > > I don't recall how I found out that Heritage is a financial backer of > Gavelsnipe (which is probably more appropriate than calling them a > corporate ownership), but I've known, it's been talked about on Comic > Book forums and the like.. But I have never been worried one bit about > leaving my bids on gavelsnipe and it's easy for me to see how much money > I have saved on both ebay and Heritage auctions by looking at my snipes > and how mostly, they've never gotten close to my winning bids > > > then again, I'm not a conspiracist. > > I know the only way for two people to keep a secret is if one of them is > dead > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:50:53 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Rich > > How did you know? Through the site itself (which is key) - or through pals > or by just "being in the know?" If a consumer signs up with GavelSnipe for > the first time today, is there a PROACTIVE disclosure in GavelSnipe's terms > and conditions about its relationship with Heritage? If so, it undercuts > everything I've written and I owe everyone a big apology. -d. > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:41:37 -0700 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MOPO] Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned > by Heritage? > > > > David > > > the ownership of Gavelsnipe by Heritage corporate was never hidden.. I > knew about it the day I set up my own account > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:24:52 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > I agree with Kirby too, particularly with his comment: "Any proxy bid system > could be undermined with enough > 'nefariousness' at work." > > Hence while I wrote my "essay" with a level of air-tightness - I was trying > to convey less > personal suspicion about any "nefariousness" at work by Heritage - (and > it's only because I know and trust Grey) - but with more concern about > the link between GavelSnipe and Heritage - and how in > my view, it has a level of newsworthiness with the media that Heritage > doesn't need. Don't think > so? Just REPLACE Heritage's name in my "essay" below - with Sotheby's > or Christie's or Profiles in History. You see, your emotional reaction is > based on > the type of relationship and comfort level you may or may not already have > with any auction > house on earth. This is really a personal preference thing with > people, e.g., they either trust the "leash" between the two entities - or > they don't. I just put it out there because I know most people will read it > - and most as a result will mull it over as another quirky element that > riddles all hobbies, not just ours. -d. > > > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:20:39 +0200 > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Kirby. We've been using Gavelsnipe for > eBay for quite some time, we don't buy from Heritage, and never had any > problems. > > Ron > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:05:48 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by > Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > I have used Gavelsnipe many times for Heritage and Ebay auctions and I have > never had even one whiff > of a feeling that I was being run up. I'm glad that this service exists > because I like the snipe process. Ican set it and forget it. > Doesn't mean it couldn't happen if some nefarious persons wanted to pollute > the process. > Any proxy bid system could be undermined with enough "nefariousness" at > work. > Kirby > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:13:00 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by Heritage? > To: [email protected] > > > > > > * With the impending launch of Peter Contarino's, Sean Linkenback's and Ken > Schacter's auctions (vs. fixed price sales which are there now), I've > been visiting their MoviePosterExchange.com site. It's easy to navigate and > very user-friendly. (BTW, where in the > heck did the highly-touted $850,000 "Metropolis" 3-sheet go? I can't > find it! Did it sell?) At any rate, while visiting the site's FAQs, I read > that it has partnered with GavelSnipe, the sniping program service, > which will be available to bidders for timed auctions. That's good > news. > > * But what's interesting - and this has nothing to do with > MoviePosterExchange.com - is GavelSnipe "appears" to be owned by Heritage. > If I'm wrong, please correct me - and a thousand apologies if I am. I'm > less concerned about potential abuses like shilling and what not with > Heritage's auctions - than I am about transparency. > GavelSnipe's murky origins are troubling. I couldn't find much info > about who owns or runs it. This is NOT a criticism of > Grey - who I consider a pal. The issue of GavelSnipe's ownership - if > indeed Heritage is its "owner" - is out of his hands. It's bigger than > him because it's available to bidders in Heritage's other departments. > > * If true, this is NOT like PayPal being > owned by eBay. It's more like GavelSnipe being owned by Sotheby's or > Christie's, e.g., a conflict > of interest where potential abuses "could" occur - despite > > assurances that a "sniping subsidiary" of Sotheby's or Christie's - can > operate independently - with an iron-clad ability to preserve the > confidentiality of all scheduled "snipe" bids submitted online. Do you > trust this, given what you've read in the news about Sotheby's, Christie's, > price fixing, Wall Street buddies in bed with politicians trading stocks > with confidential info, etc.? > > * By using > ANY sniping program, you are imparting the same trust you already give to > auction sites when submitting "absentee bids" for "live" showroom sales. > The difference is you can't be "run-up" while using a sniping program, > or so you think, because your bids are placed in the last few seconds of a > timed sale. But what if the wall protecting "sniped bids" is > breached by another department in the SAME building? Here's what I know: > GavelSnipe is based in Dallas and "uses SSL encryption (so that) your > passwords are secured and not VIEWABLE by GavelSnipe personnel." I have no > reason to distrust this. But what about actual snipe bid amounts before a > sale closes? In the effort to make "sniping" available for > clients like myself who've clamored for it - I hope Heritage hasn't errantly > opened a can of worms > by OWNING GavelSnipe - instead of PARTNERING with an > independently-run third party company - such as JustSnipe or others like it. > > * Before most of you scoff and dismiss what I'm saying as "manufactured > paranoia" or "no big deal" - please know that I'm approaching > this as a > person who has personally GAINED by buying and > consigning items with Heritage over the years - hence I'm not inclined > to see it stub its toes for ANY reason. Again, I'm > more concerned about transparency than abuse when it comes to Heritage. > And that's mostly because of Grey. But visit the GavelSnipe site. It > "feels" like it has something to > hide - as if it already knows that there's ZERO benefit > to be PROACTIVE with consumers - about who's "really" signing the paychecks > for GavelSnipe's employees. -d. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > Send a message addressed to: [email protected] > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > > > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > Send a message addressed to: [email protected] > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
