I know someone bought it. Lucky! Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:16 PM, lovenoir2 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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.
