We’re getting reports that Peerflix, the tumultuous company that switched from acting as a DVD-swapping service to an ad network, has been acquired by Brad Greenspan’s LiveUniverse for an undisclosed amount (though we’re guessing it’s pretty low). We’ve asked LiveUniverse to comment.
Peerflix was founded in 2004 as a “peer-to-peer Netflix”, helping users to swap DVDs they owned for a dollar. The site abandoned the flat fixed pricing scheme for a demand-based model in 2006, but that didn’t work well either: in November 2007 it decided to launch a media network that had nothing to do with its original DVD swapping service. Peerflix finally canned the DVD trading business earlier this year, so Live Universe is acquiring it solely for its ad network.
Peerflix is the latest in a lengthy string of acquisitions made by LiveUniverse in the last year. In February, the company acquired Revver, a struggling video portal that shared revenue with content creators. In April, it acquired PageFlakes, a customizable homepage that has been competing in a saturated market that includes iGoogle. Apparently it wasn’t a good match – only four months after the deal, PageFlakes CEO bailed from the company.
Most recently, the company has acquired Jangl, a troubled VoIP services provider, and Meevee, a site that combines TV listings with video.
Why is Mike and TechCrunch so against Brad?
BTW, they also have vidilife.com.
Maybe because he’s so cute!
hehe , so good !
Why so down on Brad? Because he’s a dishonest double-dealing bottom-feeder as anyone who has been involved in any of his deals will tell you. He’s trying to take credit for MySpace which he had nothing to do with.
His last company did the same thing he’s doing now, buying struggling companies and trying to make a frankenstein monster out of them. It didn’t work that time and landed Brad in legal troubles. Of course, he got wealthy and the people he bought out got burned. Caveat Emptor.
another ad network? there is only so many premium places to be found on the net. all these ad networks competing for the same premium inventory? i sense a drought. help me here, seeking guidance.
i like brads vision, appears he needs a little premium location ad network inventory that his company controls.
LiveUniverse has a ton of video traffic through their sites, so the addition of an entertainment-focused ad network makes a lot of sense. Not sure why TC is calling this a “loser”. The strategy seems solid and immediately makes LiveUniverse potentially a very large player in this space, even larger than Glam and others who are (reportedly) valued at $1 billion+.
Hmmm….TechCrunch calls a company that actually generates SOME money a “loser” but yet they talk great things about unproven, stupid sites like 12seconds, Twitter and that glorified hosting site by a 15-year old a few weeks back???
I agree… !
me too, TC and the whole silicon valley tech crowd suffer from an inner-circle mentality
I agree ….you TC folks are so quick to paise dumb startups and quick to criticise others
Why call it a Loser?
Don’t most start-ups fail? That’s what free-markets and entrepreneurship are all about.
Calling it a loser is just comment bait.
Thats an awesome post, very good reading that will be useful
seems to be attraced to “distressed” ideas. When he has another exit that isnt myspace related, we’ll all stand up and applaud. Until then he’s another internet huckster who got bailed out by luck. Im guessing all the lawsuits against have been settled to his favor….
I think Peerfix’s management team followed Mike’s advice to hang around events and build relationships with bloggers to get good PR instead of focusing on building a great business. Who’s next? My guess in Mint.com.
you are right. mint is completely business-model free
Great post!
I thought Peerflix was from Vancouver. I think one of my friends had to build part of their system for his industry project at school. I thought it was a pretty dumb business then. I didn’t understand how it made money or why I would want to go through the trouble trading dvds.
Trading stuff is green!!!
They are too fast in acquiring what they wanted.
Maybe because he’s so cute!
You all should probably know that Mike Arrington/TC dislikes Brad because Brad won’t include him in the loop. He’s also tight with MySpace, cohosting the Batman premier, ect…
TechCrunch, instead of being fair, is being bias and taking sides. That’s hardly what I could call reporting.
LU acquires companies but can not operate them. Pageflakes, Meevee, Jangl are all effectively dead, staff long gone, and their bills unpaid and headed for court.
This is completely true. It’s been verified by many ex-insiders. There is effectively no management left at LU to build a business.
These comment boards are going “Valleywag”…
The journalism here at Tech Crunch has gone seriously down hill. You guys need to state the facts and leave your personal feelings out of it. A natural progression for some startups is to be acquired by a larger organization, trimming down redundancies, and only keeping those that are abosolutely required to grow and operate the business. Startup CEO’s leaving is part of the game – they’re not interested in being some staff exec dealing with day-to-day operations. Virtually all startups are ‘troubled’ and are either looking for more funding or about to be. And why mock a company that is adujusting their business model – you start a business with a vision, sometimes it isn’t exactly right, you modify it or completely abandon it and start a very different one.
I agree.. labeling a company a ‘loser’ is completely uncalled for. It is perfectly OK to call a company troubled which states its situation, but loser implies that the company has no future and is solidly based on opinion.
The Internet’s poster child Googe was once ‘troubled’ during 2000. It was widely reported that they were running out of cash and their lifeboat – “evil” banner ads were worthless. It was only a STROKE of luck that they ‘borrowed’ GoTo’s (Overture’s) paid search business model which saved their bacon.
Was it prudent to label Google a ‘loser’ in 2000? Don’t think so… but it was clearly in dire straits.
Netflix is great because they have mastered the fulfillment proceses and are quick and efficient. How can Peerflix do this?
That’s the thing… they couldn’t and they realized it so the got out of it… FAST.
Is livevideo.com also owned by LiveUniverse? I thought I read about it somewhere…
Yes…
Well, if the techcrunch equates peerflix as a loser, then edgeio.com is a LOSER too!
Well technically Peerflix is a loser. Did their investors make money? Probably a big “No”. Did their employees cash out? Probably a big “No.” It remains to be seen whether it will be a good deal for LiveUniverse or PeerFlix, but the reality is that they tried 2-3 business models and ended up selling the assets for next to nothing, in all likelihood. Until someone with knowledge of the deal can say otherwise, they tried and failed. Nothing wrong with that – it happens all the time.
So what is wrong with calling a spade a spade?
does this mean that i can get the money that peerflix owes me for sending me a broken dvd right before they switched their business model?
Few quick comments:
1) ALL of liveuniver’s sites are tanking in traffic and they’re barely half the size they were 6 months ago
2) 90% of the deals Brad makes are “steals” and buys under $1M
3) They bought and operate a illegal lyrics website and even with existing licensing in place they don’t have it yet. (ethics?)
4) Peerflix = loser because it’s got close to no traffic and getting up in the morning costs more than they generate. I don’t think the term “loser” was used to condensed the company but rather indicate the company’s future, shall we say. Liveuniver’s portfolio holds roughly 15-20 failing companies and adding new “losers” to it.