Forum Moderators: skibum
Time Warner Inc's AOL said on Tuesday it has purchased buy.at, an online affiliate marketing network, as part of a strategy to bolster its Internet advertising operations.
[uk.reuters.com...]
Good job guys!
Buy.at recently purchased Lightstate, a company started by a LONG time member: Shak [webmasterworld.com].
[webmasterworld.com...]
Just goes to show, work hard enough, build a good product, look after your customers and the rewards are there.
It's been a great experience and I am sure now that buy.at is part of AOL/Advertisng.com , they are an even stronger force.
As for me, I am off to celebrate with a Pizza followed by a nice cup of Tea
Laterrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Shak
[edited by: Shak at 8:45 pm (utc) on Feb. 5, 2008]
For anyone old enough to rememebr the first Cittie of Yorke, I seem to remember a bunch of guys arriving back from Austria or wherever, having had to go out to get a .at domain name for some hairbrained online business! :)
Congratulations all.
Can someone please explain to me, because I'm a bit dim and I don't understand how big business works - what actually changes now that AOL owns buy.at instead of [whoever owned buy.at before]?
Also, now we come to it, who did own buy.at before? The workers? Or someone else?
Also, I'll accept that it is, but why is it an achievement for the people at a company like buy.at when such a company is bought by a company like AOL? What difference does it make who owns the company if the workers don't own it? And... if the workers did own it, haven't they now lost their company in exchange for some cash?
Apologies in advance for the collossally naive questions but I only studied historical linguistics at university, not finance and economics.
what actually changes now that AOL owns buy.at instead of [whoever owned buy.at before]?
Hopefully very little as I see buy.at as a well run affiliate network. AOL will put more money into the business for expansion.
Also, now we come to it, who did own buy.at before? The workers? Or someone else?
I think that buy.at was privately owned. The founders, workers and venture capitalists (VCs) could all own differing amounts of shares in the business.
Also, I'll accept that it is, but why is it an achievement for the people at a company like buy.at when such a company is bought by a company like AOL?
If they have shares in the company then they could be worth a substantial amount. One receptionist at a London search agency was given £100k when the company was bought out by the management.
What difference does it make who owns the company if the workers don't own it? And... if the workers did own it, haven't they now lost their company in exchange for some cash?
The cash amounts could be substantial, but work practices may change to fit in with AOL/Advertising.com
