Without knowing all the info it's a tricky one. Does inactive user actually mean dormant account or a user who didn't opt in. If it was dormant or inactive they may still have been receiving data / emails just not logging in. Think isp email. Say management knew these were risky but was getting paid by UOL, well then they should have stopped proclaiming user growth, but even then they were getting paid so how likely is that?
There's a level of incompetence here. As the chair said he's told management to get to know their key customers better. It may be that they just didn't have visibility of login in info and for privacy constraints don't log number of sent emails. I just don't know.
What I do know is those other partners sound great and 1st class. Huge set back. Pissed off I bought on UOL growth etc. But it just doesnt seem like a scam, however angry I am at them.
At the end of the day they've demonstrated their ability to scale and fall off a cliff. Issues of the robustness of their contracts remain however. But if they deliver a good product i don't see resellers necessarily changing. UOL seems a bit unique as they were seemingly providing the product directly to their customers, less intermediaries to discuss this with than a reseller like ALSO and pax8 who have put their name next to ours.
Ofcourse things can change from here lots still to prove. I'm hanging tight. Hoping not to feature on bag holder quotes....
(20min delay)
