If any of the recent rumours we’ve heard are anything to go by then it looks like Gilbarco Veeder-Root [1]‘s plan to acquire Outcast Media is now firmly off.
See our Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 story [2] ‘Exclusive: @GilbarcoInc To Acquire Outcast Media’.
If rumours are true, then the deal floundered due to poor earnings expectations from Outcast.
9 Comments To "Outcast Media @GilbarcoInc Deal (Seemingly) Off"
#1 Comment By In the Know On 8 November 2012 @ 17:44 @781
Unless there never was a deal which is what I had originally heard.
#2 Comment By Have you noticed? On 8 November 2012 @ 20:00 @875
Has anyone noticed how “seemingly” one sided this glorious industry leading publication has been to one of the two major digital fuel vendors in the space over the last couple of years? Hint….and it’s not the one being written about in this article! Hilarious! Great journalism and integrity DD!
#3 Comment By Adrian J Cotterill, Editor-in-Chief On 8 November 2012 @ 20:19 @888
Matthew Stoudt, CEO, Outcast did not return our calls when we asked him to comment on the original story.
#4 Comment By Seemingly shady On 8 November 2012 @ 23:46 @032
The timing of this is perfect; … Way to go guys!
Editor’s note, we’ve had half a dozen comments like this, all wrong and if you remain anonymous we simply won’t post whatever your viewpoint. Hiding behind a cloak of anonymity to cast aspersions on rumours that are far from groundless is cowardly.
#5 Comment By nospower On 9 November 2012 @ 18:46 @824
Whatever you do, don’t actually backup any statements or claims you make with actual proof. That would just be ridiculous. Editor in Cheif of what? your parents basement.
What a joke.
#6 Comment By Adrian J Cotterill, Editor-in-Chief On 9 November 2012 @ 20:24 @892
We repeat “Matthew Stoudt, CEO, Outcast did not return our calls when we asked him to comment on the original story”.
To the best of our knowledge that original story is true and neither Gilbarco Veeder-Root or Outcast Media have asked us to retract it. Subsequent rumours are bound to swirl round on why the deal was never completed. We are happy to hear Outcast’s side of the story – though they seem intent on not supplying it.
#7 Comment By Zero Street Cred On 9 November 2012 @ 21:12 @925
Why would he or any credible CEO speak to a publication that often produces trashy gossip or innuendo’s about their company? You told one commentor not to hide behind their cloak of anonimity and cast aspersions, yet you spread “rumours that are far from groudless” without any sourcing? Source please.
Rumour
a. information, often a mixture of truth and untruth, passed around verbally
b. (in combination) a rumour-monger
c. gossip or hearsay
#8 Comment By Miss Demeanour On 9 November 2012 @ 21:41 @945
I am sure daily dooh would argue that it reports rumors (not spreads them as Zero Street Cred states). Many news publications do that and the usual journalistic code of conduct states that this is okay as long as its termed as such. Seems to me like Outcast was given an opportunity to correct anything misleading but preferred not to. Usually that means that there was something in it.
#9 Comment By Zero Street Cred On 9 November 2012 @ 21:52 @953
The usual tone of this “news publication” definitely warrants the use of the word “spreads rumours” rather than “reports rumours”….I don’t think you will find many that would argue that point Miss Demeanour. And I don’t agree with your point because according to DailyDooh, Outcast never tried to correct either version of the story.