Light Reading Quotes Level 3 Wrong On CDN Pricing Discount

UPDATE: On Friday, Barron's spoke with Level 3 and updated it's article. LightReading.com also updated their article and removed the quote in question. Good to see both sites do that to make sure the information is accurate.

I am amazed at how quickly some investors and analysts jump to conclusions based on any report on any website without checking facts. I like LightReading.com, but they quoted Level 3 wrong. Lisa Guillaume, VP of CDN Product Development for Level 3, did not say "the company will be offering CDN services at 20 to 30 percent less than its competition". She said to me that CDN services had typically been offered at a 20-30% premium over high speed Internet access. Nothing to do with the competitions pricing.

DataCenterKnowledge.com got is right by quoting Level 3 as saying that "CDN services have historically been offered at a 20 to 30 percent premium to transit." No where is any competitor even mentioned. Saying you are going to cut your pricing by 20-30% is one thing, but Light Reading is implying that Level 3 is cutting it's pricing 20-30% lower than the competition. That is wrong.

Now Barrons.com and others are quoting LightReading.com in their reports as the reason Limelight and Akamai stock is down in the market today. Is that the reason? Maybe, I don't know. But if it is, then it's based on an inaccurate quote.

Yes, I expect Level 3 to come to the market with a lower price when they announce their CDN for streaming later in the year, as I stated back in August. But to date, Level 3 has not announced any pricing discount numbers or percentages.

Comments

[Phil]

re: Lisa Guillaume, VP of CDN Product Development for Level 3, did not say "the company will be offering CDN services at 20 to 30 percent less than its competition".

Hang on a sec... I did clarify one point in the story, but it had nothing to do with a direct quote.

I know you're not a journalist so I won't bore you with details, but we didn't quote anyone as saying that.

[Dan Rayburn]

My concern, as well as other readers I'm sure, is to make sure the information is accurate. I see that you have updated the story this morning and completely removed the quote in question. I think all readers appreciate that so as to make sure your article is as accurate as possible. Thanks.

[Phil]

re: "My concern, as well as other readers I'm sure, is to make sure the information is accurate. I see that you have updated the story this morning and completely removed the quote in question."

Again, (warning: boring journalism talk ahead) we didn't remove a quote. We fixed a sentence that had information attributed to the Level 3 exec. So the error was in the writing, but not the reporting.

Another thing: how 'bout revisiting this idea that one sentence in a trade publication caused a selloff in stocks?

Is there any direct proof that investors were selling because of our article? If they were, shouldn't they be buying back on our correction?

And how about some right of response? Again, I know you're kind of an amateur here, but real writers give their subjects a chance to respond before blaring a headline about quoting someone wrongly (which we didn't do).

I've fixed our story. Now will you fix yours?

[Kevin]

this is a useless post today.

[Dan Rayburn]

Phil, why take the approach of trying to insult me by calling me "not a journalist" and "kind of an amateur". What good can come of that? Trying to make this out to be personal, when you don't even know me, is just silly.

This is about reporting a story correctly. That's all. Originally LightReading..com got it wrong and has since corrected the story, which is all anyone can ask for. I updated my post to show you fixed it. It's that simple.

And to your point about "Is there any direct proof that investors were selling because of our article?" I never said they were, I am quoting the Barron's article that says that was the reason.

"Now Barrons.com and others are quoting LightReading.com in their reports as the reason Limelight and Akamai stock is down...." No where am I saying that is the reason why. I even say "I don't know".