These numbers from the 10-K shouldn't come to anyone's surprise. This
is a start-up company who isn't exactly in an old and proven industry.

You can make the same argument for Google's acquisition of Youtube.
Google acquired Youtube for $1.65 billion dollars on what? On $15
million in revenue for all of 2006.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/06/youtube-revenues-15-million-per-...
This would come out to paying $110 for each dollar of revenue. That's
110 times revenue!

Did they make a smart move? Maybe, maybe not. But the point is that
there's people at Google who are smarter than you and me and who saw
strategic potential in Youtube (i.e. how do you put a value on a
cultural phenomenon?). There are too many unknowns to say for sure.

So back to GoFish...

A great risk. No question. Great potential. Sure.

Here is some food for thought:
According to Marshall Kirkpatrick's posting on Techcrunch:
"Bolt sees more than 5 million unique visitors monthly (according to
Comscore) and turned that traffic into $7 million in revenue last
year."

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/11/bolt-sells-to-gofish-to-pay-univ...

Assuming GoFish completes it's acquisition of Bolt, they would be
paying $30 million on $7 million of Bolt's revenue. This would come
out to 4.286 times revenue, which is a large discount to what Google
paid for Youtube (110 times). Sure, Bolt is no Youtube, but the
pricing differences are astounding.

I think Gofish's niche is that much of its featured content is its own
(i.e. compared to other video sites that only provide a vehicle to
share content). There IS a reason why Viacom is suing Google for $1
billion. What are the possibilities for Gofish if Viacom wins it
lawsuit against Google? Could be good? Might not matter? Another tough
one to tell...

This is something to think about though...

...some snippets from a posting on Watchmojo.com:
http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=1379

"...advertisers are reluctant to advertise alongside user generated
content."

"They [Youtube] don't own the content, obviously, so there's nothing
all that defensible about the position, if you really think about it.
I do think that the market for new, second-tier file sharing video
sites is done and oversaturated, but amongst the companies atop the
broad landscape, a lot can change over the next few years.  Imagine if
slowly but surely, a company like GoFish were to sign 1000 deals with
content producers and all you found alternatively on YouTube was the
stereotypical user generated clips and notices saying that "this video
has been taken down," where would you go?"

It seems like what is being said here is that if Google/Youtube step
on too many toes, there is the potential for a backlash, in that
content-producers (and in turn advertisers) might move to competing
video sites.

Marc Cuban has thoughts that might support this ...
http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/03/13/you-go-viacom/

Now let's talk numbers...

Gofish's traffic:

According to Compete.com, in April, Gofish and Bolt together had been
visited by almost 8 million people (7,710,831 to be precise). This was
a very large jump over the previous month.
http://snapshot.compete.com/gofish.com+bolt.com?metric=uv

By the same metric, Youtube had over 40 million (i.e. 41,206,508; more
than five times Gofish and Bolt's total).
http://snapshot.compete.com/gofish.com+bolt.com?metric=uv

So say you build a valuation model based on Compete's people visit
numbers.

As of May 25, 2007 Gofish had a market value of about $75 million.
Putting this over its people count would give you a number of $9.73/
head. Youtube by comparison (using Compete.com's traffic numbers in
mid-November of 06' [when the acquisition closed] at about 27.5
million people-visits and the $1.65 billion acquisition price) would
now be at about $60/head.

I would say that it is very hard to value a company based on web
traffic numbers. It would also (in my opinion) be too simple to just
put a dollar value on each unique visit (because visits might not be
correlated well with user engagement). Nonetheless, I would say that
there is potential in a online video company that 1) has a substantial
amount of traffic (whether it is of quality if hard to say), 2) has
treaded somewhat carefully with  making/producing it's own content
(i.e. made-for-internet programming) and 3) has brought an
entertainment industry veteran (i.e. Peter Guber) onto its board to
help navigate in this space.

Whether or not this stock is a buy or a sell, it is hard to say (as
Einstein said, the only things that are certain are death and taxes).
Keep in mind that I'm not an investment professional and am simply
giving opinion. The potential is there but so is the risk. You decide.