What they are doing is basically running a pay for service pump and dump outfit.
Pay them $249/month (or $2400/year) and they'll give you 24 hour advance reading of their "Alpha Rich" articles. You then buy the stock and when they lift the embargo on it the next day, you have all the dumb money following.
People need to do their own research. Seeking Alpha is no more corrupt than Motley fool or this Message Board. Seeking Alpha does have good articles. However, I do my own research beyond Seeking Alpha. An investor , ultimately, chooses to buy the stock. Individual investors need to accept responsibility for their stock choices.
Actually what they do is significantly different and unless you understand what they do with the Pro articles, I don't think you're in any position to state that it is no different than Motley Fool or this message board.
The other person here who made the analogy with what happened with Businessweek a few years ago was more correct. However, that case was not as blatant as what is happening in this situation. In the Businessweek case, they kept it completely secret (until it was uncovered) because obviously it was wrong and the people behind it knew it. Seeking Alpha is doing this right out in the open.
I may need to subscribe to their Pro service for a month or two as an experiment.
Come on - take a step back for a moment and just look at it objectively ... not as a shareholder, but as someone who has no attachment at all.
Now, let's suppose I have a website with over 1 million subscribers who receive a daily email of investment articles. When those subscribers receive their daily email, many will read the articles. Not everyone, and not every article of course. SA is very aware of the extent of their distribution and how the articles can move a stock. Ok, now, let's suppose I take some small subset of those daily articles, and I say "Hey, we're going to take these particular articles and hold them back for a day before letting those 1 million subscribers see it in their daily email, along with distributing to our partner sites (e.g. Yahoo Finance). We'll let you see these particular articles for a full 24 hours in advance of those millions of other people if you pay us a fee".
As the objective outsider, you don't see anything wrong with this way of operating?
My issue is not particular to RICK (though I am not convinced that it is a good investment), but to all articles SA runs in this manner and how they run their business/operation. It is reminiscent of Tokyo Joe and other similar "services" that have come and gone over the years.