Recently, Zac Bissonnette took Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) and its press-release wizards to task for essentially issuing a document that was full of spin but low on substance. This was in regard to Amazon having its "best Christmas ever." I'm sure you've heard about it. Well, I was looking at an article yesterday that talked about some box-office numbers from General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal Pictures asset. I kind of got the same feeling about the numbers as Zac did about the Amazon Christmas thing.

Of course, keep in mind, the article I was looking at was not a press release. Still, the execs at NBC Universal are surely pretty proud about the numbers. After all, they are supposed to be best-ever stats. On the domestic side of things, Universal achieved a total box-office gross of approximately $1.1 billion.

On the international front, the studio brought in $1.7 billion. The year-over-year growth rate was flat for domestic theaters, and for international theaters, the company saw a robust 66% increase. Personally, I'm not impressed. To begin with, domestic was flat, and that's not good. And as for international, well, there was no context in terms of the effects of currency rates.

Plus, does it really matter if a studio is achieving high grosses? There's never any comment about profits and losses on specific titles, compensation structures for the stars, etc. To me, this data doesn't say a lot (admittedly, I'll never be satisfied with the amount of disclosure that studios are required to give on their movie projects).

The article mentions two films as drivers for the year that, in my opinion, underperformed in the domestic marketplace: The Incredible Hulk, based on the Marvel (NYSE: MVL) character, and the latest sequel in the Mummy franchise. The latter barely made it over the $100 million mark, and the former only grossed a little better than $130 million. Big deal. You would have figured that Universal could have squeezed some more box-office bucks out of these properties.

Many on Wall Street believe that GE should rid itself of NBC Universal. I'm not one of them, but I concede that Universal Pictures needs to do better. Seriously, Universal Pictures did okay, but not great, in '08. I sincerely hope that CEO Jeffrey Immelt does not allow the studio to rest on these laurels. That would be a shame, and a slap in the face to shareholders.

Disclosure: I own GE; positions can change without notice.

Okay, here is an absolutely brilliant idea. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. According to this blurb at The Hollywood Reporter, News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) is interested in doing a sequel to the classic 1987 film Wall Street.

Some of you younger investors out there might not be familiar with the movie, but perhaps you're familiar with the now-famous quote "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." It was uttered by the loathsome Gordon Gekko, whose alliterative name almost oozes corporate scandal and villainy. That character was played by Michael Douglas. Wall Street was directed by Oliver Stone and it portrayed the evil side of capitalism, replete with insider trading and share-price manipulation. It's considered a classic, iconic fictional snapshot of the current zeitgeist at the time: the only thing that mattered was upward mobility and accumulation of as much net worth as conceivable without consideration for the little guy. It came out around the time of the '87 market crash, so it had that going for it.

This is why News Corp. needs to fast-track the project. According to this source from May of last year, a sequel to Wall Street was already in the works. Obviously, the fact that The Hollywood Reporter mentioned the project this week means that execs at Fox feel that the timing for a sequel is approaching an optimal point. In fact, they really should try to get it out into the marketplace as quickly as they can, and hopefully with Michael Douglas reprising his role as Gekko (Douglas' return is not set in stone at this point). Not only could the movie gross a decent amount at the box office, but think of the synergy potential here.

News Corp. is fighting a battle with General Electric's (NYSE: GE) CNBC as we speak. The Fox Business Channel wants to take away as many viewers as possible from the stock-market network. Problem is, CNBC is a very powerful brand in its arena. Of course, that doesn't deter the pit bulls at Fox. If you had to describe the media company with only one word, that word would, by necessity, be a hyphenate: ultra-competitive. In fact, Fox Business Channel recently slammed BloggingStocks' own Jim Cramer in a recent promo (see a piece on this subject by Zac Bissonnette).

I get depressed whenever I read a Playboy Enterprises (NYSE: PLA) earnings report these days (see more of today's earnings news). I mean, sex sells, right? And one has to assume that Playboy has the best brand equity when it comes to selling sex, correct? Apparently not. Playboy's situation seems to be getting worse. The magazine is no longer the cool taboo it once was, the internet is killing it, and subscriptions and newsstand sales are fading. The magazine is arguably the driving heart of the brand. Without it, things will be rough. The numbers tell the tale.

For the second quarter, revenues declined over 14% to $73.4 million. The net loss was 6 cents per share. In the year-ago period, Playboy booked a 6 cents per-share profit. According to Briefing.com, revenue estimates were missed, as were expectations for earnings. In fact, Playboy missed by 11 cents! Not sexy at all.

All of the major operating segments saw declines in their top lines. Licensing increased its operating income by 9%. Publishing, believe it or not, actually narrowed its operating loss. Neither of these two positives is worth much in the grand scheme of things.

Investors who are familiar with the conditions of the economy and stock market of the bubble days of the late 90's and 2000 are probably also familiar with the term "domain speculation." According to the AP, those days seem to be back in the domain world.

The underlying premise behind the domain speculation game is that you can find domains that are undervalued or under-appreciated and sell them to someone when they become in-demand or needed. While this theme does make sense in many cases, such as purchasing a domain name that is unclaimed for a few dollars, I think that the average investor should steer far away from the purchase of already-expensive domain names with the hopes of selling them later.