3 ms·

Yes, they became profitable in 2016 via mostly brand advertising [1][2]. The company has nearly 400 employees according to LinkedIn. With a very conservative pe

by meritt 9y ago

Yes, they became profitable in 2016 via mostly brand advertising [1][2]. The company has nearly 400 employees according to LinkedIn. With a very conservative personnel estimate of $125k/employee/year, that's $50M alone. Let's throw on another $25M for everything else and they need to be doing at least $75M+ in annual revenue. [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2016/04/20/shazam-for-brands-user-activity/ https://www.macrumors.com/2016/04/20/shazam-for-brands-user-... [2] https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7526322/shazam-1-billion-downloads-profit-advertising https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7526322/shazam-1...

JonFish85 9y ago
Is it actually profitable? "Profitable" is a fun term to throw around to make your business look good, but it can mean a lot of different things (net margin profitable, gross margin profitable, pre tax profitable, etc). I'd be surprised if they really were all that profitable (meaning they would end each year with more money than they started with).
- meritt 9y ago
  Fair point, guess we'll see when Apple discloses more details on financials. Given that Apple seems to compensate junior engineers with compensation packages north of $300k, it wouldn't be too surprising if they overpaid for Shazam too. Apple also has $74.2B in cash and short-term investments, so paying $0.6B for Shazam doesn't really move the needle.
charlesdm 9y ago
Perhaps I have limited understanding of running a £40m a year business, but why does an app like Shazam need 400 employees? Even if selling data and/or advertising, do they need (say) a 200 people sales team.. ?
- meritt 9y ago
  I have no idea, it's bewildering to me frankly. Take two recent IPOs for example: MongoDB had 820 employees as of July 31st. StitchFix had 5,800 employees as of July 31st [2]. [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1441816/000104746917006014/a2233365zs-1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1441816/000104746917... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1576942/000119312517313629/d400510ds1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1576942/000119312517...

by meritt 9y ago

JonFish85 9y ago

Is it actually profitable? "Profitable" is a fun term to throw around to make your business look good, but it can mean a lot of different things (net margin profitable, gross margin profitable, pre tax profitable, etc). I'd be surprised if they really were all that profitable (meaning they would end each year with more money than they started with).

meritt 9y ago
Fair point, guess we'll see when Apple discloses more details on financials. Given that Apple seems to compensate junior engineers with compensation packages north of $300k, it wouldn't be too surprising if they overpaid for Shazam too. Apple also has $74.2B in cash and short-term investments, so paying $0.6B for Shazam doesn't really move the needle.

charlesdm 9y ago

Perhaps I have limited understanding of running a £40m a year business, but why does an app like Shazam need 400 employees? Even if selling data and/or advertising, do they need (say) a 200 people sales team.. ?

meritt 9y ago
I have no idea, it's bewildering to me frankly. Take two recent IPOs for example: MongoDB had 820 employees as of July 31st. StitchFix had 5,800 employees as of July 31st [2]. [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1441816/000104746917006014/a2233365zs-1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1441816/000104746917... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1576942/000119312517313629/d400510ds1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1576942/000119312517...