4 ms·

> Google needed Groupon's local advertising smarts more than Groupon needed anything from Google. Except cash. This was by far the best possible hope of retur

> Google needed Groupon's local advertising smarts more than Groupon needed anything from Google. Except cash. This was by far the best possible hope of returning money to the investors and shareholders. Their fiduciary duty is to return money to investors. They failed. It was an absurd home-run valuation that any venture firm would be happy with. And they are all but begging Google to compete head-to-head. Remember that Google knows everything about you already (Gmail, Google Checkout, Google Maps...); it would be easy for Google to target a buying service not only to your city, but also to your exact buying habits.

frisco 16y ago
Groupon isn't a personalization play; it's an anti-personalization one. Literally the deals only happen if many people want them. While interesting and valuable, incredibly detailed targeting is kind of tangential.
blantonl 16y ago
>> it was an absurd home-run valuation that any venture firm would be happy with If that is the case, then why aren't the investors screaming bloody murder?
- hugh3 16y ago
  Who says they're not? Quietly screaming, of course. We only have vague reports that there was ever even a deal in the air.
drgath 16y ago
"Except cash." Like Twitter & Facebook, they have access to all the money they could ever want. Plus, Groupon's revenues are through the roof right now, right on par with Facebook's.
- slapshot 16y ago
  "Cash" to return to investors, not to take from new investors. Taking new investors (especially at such a crazy valuation) just raises the expectations even further and makes Groupon have to take ever bigger risks. I mean, seriously, a $6 billion valuation (if real) is $20 in _profit_ from every man, woman, and child in the United States. Not revenue, not EBITDA, but true profit returned to investors in 2010 dollars. That is a through-the-moon valuation.
rprasad 16y ago
Management's fiduciary duty to a company's shareholders is to protect the shareholders' investment. The duty is not about "returning money". If it was, then dividends would be mandated any time a company saw profit, and management would always have to accept buyouts returning even the slightest iota of gain.
sdrinf 16y ago
> [..] they are all but begging Google to compete head-to-head Except for the part where Groupon provides an amount of hand-holding for businesses, that G has neither history, nor reputation of doing. Historically relevant datapoints: G has both a buying service[1], and an affiliate network[2], neither of which seems anything remotely close to the success that Groupon is enjoying already. [1] http://www.google.com/prdhp?hl=en&tab=wf#t:0 http://www.google.com/prdhp?hl=en&tab=wf#t:0 [2] http://www.google.com/ads/affiliatenetwork/ http://www.google.com/ads/affiliatenetwork/

frisco 16y ago

Groupon isn't a personalization play; it's an anti-personalization one. Literally the deals only happen if many people want them. While interesting and valuable, incredibly detailed targeting is kind of tangential.

blantonl 16y ago

>> it was an absurd home-run valuation that any venture firm would be happy with If that is the case, then why aren't the investors screaming bloody murder?

hugh3 16y ago
Who says they're not? Quietly screaming, of course. We only have vague reports that there was ever even a deal in the air.

drgath 16y ago

"Except cash." Like Twitter & Facebook, they have access to all the money they could ever want. Plus, Groupon's revenues are through the roof right now, right on par with Facebook's.

slapshot 16y ago
"Cash" to return to investors, not to take from new investors. Taking new investors (especially at such a crazy valuation) just raises the expectations even further and makes Groupon have to take ever bigger risks. I mean, seriously, a $6 billion valuation (if real) is $20 in _profit_ from every man, woman, and child in the United States. Not revenue, not EBITDA, but true profit returned to investors in 2010 dollars. That is a through-the-moon valuation.

rprasad 16y ago

Management's fiduciary duty to a company's shareholders is to protect the shareholders' investment. The duty is not about "returning money". If it was, then dividends would be mandated any time a company saw profit, and management would always have to accept buyouts returning even the slightest iota of gain.

sdrinf 16y ago

> [..] they are all but begging Google to compete head-to-head Except for the part where Groupon provides an amount of hand-holding for businesses, that G has neither history, nor reputation of doing. Historically relevant datapoints: G has both a buying service[1], and an affiliate network[2], neither of which seems anything remotely close to the success that Groupon is enjoying already. [1] http://www.google.com/prdhp?hl=en&tab=wf#t:0 http://www.google.com/prdhp?hl=en&tab=wf#t:0 [2] http://www.google.com/ads/affiliatenetwork/ http://www.google.com/ads/affiliatenetwork/