3 ms·

If they are pulling in $2billion a year as the stories are saying, $6B is nearly chump change. Plus it keeps the humans involved in Groupon rather than Google

If they are pulling in $2billion a year as the stories are saying, $6B is nearly chump change. Plus it keeps the humans involved in Groupon rather than Google trying to replace it with algorithms.

jonknee 16y ago
Who has said they are anywhere near $2B in annual revenue? The estimates I've heard are around $500m. That's revenue, they pay out 50% on the top, so $250m net. Not a bad amount, but they have a ton of staff (3,000+) to pay before any profits are considered.
- sedachv 16y ago
  I was wondering why the hell they need 3,000 employees. This WSJ article was informative: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575647033055940528.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870467920457564... "Currently about half of Groupon's 3,000 employees are in sales" That explains a lot. They have a ton of telemarketers pushing onto every business with a phone number. This reminds me a lot of the "local directory" space (which the WSJ article claims they're occupying, but from the POV of the small business owner and the consumer it looks like a very different product). There was a lot of excitement and initial signups when things first got off the ground (just a bit before the bubble burst), but the churn can be horrendous. The difference with Groupon is that the "ads" are actually accountable and produce sales compared to local directory ones. But there's been a few horror stories about dumb business owners getting fucked over with "we're losing $1 on every sale, but we'll make up for it on volume!" deals. Their own fault, but I bet the Groupon telemarketers are pushing it on them like Walmart pushes on suppliers. What I'd like to see is the current churn rate. If Groupon and competitors keep going at the current pace and businesses keep getting burned, eventually they'll burn the market.

If they are pulling in $2billion a year as the stories are saying, $6B is nearly chump change. Plus it keeps the humans involved in Groupon rather than Google trying to replace it with algorithms.

jonknee 16y ago

Who has said they are anywhere near $2B in annual revenue? The estimates I've heard are around $500m. That's revenue, they pay out 50% on the top, so $250m net. Not a bad amount, but they have a ton of staff (3,000+) to pay before any profits are considered.

sedachv 16y ago
I was wondering why the hell they need 3,000 employees. This WSJ article was informative: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575647033055940528.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870467920457564... "Currently about half of Groupon's 3,000 employees are in sales" That explains a lot. They have a ton of telemarketers pushing onto every business with a phone number. This reminds me a lot of the "local directory" space (which the WSJ article claims they're occupying, but from the POV of the small business owner and the consumer it looks like a very different product). There was a lot of excitement and initial signups when things first got off the ground (just a bit before the bubble burst), but the churn can be horrendous. The difference with Groupon is that the "ads" are actually accountable and produce sales compared to local directory ones. But there's been a few horror stories about dumb business owners getting fucked over with "we're losing $1 on every sale, but we'll make up for it on volume!" deals. Their own fault, but I bet the Groupon telemarketers are pushing it on them like Walmart pushes on suppliers. What I'd like to see is the current churn rate. If Groupon and competitors keep going at the current pace and businesses keep getting burned, eventually they'll burn the market.