3 ms·

$100 million sounds way too much. In this forbes article it says $25million in 2017. https://www.forbes.com/companies/basecamp/#1245fcb347b7 https://www.forbes.

$100 million sounds way too much. In this forbes article it says $25million in 2017. https://www.forbes.com/companies/basecamp/#1245fcb347b7 https://www.forbes.com/companies/basecamp/#1245fcb347b7

runako 7y ago
Forbes asks the company, and they guess if the company doesn't share. If the company does share, the numbers are not AFAIK audited. (This is to say that I would not expect the Forbes data to be especially accurate.) Basecamp is claiming 200k more accounts since 2018. At 100% retention, that's $20mm per month of new revenue. Factor in whatever churn you want, a $25mm annual revenue estimate for Basecamp 2017 sounds ridiculously low. (They are claiming 700k new accounts between 2016 & 2018.)
- davidivadavid 7y ago
  I've also seen that figure thrown around quite a bit and I'm a bit skeptical. It also makes the question of profit redistribution particularly interesting given the tone DHH employs everywhere.
- 1123581321 7y ago
  Those aren’t net new accounts.
  - runako 7y ago
    As I indicated: > Factor in whatever churn you want Right, take the $20mm/mo in gross new business & apply your favorite convert rate to that. Then, apply your favorite churn rate to the existing business. You have to pick really pessimistic numbers to get from 2.8mm signups of a $99/mo service to arrive at a $25mm annual revenue number. Specifically: ~.75% of their total claimed signups since 2004. Or ~2.5% of their claimed signups since 2016. (Put another way: if they converted 10% of their signups since 2016, that's > $100mm run rate before accounting for churn.) Basically, to assume they are doing only $25mm annually you have to assume either (as the parallel comment does) they are publicly lying about their number of signups or that they have pretty poor conversion/retention numbers. My guess is option #3: they are doing much more than $25mm annually.

$100 million sounds way too much. In this forbes article it says $25million in 2017. https://www.forbes.com/companies/basecamp/#1245fcb347b7 https://www.forbes.com/companies/basecamp/#1245fcb347b7

runako 7y ago

Forbes asks the company, and they guess if the company doesn't share. If the company does share, the numbers are not AFAIK audited. (This is to say that I would not expect the Forbes data to be especially accurate.) Basecamp is claiming 200k more accounts since 2018. At 100% retention, that's $20mm per month of new revenue. Factor in whatever churn you want, a $25mm annual revenue estimate for Basecamp 2017 sounds ridiculously low. (They are claiming 700k new accounts between 2016 & 2018.)

davidivadavid 7y ago
I've also seen that figure thrown around quite a bit and I'm a bit skeptical. It also makes the question of profit redistribution particularly interesting given the tone DHH employs everywhere.
1123581321 7y ago
Those aren’t net new accounts.
- runako 7y ago
  As I indicated: > Factor in whatever churn you want Right, take the $20mm/mo in gross new business & apply your favorite convert rate to that. Then, apply your favorite churn rate to the existing business. You have to pick really pessimistic numbers to get from 2.8mm signups of a $99/mo service to arrive at a $25mm annual revenue number. Specifically: ~.75% of their total claimed signups since 2004. Or ~2.5% of their claimed signups since 2016. (Put another way: if they converted 10% of their signups since 2016, that's > $100mm run rate before accounting for churn.) Basically, to assume they are doing only $25mm annually you have to assume either (as the parallel comment does) they are publicly lying about their number of signups or that they have pretty poor conversion/retention numbers. My guess is option #3: they are doing much more than $25mm annually.