The article states they lost $328k on revenues of $90M for the first 9 months of the year. The $328k loss is not really material (either as a proportion of reve

The article states they lost $328k on revenues of $90M for the first 9 months of the year. The $328k loss is not really material (either as a proportion of revenue, or absolutely versus the size of the business) they are essentially breaking even. If you look at the numbers (image in the article) The $328k loss also includes some exceptional charges, they made an operating profit of $1.15M in the period. Their revenues in the same 9 months of last year were $31m, so they have tripled their revenues year on year. Over the same period their costs less than doubled. If one were to extrapolate this growth rate forward by just one year (a bit crude, but makes a point), they'd end up with $270m revenue, on $170m costs so $100m profit. They are now breaking even - which is a simple metric of a sane business/proven model, doing significant revenue and growing very quickly. So now they are in an attractive state for the markets. In terms of strategy, Techcrunch shows their first VC round was back in 2000, with significant further rounds in 2004 and 2005. One could safely assuming the overriding factor is that VCs will be looking for an exit. An IPO will also provide the company with significant injection of operating cash, along with liquid paper (stock) with which they can use in further acquisitions