4 ms·
At 10% of gross revenue, these donations would indicate DDG pulled in ~$19,090 in 2010.
by karl11 16y ago
At 10% of gross revenue, these donations would indicate DDG pulled in ~$19,090 in 2010.
- chamakits 16y agoI was thinking this exact same thing, and I really hope that isn't the case, as they are pretty awesome.
- epi0Bauqu 16y agoIt's right. You expected more?
- burgerbrain 16y agoIt is my impression that the operator is already in money, he's doing this for the hell of it.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- robryan 16y agoIt's pretty good considering that many startups are burning through VC money at this stage in their lives and the competition it is up against. Sure it could be more aggressively monetized, but if is bringing in enough to cover expenses why not focus on building a user base rather than cashing in.
- stanleydrew 16y agoThis means the $7000 billboard on the 101 in San Francisco was a significant portion of revenue. Gabriel, looking back on that, do you think it was worth it, and would you advise other startups to try it given similar revenue numbers?
- epi0Bauqu 16y agoAbsolutely.
- axod 16y agoPresumably it's the sudden jump on Jan 3rd onward here? If so seems like money well spent indeed. http://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html http://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html
- rudiger 16y agoI'm reminded of the only time Twitter ever spent money on marketing (SXSW 2007)[1]. They negotiated with the festival to put flat panel screens in the hallways. They paid $11,000 for this and set up the TVs themselves. [1] http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-process-involved-in-launching-a-start-up-at-SXSW/answer/Evan-Williams http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-process-involved-in-launchi...
- ashleyw 16y agoI'd say most of the traffic came indirectly via press who covered the story, rather than the actual billboard itself. It's been done, and I don't think the press will cover the same story twice, so don't expect the same results DDG had.