4 ms·
At least it's marketing financed by profit. The other filings (e.g. Asana) showed marketing costs equal to 100% revenue or higher...
by hrpnk 6y ago
At least it's marketing financed by profit. The other filings (e.g. Asana) showed marketing costs equal to 100% revenue or higher...
- throwawaycow 6y agoAsana's is better: - 86% gross margins (122,725 / 142,606) - 86% YoY rev growth (76,770 to 142,606) - 75k paying customers (easy come, easy go) - one-off sale pitches vs one-off lines of code https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1477720/000119312520228462/d855753ds1.htm#fin855753_3 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1477720/000119312520...
- nv-vn 6y agoAsana's financials are way worse. The margins and revenue growth are useless when they spent 87% of profit on marketing for the last quarter. It seems like it's extremely expensive for them to make new sales and probably not cheap to retain current sales. And even when you take away ALL of those costs, they would have earned less than 1/4 million in the last quarter. If you look at the picture for the whole year it's even more ridiculous -- they would've shown a loss of $14 million in EBITDA if you REMOVED all of their marketing. I really doubt that they'll be able to turn that ship around with any amount of growth considering how much the marketing expenses have grown (36% vs. average of FY2019, or almost 100% y/y).
- adamlangsner 6y agoWhy would you mention their revenue growth and gross margin without mentioning their R&D, Marketing, and Sales & Administrative costs. Which have each all doubled YoY. Isn't that misleading? Their Net Loss went from 51M to 119M. So, in 2019 they spent 127M to generate 76M in revenue and in 2020 they spent 261M to generate 142M in revenue. Asana and Palantir both have terrible financials. They've both basically doubled their net loss YoY.