5 ms·
Agreed but what is noticeable is how much greater the losses are this year (with still three months to go). 2018: $97.2m 2019: $86.0m 2020: $203.2m
by pdmfz 6y ago
Agreed but what is noticeable is how much greater the losses are this year (with still three months to go).
2018: $97.2m
2019: $86.0m
2020: $203.2m
- rdlecler1 6y agoIf LTV >> CaC then spend.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoAssuming your LTV calculations are correct, then this will work out. LTV models are really, really hard to get right though, and I've seen a bunch of startups go bust because of getting this wrong.
- vasco 6y agoBy now they have LTV metrics by cohort surely, no need to model things out in the dark
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoIf you're spending more than you're making, then you're almost certainly projecting LTV. The big, falsifiable assumption here is that your acquisition sources will keep sending you users of the same quality. Because of the way that ML systems work, this tends to not be true, and if you are using long windows it will both take you a long time to realise this, and cost you a bunch of money. This is normally how companies go bust/stop growing as a result of LTV models.
- darkwizard42 6y agoWhile in a vacuum larger losses aren't painting the full picture, but then if you take their revenue growth only increasing by 70% into context it looks even worse!