3 ms·
Absolutely wild. Revenue was almost as much in Q1 2011 as it was in all year in 2010 ($645m vs. $713m) with a 20,000% revenue growth since June 200. They are h
by bryanh 15y ago
Absolutely wild. Revenue was almost as much in Q1 2011 as it was in all year in 2010 ($645m vs. $713m) with a 20,000% revenue growth since June 200.
They are hoping to raise "close to $1 billion at a valuation of about $20 billion." [1]
And they still aren't turning a profit. (~15% loss Q1 2011 and ~54% loss in 2010) [2]
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576361631817311972.html#ixzz1O9D5o2Hb http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230374530457636...
[2] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490281/000104746911005613/a2203913zs-1.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490281/0001047469110...
- daeken 15y agoIncredibly impressive revenue, but really, $389.6MM loss on $713MM revenue? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't get why it's being hyped up so highly.
- whakojacko 15y agoPresumably because, like many a previous startup, revenue growth is fantastic. I agree with the HN consensus though-they have no real way of differentiating themselves from LivingSocial et all, so they will continue to have to pump lots of money into marketing ($208m in Q1!!), sales teams, etc and watch their margins go down over time.
- rorrr 15y agoThat's some pretty insane expenses. What are they wasting money on? EDIT: 1) Ad spend: $200+ million 2) 7000+ employees (at $40K average per employee, that's $280M/year)
- MatthewPhillips 15y agoSalary, to convince businesses to work with them on their extreme terms.
- daniel-cussen 15y agoSome startups (notably Amazon) use the money they raise to outrun competitors by subsidizing the product. Then, when they have the network tied up, they start making a large profit.
- roc 15y ago> "And they still aren't turning a profit." That part just boggles my mind. How can you go from revenue of 30M to 713M in a single year and not have wound up with any profit? Their revenue has grown so fast that I simply cannot imagine being able to greenlight enough spending [1] to get rid of it all in such a short amount of time. [1] intelligent spends that is; frivolous waste notwithstanding.
- hundredwatt 15y agoI assume there revenue numbers refer to the amount of money collected BEFORE paying merchants. Is that correct?
- bryanh 15y agoYes. I'm assuming that it reported as the cost of revenue (~58% in Q1 2011).
- jonknee 15y agoI'd imagine it has something to do with the 7,000+ employees and incredible amount of advertising spend.
- roc 15y agoThe employee growth is definitely a part of it. They went from, what was it? 120 in 2009 to 4000 in 2010? My boggling is more at the challenge of intelligently doing that spending than simply tabulating it. e.g. how do you intelligently hire 20 people a workday, every workday for an entire year, when you were a 100-person company?
- andrewcross 15y agoJust mind-boggling. In Canada at least the advertising budget is just monstrous. Their ads are everywhere!
- sbov 15y agoI'm not a pro at reading these, but it seems like you can see for yourself at: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490281/000104746911005613/a2203913zs-1.htm http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490281/00010474691100561... That 713M "costed" 433M (seems to be that what goes to the companies advertising via groupon). Then theres 263M on "marketing", 233M on "selling, general, and administrative", and 203M on "acquisition related". The link has more detail on what each of these means.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- lotusleaf1987 15y agoThis is always someone's reaction when someone calls bubble. I don't think it's justified you have to short the stock to be skeptical.