4 ms·

BuzzFeed Raises $15.5M To Transform The Way People Get Their News

17 points by FluidDjango 15y ago

brador 15y ago
Question: Where is the 15 million worth of USP here? Anyone can throw up a buzzfeed copy in a day, so theres no usp in the site itself...and you're not buying genius talent like with hunch.com, so... What are these valuations based upon?
- yurylifshits 15y ago
  Assets are (1) audience, (2) editorial team, (3) content archive, (4) proprietary data and insights on viral content However, the valuation is based on chances for future success rather than on the current assets. Investors see bigger gains ahead.
  - brador 15y ago
    Point by point: (1) hard to copy. (2) Could be replaced by a clever algorithm. (3) Not worth much. (4) Valid, but with time can be copied and bettered. I believe the key here is the audience. Assuming they have some traffic numbers that show virality and repeat visits...but still, 1 mil is as far as I'd go for what is, essentially, an RSS reader sucking up APIs.
    - Sunspot 15y ago
      "(2) Could be replaced by a clever algorithm" lol
- ig1 15y ago
  You seem to be under the impression the value of a company is somehow related to lines of code, it's not. It's like saying techcrunch is worthless because it's just a wordpress install with fancy theme, or flipboard is worthless because it's just an RSS reader. Code is just a small part of what makes a business successful and defensible.
  - brador 15y ago
    Not really, USPs come in many forms. But I'd be interested to hear your views on how buzzfeed is defensible?
    - Hates_ 15y ago
      Most probably the 25m monthly unique visitors. Building that sort of traffic is extremely hard.
      - brador 15y ago
        Yep, I covered that in my reply to yurilifshits. The traffic is the main value prop here. Aside: Do you have a link to the 25m figure?
- majani 15y ago
  You don't have to build a fancy web 2.0 user-generated social-local-mobile app to be worth something. As long as someone has created value for a lot of people, then whatever you have built is worth a lot. PS: from personal experience I find extremely hard to ditch my favourite blogs and news sites, while I ditch my favourite social/mobile/local apps on a regular basis, but maybe that's just me.
  - brador 15y ago
    What keeps you going back to those blogs and news sites?
- wahnfrieden 15y ago
  Buzzfeed supplies many other sites with metrics analysis to help them react ahead of time when some article or whatever has gone or will go viral. Theyve gotten good at finding early indicators of this, leveraging their whole network. I'm sure there's more to it though that's my understanding and probably something at least as valuable as their user-facing site itself.
mtgentry 15y ago
I'm probably in the minority on this, but Buzzfeed has always rubbed me the wrong way with their very liberal dependance on DMCA. They frequently post content created elsewhere, and then call it fair use. For example I recall a few weeks ago one of their users posted pictures from Lindsay Lohan's Playboy shoot. Naturally the post generated tons of traffic. I fail to see how that's fair use when they aren't commenting on it, and Playboy consequently sells fewer magazines.

17 points by FluidDjango 15y ago

Question: Where is the 15 million worth of USP here? Anyone can throw up a buzzfeed copy in a day, so theres no usp in the site itself...and you're not buying genius talent like with hunch.com, so... What are these valuations based upon?

yurylifshits 15y ago
Assets are (1) audience, (2) editorial team, (3) content archive, (4) proprietary data and insights on viral content However, the valuation is based on chances for future success rather than on the current assets. Investors see bigger gains ahead.
- brador 15y ago
  Point by point: (1) hard to copy. (2) Could be replaced by a clever algorithm. (3) Not worth much. (4) Valid, but with time can be copied and bettered. I believe the key here is the audience. Assuming they have some traffic numbers that show virality and repeat visits...but still, 1 mil is as far as I'd go for what is, essentially, an RSS reader sucking up APIs.
  - Sunspot 15y ago
    "(2) Could be replaced by a clever algorithm" lol
ig1 15y ago
You seem to be under the impression the value of a company is somehow related to lines of code, it's not. It's like saying techcrunch is worthless because it's just a wordpress install with fancy theme, or flipboard is worthless because it's just an RSS reader. Code is just a small part of what makes a business successful and defensible.
- brador 15y ago
  Not really, USPs come in many forms. But I'd be interested to hear your views on how buzzfeed is defensible?
  - Hates_ 15y ago
    Most probably the 25m monthly unique visitors. Building that sort of traffic is extremely hard.
    - brador 15y ago
      Yep, I covered that in my reply to yurilifshits. The traffic is the main value prop here. Aside: Do you have a link to the 25m figure?
majani 15y ago
You don't have to build a fancy web 2.0 user-generated social-local-mobile app to be worth something. As long as someone has created value for a lot of people, then whatever you have built is worth a lot. PS: from personal experience I find extremely hard to ditch my favourite blogs and news sites, while I ditch my favourite social/mobile/local apps on a regular basis, but maybe that's just me.
- brador 15y ago
  What keeps you going back to those blogs and news sites?
wahnfrieden 15y ago
Buzzfeed supplies many other sites with metrics analysis to help them react ahead of time when some article or whatever has gone or will go viral. Theyve gotten good at finding early indicators of this, leveraging their whole network. I'm sure there's more to it though that's my understanding and probably something at least as valuable as their user-facing site itself.

mtgentry 15y ago

I'm probably in the minority on this, but Buzzfeed has always rubbed me the wrong way with their very liberal dependance on DMCA. They frequently post content created elsewhere, and then call it fair use. For example I recall a few weeks ago one of their users posted pictures from Lindsay Lohan's Playboy shoot. Naturally the post generated tons of traffic. I fail to see how that's fair use when they aren't commenting on it, and Playboy consequently sells fewer magazines.