5 ms·

Zynga showed very little ability to reproduce their success in Farmville. Meanwhile Facebook had changed their policies making Zynga's viral growth more difficu

by josho 13y ago

Zynga showed very little ability to reproduce their success in Farmville. Meanwhile Facebook had changed their policies making Zynga's viral growth more difficult to obtain for their next games, and they hadn't proven any success in mobile. So, for those that understood the market Zynga hadn't proven a sustainable business model. However, the Wall Street drumbeat was quite a different story. In my opinion Zynga didn't need the cash that the IPO offered to re-invest in their business, it was simply a vehicle to cash out investors. So, evidence of deception? All I can provide is that as a solid investment opportunity Zynga was anything but, as a well sold story that wall street spun, perhaps so.

pfraze 13y ago
That's a pretty fair view in my mind. Games companies are always troubled by sustainability, so I don't think Zynga's problems are unique - and that's a problem. Their stock would've only been worth buying if they had cracked sustainability, and their early success seemed a bit dressed up to act like they had.
stratagerm 13y ago
> Meanwhile Facebook had changed their policies making Zynga's viral growth more difficult to obtain for their next games Don't forget that this viral growth was achieved through unethical methods. [1] In the fall of 2009 a number of articles appeared calling out the unethical behavior which changed the climate and forced Facebook to alter its policy: Scamville: The Social Gaming Ecosystem Of Hell [2] Scamville: Zynga Says 1/3 Of Revenue Comes From Lead Gen And Other Offers [3] Zynga CEO Mark Pincus: "I Did Every Horrible Thing In The Book Just To Get Revenues" [4] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga#Scam_ads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga#Scam_ads [2] http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming-ecosystem-of-hell/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming... [3] http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/02/scamville-zynga-says-13-of-revenue-comes-from-lead-gen-and-other-offers/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/02/scamville-zynga-says-13-of-... [4] http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus-faceboo/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus...

by josho 13y ago

pfraze 13y ago

That's a pretty fair view in my mind. Games companies are always troubled by sustainability, so I don't think Zynga's problems are unique - and that's a problem. Their stock would've only been worth buying if they had cracked sustainability, and their early success seemed a bit dressed up to act like they had.

stratagerm 13y ago

> Meanwhile Facebook had changed their policies making Zynga's viral growth more difficult to obtain for their next games Don't forget that this viral growth was achieved through unethical methods. [1] In the fall of 2009 a number of articles appeared calling out the unethical behavior which changed the climate and forced Facebook to alter its policy: Scamville: The Social Gaming Ecosystem Of Hell [2] Scamville: Zynga Says 1/3 Of Revenue Comes From Lead Gen And Other Offers [3] Zynga CEO Mark Pincus: "I Did Every Horrible Thing In The Book Just To Get Revenues" [4] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga#Scam_ads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga#Scam_ads [2] http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming-ecosystem-of-hell/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming... [3] http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/02/scamville-zynga-says-13-of-revenue-comes-from-lead-gen-and-other-offers/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/02/scamville-zynga-says-13-of-... [4] http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus-faceboo/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus...