3 ms·
The traffic might not prove anything, even if it were reliable, but the bottom line might. It may prove that sometimes its better to raise a bunch of money and
by mattmaroon 17y ago
The traffic might not prove anything, even if it were reliable, but the bottom line might. It may prove that sometimes its better to raise a bunch of money and spend it on ads.
At the end of the day it's all about profits. If they're spending $1m on ads that bring in $5m in revenue, and TicketStumbler is getting only a fraction of that organically, then Fansnap will come out way ahead in the end. And users you buy from ads frequently have a higher RPU than organic ones, and the difference is often more than enough to offset the increased acquisition costs.
Not saying that's the case in this particular instance, but I think it's a mistake to say organic traffic is necessarily a more meaningful metric than overall traffic when the end metric is money.
- pg 17y agoOrganic traffic is not necessarily the best predictor of a mature company's revenues, but it is a more meaningful way to compare two newly launched companies. The impression you get from the traffic graph is that Fansnap is leaving Ticketstumbler behind, while in fact it is entirely possible (indeed likely, under the circumstances) that it reflects mainly a gradual ramping up of ad spending. I.e. that what you're seeing is a graph of increasing losses rather than increasing profits.
- Mystalic 17y agoI personally believe it's too early too tell, either 7 months ago or even now. Consumers will decide in the end who they prefer, even if it's not one of these two companies.
- rms 17y agoI would be incredibly surprised if Fansnap's advertisements were immediately ROI positive. Otherwise, the Ticketstumbler guys could use a credit card and do the same thing.