4 ms·
> Hes created a great company Tinder has made 0 revenue since it's inception in 2012. That's not a company, that's a product. (a great product mind you) > If
by mbesto 12y ago
> Hes created a great company
Tinder has made 0 revenue since it's inception in 2012. That's not a company, that's a product. (a great product mind you)
> If tinder was private, its valuation would likely trump that of IAC.
IAC makes a lot of money ($3bil) and has a high market cap ($6bil). Given it's ownership of every large dating site, it's it conceivable that IAC has set the precedence for the total addressable market for online dating. Or at the very least, has an indication of such. I'm curious as to the rationale that would make Tinder worth more than IAC given that (1) Tinder hasn't made a single dime (2) the sites that do make money already have a large market share and continue to grow despite a free contender like Tinder existing and (3) a company "worth over a billion" needs to theoretically have a trajectory to not only bring in $150mil in revenue but exceed that in the foreseeable future in order for a billion dollar price tag to be realistic (on that same note - "billion dollar" valuations only make sense when their is a buyer who can foot that bill or the company has a trajectory to make those kind of profits. to my knowledge IAC would be the only company in existence to do such a thing).
Lastly, I'm genuinely curious about the history and terms setup between IAC and Tinder. If Tinder is such a darly of the tech world and is a "billion dollar business" then why did it chose to be so restricted by IAC when it's valuation "would likely trump that of IAC"? I curiously ask not because I have any sort of knowledge of their history, but rather the current arrangement suggests a story entirely different than the prescribed narrative that you suggest.
- jaksmit 12y agono. it's a company. It's valued on future potential. Same as Whatsapp can be valued at $19billion, despite only having $10 million in revenue. Many examples; there is future monetization potential, that they're already discussing.
- k-mcgrady 12y agoA product can have a valuation. A company is 'a commercial business' and Tinder isn't making any money therefore not engaged in commerce.
- georgespencer 12y ago> Tinder isn't making any money therefore not engaged in commerce This would probably have been true in 1914. In 2014 it seems like a semantic quibble.
- tluyben2 12y agoOh how remarks like this make me think it's 1999 again. The valuation per registered user is also starting to get to that level (I had friends with business plans calling out values of $500 per user at that time). See what happens this time.
- georgespencer 12y agoEven a Groupon-style series of accounting fuck ups would not be enough to make Tinder an unattractive business with a $value on users. It's not true for everyone, but the fact remains that you can monetise people without them paying you a dime directly.
- k-mcgrady 12y agoCommerce - the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale. Tinder is not involved in it. Doesn't mean they will never be.