3 ms·

This analysis misses out on the importance of growth in establishing valuations. NYT might have great revenue (it does), but it also doesn't have as much growt

This analysis misses out on the importance of growth in establishing valuations. NYT might have great revenue (it does), but it also doesn't have as much growth potential as Buzzfeed. They have fewer new markets to reach and less segments to expand into. Probably the only big financial upside they have is in cutting legacy print costs. Of course, this same growth-based analysis also applies to Facebook/Twitter vs Google. They're both much younger businesses than Google and presumably have lots of growth available in both users and advertising effectiveness. Google, on the other hand, has been selling ads since before Facebook even existed. Thus, it's easy to make a case for Google having reached it's peak while Facebook has room left to grow. Also, any analysis which conflates newsroom uniques with service users is basically useless. The average content "unique user" reads a few articles a month (if you're lucky), but the average user of a service like Facebook logs in multiple times a week. This is one of the key reasons that VCs prefer technology companies to media: users have much more of a regular relationship with their users. If the NYT shut down tomorrow, the majority of their 57 million visitors wouldn't even notice. But if Facebook shut down tomorrow, it'd be on TV: hundreds of millions of people would notice. That being said, I do agree with the premise that the NYT is undervalued. They've made tremendous strides at improving their digital operations over the past few years (especially in 2014) and have also realized that serious investment in technology is critical to remaining positive. If nytimes.com were exactly the same as it is today, with the same team & investments, but had been founded as a startup a few years ago I bet they'd have a $10b valuation at least.

thesimpsons1022 12y ago
android phones still have a lot of room to grow though, so its not quite a pessimistic outlook for google.
- morgante 12y ago
  Right. And that's why their P/E is 27.08, which is still higher than average. For example, Microsoft's is 17.70—showing that the market estimates it has significantly less growth potential than Google (which I agree with).
clabanow 12y ago
Saying "if Wall Street could assign to The New York Times the ratio Silicon Valley grants BuzzFeed (8.5 instead of a paltry 1.4), the Times would be worth about $19bn instead of the current $2.2bn" is like saying "if raindrops were lemon drops, all dentists would be millionaires." True, but irrelevant, and completely missing the reason the one is not anything like the other. Between this article and the Calacanis one about Apple buying Tesla, SV people don't seem to understand the basics of how or why publicly traded companies are valued how they are. Revenue or earnings multiples are not 'given' to a company like an award, they are the result of how a great many investors perceive the risks and upside of a company (among many other things). For a company's multiples to change, perception of the issues surrounding a company would have to change. So just saying "if it's multiple could be X" without getting into the issues why the multiple is something else, or what would have to be done business-wise to get it there, is pretty useless "analysis" and makes the differences between one company and another (and how they are perceived) seem much less than they really are.

thesimpsons1022 12y ago

android phones still have a lot of room to grow though, so its not quite a pessimistic outlook for google.

morgante 12y ago
Right. And that's why their P/E is 27.08, which is still higher than average. For example, Microsoft's is 17.70—showing that the market estimates it has significantly less growth potential than Google (which I agree with).

clabanow 12y ago

Saying "if Wall Street could assign to The New York Times the ratio Silicon Valley grants BuzzFeed (8.5 instead of a paltry 1.4), the Times would be worth about $19bn instead of the current $2.2bn" is like saying "if raindrops were lemon drops, all dentists would be millionaires." True, but irrelevant, and completely missing the reason the one is not anything like the other. Between this article and the Calacanis one about Apple buying Tesla, SV people don't seem to understand the basics of how or why publicly traded companies are valued how they are. Revenue or earnings multiples are not 'given' to a company like an award, they are the result of how a great many investors perceive the risks and upside of a company (among many other things). For a company's multiples to change, perception of the issues surrounding a company would have to change. So just saying "if it's multiple could be X" without getting into the issues why the multiple is something else, or what would have to be done business-wise to get it there, is pretty useless "analysis" and makes the differences between one company and another (and how they are perceived) seem much less than they really are.