zlacker

[parent] [thread] 13 comments
1. dwaxe+(OP)[view] [source] 2016-09-27 20:37:44
By YC startup standards again, Reddit isn't a very successful company. The amount of early investment that went into it has certainly paid off, but monetization is a seriously hard problem for them.
replies(1): >>CptJam+j5
2. CptJam+j5[view] [source] 2016-09-27 21:12:45
>>dwaxe+(OP)
Reddit's last round valued them at $500 million, and it is something like the 25th most visited site on the Internet.

That's a successful company by any standard.

replies(3): >>Alupis+x6 >>dsacco+3c >>mbesto+9d
◧◩
3. Alupis+x6[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-27 21:23:52
>>CptJam+j5
> Reddit's last round valued them at $500 million

> That's a successful company by any standard.

Simply being "valued" at some dollar amount doesn't actually mean success. Revenue and positive net profit mean success...

replies(1): >>Reedx+Pc
◧◩
4. dsacco+3c[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-27 22:17:42
>>CptJam+j5
>>Reddit's last round valued them at $500 million, and it is something like the 25th most visited site on the Internet. That's a successful company by any standard.

I think you're conflating "impressive" and "successful." I would say that based on the numbers you've given, Reddit is an impressive company (it's hard to get any company to that level of private investment and internet fame!), but it's not necessarily a successful company yet.

Being that Reddit's valuation is solely attributable to private investment and not revenue generation (so far), the only sound way to judge whether or not it is a financially successful company is based on its potential return to investors.

By the standards of most VCs in tech, a $500M exit is suboptimal, which will result in either a modest return or just getting their money back. This is not good for a firm's "batting average" when they're trying to beat the SPY with a ten year fund. They need to cover their losses (which, indutry-wide, represents approximately all of their investments), their staff and business continuity costs, their management and performance fees and still beat the market. Modest returns aren't helpful in that regard.

You also have to consider the likelihood that Reddit will transition into a mature business that can exist profitably on its own, without continually receiving significant infusions of cash. If it can't find a way to navigate out of "tech adolescence" it's not really a successful company. The last numbers I read indicated that Reddit has achieved an annual revenue of $8-10M, which is an annual return of >= 2%. Considering that the S&P's average annual return is about 7%, you could earn $10M on $500M by sticking it into an index fund and literally burning the other $25M you would have generated by doing nothing.

◧◩◪
5. Reedx+Pc[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-27 22:25:22
>>Alupis+x6
What if Reddit is around for 50 years, paying dozens of employees the whole time while never making a net profit. Would that not be a successful company to essentially everyone? (except the investors)
replies(2): >>Alupis+qi >>kasey_+5q
◧◩
6. mbesto+9d[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-27 22:28:23
>>CptJam+j5
It might be "successful" (however you define that), but $8.3M in Revenue in 2014 (and an estimated $10M in 2015) on $50M in investment (not including Conde Naste's investment) in a 10 year period for a company valued at $500M and the 25th most visited site, seems like it's under-performing.
replies(1): >>rhizom+pj
◧◩◪◨
7. Alupis+qi[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-27 23:12:36
>>Reedx+Pc
If all your business does it extract money from investors and deposit it into employee's pockets (and never generates self sustaining revenue, let alone turn profits), I think we'd call that a charity, more than anything.
replies(1): >>Reedx+9u
◧◩◪
8. rhizom+pj[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-27 23:22:29
>>mbesto+9d
Underperforming relative to what standard?
replies(2): >>nashas+8m >>mbesto+kq
◧◩◪◨
9. nashas+8m[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-27 23:51:28
>>rhizom+pj
ROI: the standard of YC
◧◩◪◨
10. kasey_+5q[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-28 00:43:54
>>Reedx+Pc
No. That would be a very unsuccessful company.
◧◩◪◨
11. mbesto+kq[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-28 00:46:35
>>rhizom+pj
Underperforming versus it's competitors. I know of several websites that do 1/1000th of the traffic and have similar, if not better revenue.
replies(1): >>rhizom+Wj2
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. Reedx+9u[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-28 01:44:25
>>Alupis+qi
Yeah, I should have been clearer - the assumption is that it would have self sustaining revenue at some point (I can't imagine many investors would keep putting $ into it after 50 years). It would just be a break even business.

That's why I would say it's a success to everyone but the investors who never got their payday.

replies(1): >>jonkne+ox
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
13. jonkne+ox[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-28 02:35:24
>>Reedx+9u
> That's why I would say it's a success to everyone but the investors who never got their payday.

Yes, so it would not be a successful venture backed company. Lifestyle businesses are fine if you pay for them. When someone else invests and expects a return you need to provide a return to be successful.

◧◩◪◨⬒
14. rhizom+Wj2[view] [source] [discussion] 2016-09-28 22:29:11
>>mbesto+kq
I wonder if branding strategies keep their numbers down. I don't ever see a sidebar ad for Coca Cola.
[go to top]