Why Companies With Zero In Revenue Get Valued At Billions Of Dollars http://www.businessinsider.com/why-companies-with-no-revenue-get-valued-at-billions-of-dollars-2014-1/comments en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:41:11 -0400 Jay Yarow http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c9aebdecad04396a4f26d3 Tim Woods Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:13:01 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c9aebdecad04396a4f26d3 Well now that you asked so nicely - Snapchat, Pinterest, LINE and the countless other little social media apps that are shown on here that supposedly are going to be "huge" - oh you mean ones that actually warrant that value. In that case, none of them. How in the world did Twitter get $316M in revenue? Ads? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c9ae306da811f8013bae69 Tim Woods Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:10:40 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c9ae306da811f8013bae69 Andressen represents "old" money - the money made during the dot-com bubble. This was a time when people could scrawl a business plan on the back of a napkin and get millions just because they said "internet" - he really doesn't know anything. Same goes for people like Mark Cuban. The reason why companies get valued that high is simple - people have forgotten that companies with real product selling for real money have real value. We have somehow forgot that fact thinking that stupid social media apps targeting niche audiences are worth money. Twitter isn't worth anything, it wasn't back then and it isn't now. It's the equivalent of being sent pages by your annoying friend who won't shut up. Snapchat is worthless too - I am not a teen who is interested in selfies from my girlfriends. The whole thing is just a joke - a friend of mine told me the other day that we are going to crash soon -- he's probably right. When that happens, all those 20-somethings who think they are rich will be working at coffee shops and retail chains wondering what they did wrong. Idiots. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c98f72eab8eaf6104f26d5 Jean Pierre Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:59:30 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c98f72eab8eaf6104f26d5 Use AdBlock Plus. I see no more ads anywhere....its actually quite amazing. And then you can use DNTme (do not rack me) and it blocks all the ad companies from knowing what you are doing. All through firefox of course but it is well worth the 25 seconds to download, install, and restart firefox. Bulbbles will be bubbles. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c98d81eab8ea7c0b4f26d9 A H Goodman Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:51:13 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c98d81eab8ea7c0b4f26d9 O'Donnell, while some of your comment is absolutely correct - the factual bits - I see no "incessant barrage of advertisements, or ... annoying, mandatory video 15 second video clips" when I'm on this site. Perhaps that's because I pay for the service? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c98c0e6bb3f7d22b4f26d1 A H Goodman Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:45:02 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c98c0e6bb3f7d22b4f26d1 I see no http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c97e3c6bb3f7800e4f26df MedlQuack Sun, 05 Jan 2014 10:46:04 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c97e3c6bb3f7800e4f26df Yeah I can see what he says, but still a company that is just a bunch of intangible algorithms versus a something tangible I can buy and wear, eat or whatever still will get a lot of heat as Wall Street plays the game with over valuation. I like Twitter and use it all the time and again the "fantasy" non tangible world going overboard and let's fact it if Twitter was not there, we would miss it but life would go on. If there was not enough tangible food out there for me, life would not go on:) So sure investors are hanging around hoping that the intangible algorithms folks will figure a way to create a math model and get some kind of web service out there to scrape and mine data to make a profit I think what it boils down to, so the investors as i see it are betting on the quants, data scientists, etc. to create the formulas that can make money selling data..what Facebook did and does along with some revenue from ads. So again that's what I see is the bet on who will create software/web services that will eventually be able to work and scan the web to eventually show a profit. It's kind of crazy and keeps the data mining and selling epidemic growing as VC jump on those quickly to fund as it represents a fast stream of incoming money. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c9775b6bb3f7be7d4f26e4 Michael O'Donnell Sun, 05 Jan 2014 10:16:43 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c9775b6bb3f7be7d4f26e4 As a regular reader of Business Insider over the years, it is clear that this site faces a similar dilemma---how to increase revenue from viewers who don't pay a dime for the service. The answer has been to increase the amount of the screen taken up with an incessant barrage of advertisements, or more annoying, is the mandatory video 15 second video clip, as was the case today with Dr. Gupta's rather simplistic explanation of the "bad marijuana trip," which was immediately followed by another video ad clip. The only bad trip I experienced was wasting my time on that piece. I ignored the videos. There has also been a tremendous shift at Business Insider toward fluff stories (Kayne West/Kim K) in the National Enquirer mold, and it does no good to select the finance subheading, as it is still filled with non-finance hack journalism. This change in approach became most obvious about the same time Simone Foxman departed as a writer for Business Insider, and she was one of the best at your site, with clear insights and a succinct use of language. Lastly, I would say there are "stories" which are nothing more than thinly disguised advertisements, generally having to do with a new product such as an automobile or some mobile device. At some point there are diminished returns from constantly pestering the reader with ads and click bait, again a similar problem which confronts Facebook. Business Insider stands at that threshold right now. By the way, the statement in this piece is laughable-- "Facebook makes plenty of money." A traditional investor, a dying breed, might question the absurd P/E ratio of 140. The revenue dilemma must be faced by a host of companies in the age of so-called free information and services. It is a long list. Facebook, ZNGA, Twitter, Snapchat, Business Insider, and on and on. Intelligent readers want depth and quality, and they are willing to pay hard money for it. The difficulty is that this population may not be large enough to sustain a site, and we will see how the experiments of the New York and LA Times work out. I sympathize with Business Insider's need to increase revenue--good writers demand good salaries--but the rubbish content, both in ads and fluff journalism, is an increasing annoyance. At a certain point, you leave and go elsewhere, and in the cyber world competition is fierce for viewers. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c9709aeab8eaca4d4f26d1 Peter Verkooijen Sun, 05 Jan 2014 09:47:54 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c9709aeab8eaca4d4f26d1 "According to the SEC filing, Twitter had $316 million in revenue last year or more than 10 times what it had in 2010. In the six months ended in June, it had revenue of $253 million, or more than twice what it had in the same period of 2012 — but it recorded a loss of $69 million. In 2012 it lost $49 million ..." - GigaOm Also, name one example of a company with "zero in revenue" that gets valued in billions? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c963d8ecad04cf584f26d1 Andy Bernard Sun, 05 Jan 2014 08:53:28 -0500 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52c963d8ecad04cf584f26d1 mam' you gotta a bubble!!!