Tag Archives: TechCrunch

CrunchFund and Why We Care

Over the summer, I wrote a post on Ventureminded.me entitled “The TechCrunch Machine” in which I railed against Arrington, his conflicts of interest, and how the site had lost its way, particularly how it shifted from highlighting up-and-coming startups to focusing on larger tech companies. Arrington has long been criticized for being a Silicon Valley insider writing about startups while simultaneously being an active investor. More recently, MG Siegler’s pseudo-departure from TechCrunch to join Arrington at CrunchFund raised some eyebrows as well. But why?

Chris Dixon tweeted that Michael Moritz was a former journalist and became a successful VC, so perhaps Siegler would follow a similar route. However, there’s a major difference between the guys at CrunchFund and Moritz. The latter stepped away from his journalism career at TIME to pursue a career in venture capital at Sequoia. Arrington, and to a certain extent Siegler, is still very much entrenched in unearthing stories, breaking news, and relying on sources. All of these things are not only critical to being successful at writing about startups, but are also vital to sourcing deals. So why can’t they do both and just disclose when they’re writing about an investment (as Arrington has done and continues to do)? Simply, when someone is talking to Arrington or Siegler, is he/she speaking to the writer or the investor – who knows?

In my opinion, it all comes down to a simple distinction between bloggers and journalists. The guys at CrunchFund want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be called “journalists” to have that official seal of approval from the media community, but they want to be renegade bloggers in order to continue investing without a conflict of interest cropping up all the time. It just can’t happen. A journalist must be completely impartial. For example, no CNBC employee is allowed to hold stock of any kind – even sports business reporter Darren Rovell (who is also the source of this statement). Why should a tech writer be allowed to invest in companies (whether he writes about his investments or not)?A “blogger,” on the other hand, is unofficial; it’s a person who dabbles in writing online but has some other main profession. No one has a problem with Fred Wilson blogging on a daily basis because no one would ever confuse his style or content with actual journalism, and he’s not breaking news by relying on inside sources. Arrington and Siegler, however, are journalists all the time – whether they want to be or not.

For the sake of transparency, impartiality, and a host of other reasons, Arrington needs to shut down Uncrunched or CrunchFund. Something tells me he’d be more likely to part with the former.

Groupon IPO: The Silver Lining

Groupon is a company everyone seems to love to hate.  The number of negative articles I see coming across each day has become a bit mind-numbing. From @rakeshlobster and @conorsen on Minyanville and TechCrunch, to media pundits, to @vacanti on Yipit’s blog, there’s definitely more than enough Groupon bashing to go around.  Much of it is completely justified - there is a ton of uncertainty surrounding Groupon’s business and the local commerce industry as a whole, and pointing out the risks is very important.  However, after having a look at the newly minted S-1 filing released yesterday, I thought I’d shed some light on a few potentially positive developments that I hadn’t seen mentioned anywhere else.

When a company has only been around several short years and is growing at the break-neck pace of Groupon – one additional quarter can completely change previous notions and expectations.  Here’s a couple notes to consider in concert with other analysis out there from industry experts like Yipit and others.

Returning Customers

Many argue that the swelling subscriber base is becoming stale and most people are getting sick of the multitude of daily deal emails hitting their inbox every morning.  Groupon doesn’t reveal how many of their subscribers actually click through the emails or more importantly, continue to buy groupons.  However, there is one paragraph on the bottom of page 77 that gives us a sliver of insight into how much subscribers are actually coming back – their Q2 2010 cohort.

This group of 3.7 million subscribers acquired in 2Q 2010 cost Groupon $18 million in marketing expense to acquire in that quarter and they’ve tracked this group through today.  Here’s what the data reveals (see chart below):

  • Through 2Q 2011, this group of subscribers actually held up very well.  Revenue and Gross Profit in 2Q 2011 fluctuated only slightly compared to the prior 3 quarters on average, and the number of groupons sold was flat.  So over time, this same group of subscribers is continuing to contribute about the same amount of revenue and groupons sold each quarter.  Unfortunately, there’s no way to tell if revenue from the prior three quarters was skewed towards earlier periods and therefore could be on a declining trend, but even on an average basis I’m somewhat surprised.  I think the fall in Gross Profit here is also partially attributable to a larger proportion of national deals (lower margins) being run in 2Q11 compared to the prior 3 quarters.
  • Takeaways: If subscribers can continue to generate considerable and relatively stable Revenue going forward as this cohort appears it could be doing, this is a good sign for Groupon because it means subscribers are coming back and buying.  This means that the money Groupon is spending to acquire these customers is being covered and the return on investment continues to rise.  For each of the past 4 quarters, this group of subscribers has consistently contributed more than $10 per subscriber (highlighted in green below).  Needless to say, it would be very interesting to see if this continues as well as how other cohorts might fare against this one.

Note: Subscriber acquisition costs have almost certainly increased since 2Q 2010 due to saturation and competition.  It’s also important to note that this group was a much more “early-adopter” crowd not only to Groupon, but also to the daily deal industry.  This likely means they have a greater affinity to Groupon vs. other deal sites and may be benefiting from more referral bonuses, among other unquantified biases.

Marketing Expense

One of the biggest gripes I’ve seen out there is the huge amounts of money being spent on marketing to extend the rapid growth in subscribers and customers internationally and in North America, to a lesser extent.  Notwithstanding the fact that their SG&A costs ballooned from a growingr salesforce, marketing expenses dipped significantly in 2Q 2011 vs. prior quarter.  Marketing decreased from $78.6mm in 1Q to $55.2mm in 2Q for the North America Segment (26.4% vs. 16.1%, as a percentage of revenue), and from $129.4mm in 1Q to $115.6mm in 2Q for the International Segment (37.3% vs. 21.6%, as a percentage of revenue).  Those are some pretty significant drops considering the huge amount of growth that was still observed, especially in the International Segment.  Comparable growth quarter-over-quarter on a smaller marketing budget is a good sign.  

*FY2010 for international assumes only 3 quarters of revenue

Subscriber Acquisition Costs

If the drop in marketing spend is not just a fluke, then subscriber acquisition costs are on the decline for both North America and Internationally.  1Q 2011 vs. 2Q 2011:

  • North America: cost dropped from $6.35 to $5.75 per subscriber
  • International: cost dropped from $5.12 to $4.81 per subscriber

I note that quarter-over-quarter, revenue per subscriber deteriorated in North America, and stayed flat Internationally.  Is this a bad thing?  It’s really hard to tell.. as Tricia Duryee of All Things D points out, “the average revenue per subscriber fell…which may sound bad, but at the same time, the number of subscribers skyrocketed…”.

In the end, I think there really is a silver lining in the supplemental S-1 filing.  It’s not all sunshine and roses, but I’ll let you go elsewhere to read about the other side of the argument.  Given how prevalent it is, I’d be surprised if you haven’t already, but just in case here are a few articles pointing out the faults – they all make some very valid points:

Groupon Amends S-1, But Key Numbers Still Missing by @rakeshlobster

Groupon’s Updated IPO Filing: Big Revenues, Big Losses, Lots Of Banks Underwriting It  by @jyarow

Yipit Blog: New Filing Reveals Groupon’s Oldest Markets Got Even Worse  by @vacanti

Groupon In Major Trouble as Q2 Results Show Plunging Revenue Growth by @conorsen

BOMBSHELL: Groupon’s North American Merchant Pool DECLINED In Q2 by @nichcarlson

My favorite and Most Entertaining Content on the Groupon IPO: 

Namesake panel of experts debate: is Groupon brilliant or a Ponzi scheme? 

Some gems from the @namesake conversation:

“Groupons are the subprime mortgages of 2011″ – @rakeshlobster

“The S-1 lists recession as a risk. Wrong. That was their big opportunity. A strong recovery is a risk for Groupon.” – @rakeshlobster

What do YOU think?

UPDATE: Answer the question on Quora right now: “What are the main takeaways from Groupon’s amended S-1 filing showing 2Q results?”

The TechCrunch Machine

Last week, the frequently polarizing Michael Arrington wrote a post about how TechCrunch often “blindsides companies” by writing breaking news about them without reaching out to the entrepreneur or company itself first. Of course, at the center of attention this time, is Caterina Fake and her most recent startup. Despite Arrington’s reaching out to her to ask about a round of financing she supposedly raised, Fake decided to break the news herself on her own blog. While Arrington has done a lot of great things for startups, it’s nice to finally hear of someone “standing up to him” (even if that wasn’t Fake’s intention).

When TechCrunch first launched, not only was it a fantastic resource for readers but also entrepreneurs. Readers, particularly outsiders to the startup world, could gain “insider access” and learn about the happenings in the Valley. Entrepreneurs were able to get exposure for their startup. However, over time, the mission of TechCrunch has been lost, in my opinion.

Yes, it still is a fairly good resource for people to learn about tech and startups (but there are numerous other blogs which do this comparably well). However, I feel as though the site has become “too commercial.” There’s a reason the “What’s Hot” bar at the top of the page includes: Android, Apple, Facebook, Google, Groupon, Microsoft, Twitter, Zynga. The little entrepreneur has been pushed aside for the most part. An appearance on TechCrunch has become more about marketing than anything else, and the up-and-coming startup has become an afterthought. However, startups are very much afraid to “bite the hand that feeds them” because they don’t want to become the next Fake in the eyes of Arrington.

The other main flaw with TechCrunch is more a symptom of our society now than anything else. However, it featured prominently in Arrington’s most recent post, so I feel it’s worth addressing. That is, the idea of “breaking news.” In our 24/7 news cycle Twitter world, everyone becomes a journalist who can scoop any story. Not only is TechCrunch competing against every other tech blog and the entrepreneurs themselves, but they’re also competing against you and me. If we at Venturebent hear of an amazing new startup in NYC or a crazy development at a startup here, we could potentially break the news before Arrington. And frankly, that scares the shit out of him because his competitive advantage has long been that he has the most connections. Granted our audience is microscopic compared to TechCrunch’s (for now), but losing out on a scoop damages one’s credibility, especially if that’s what you hang your hat on. Consequently, Arrington’s trigger finger has become quicker and quicker over time to the point that he’s almost adopted the phrase, “ready, fire, aim.”

Despite all the TechCrunch / Arrington bashing, I still continue to follow both on Twitter and check the site on a daily basis. I just wish they’d go back to their roots, rather than continuing to evolve into this TechCrunch Machine with Arrington at the helm.