Tuyen’s Blog

A few articles came out today re: why teens don't use Twitter. You can read the articles for yourself and I think they raise some valid points. Most of the folks I follow (and who follow me) on Twitter are people of my age group or older. I only have a handful of people in their teens or early 20's category who I follow and vice versa - all of which are family. My own humble opinion on why teens don't use Twitter? They just don't have the bandwidth (mental not data) to deal with yet another social network. Facebook (and before them MySpace) came on the scene before Twitter and people jumped in and love it. I know people who spend hours a day on Facebook. Adding another social networking site that somewhat does the same thing is just extraneous.
 
Now, for the second part regarding why I think I'm the worst customer for Facebook. I post to Facebook often via Posterous. That means I'm posting updates, pictures, videos, etc. However, I rarely actually go to Facebook (about once a month, maybe). All that media takes up space and when people view it, that takes up bandwidth. But I've never clicked on a Facebook ad once and it's probably looking like I won't any time soon. I don't "interact" with the service in a way that might derive revenue for them. Who knows, maybe they've baked people like me into their model but I'm sure they would prefer it if I was spending more time on the site itself.

Loading mentions Retweet

Just read on ESPN.com that an employee of the Philadelphia Eagles was fired for a post he put up on Facebook. Basically, this employee was upset that one of his favorite players, Brian Dawkins, signed with the Denver Broncos. His post was:

"Dan is [expletive] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver ... Dam Eagles R Retarted!!"

Seems pretty harmless by sports forum chatter standards. The employee later deleted the post but was still fired a few days later. I've heard of similar things happening in other non-sports related companies where employees have been terminated for making detrimental statements on social networking or blog sites. I'm sure the threshold is different for each company and I can't speak to what I'd do if faced with a similar situation. Most likely, my take would be that unless an employee is leaking private company information or committing deliberate libel towards the company or another employee, it's really not a big deal. Employees shouldn't be afraid to voice their opinions about their employers. If nothing else, I'd view it as a valuable communication tool for employers to improve the way they do things. However, incidents like the above are just another reminder that in the new age of Facebook/MySpace/Twitter/Blogs/etc. we have far less privacy than we'd like to think (a lot of which is our own fault). My rule of thumb is I expect every post/update/comment/etc. that I make will be read by every single person in the world from my business partners to my mother. If I wouldn't want any of them reading it, I shouldn't even put it up.

Loading mentions Retweet

I'm reading the Techcrunch post re: Twitter and it's Series C round of $35M. Congrats to them. In reading the comments, I noticed there was a fair amount of hate re: why anyone would continue to fund a company that doesn't have a revenue generating strategy in place. That's a legit stance. Still, I don't have as much pessimism about Twitter than I do about say, Facebook. For one, Twitter hasn't unveiled its revenue generating products yet. For all we know, it could hit a monster homerun. Facebook on the other hand has made several attempts at generating revenue with some success (and some failures - Beacon anyone?). Still, I'll reserve judgement until after they roll out those proposed revenue generating products.
 
One comment in particular was from a guy named Nathan:

Useless is a bit much. The service is useful to millions of people who use it multiple times every day. The issue isn't the usefulness of the service, it's the fact that it doesn't generate revenue. A big difference. Also, it seems that Nathan is a little bitter that his revenue generating start-up can't get funding. On that point, I feel for him. Fundraising is not easy. You'd be lucky to get one second meeting out of ten first meetings with investors. We've been fundraising for about a month and had to hear a lot of no's before we got to the handful of promising second/third meetings we are entering into now. Our business, like Nathan's, is not that sexy though we do generate revenue and have very strong growth projections.
 
The analogy I like to use is this. Someone comes up to you and asks for a million dollars to open a couple of Denny's franchises. The person provides solid sales numbers, tons of historical data, etc. and tells you that you'll most likely make back your money in 3-5 years and then receive a nice 10% dividend each year. Then another person comes and tells you they need a million dollars to open a new concept high-end restaurant with a new chef who has worked under the best chefs in the country. Who would you fund? My answer would be the Denny's franchise, but that's because I'm not rich and like the stability of a safe investment. For investors who already have money, the idea of a nice solid investment throwing off 10% just doesn't excite them. They need the next billion dollar payout - the next YouTube, Yahoo, or Google. Otherwise, they'd just go buy bonds and commodities.

Loading mentions Retweet

I've tried a few different times to peg Facebook's valuation. Looks like they did it for me, according to the settlement the ConnectU guys got. Also, I'm testing out Posterous' tagging via email system. Hope it works!

UPDATE: Looks like I haven't quite figured out the tagging via email for Posterous just yet...

Loading mentions Retweet

Let's see if this works.

Loading mentions Retweet

I've posted before about Facebook and its valuation ... not always in the most optimistic light. I'm reading a post today about rumors that Bebo is being actively shopped by AOL. Now I'm doing some very very rough calculations based on some very very vague assumptions, but I think I might have undervalued Facebook.
 
My take has always been that Facebook should be valued at about 5 times revenue. I still hold to that value and have said I would revise my numbers should I get more detail into Facebook's real revenues. Well based on the TechCrunch post, Bebo is rumored to be valued at about $200 million which supposedly is two times its current annual revenues (or $100 million). I pulled some traffic numbers from QuantCast for both these guys:

   

Click here to download:

Maybe_I_was_wrong_about_Facebo.zip (20 KB)

Making a very simple assumption of traffic = revenue, I'll assume that Facebook has 11.47 times the revenue of Bebo or $1.147 billion. Based on that, my new valuation for them is about $5.735 billion. Still a far cry from the $15 billion valuation they raised their last round with but not too shabby. Again, this is a very rough estimate and who knows whether I'm still above or below their true revenue number. My hope is that Facebook is doing well and that they can still grow. We all know the Bay Area could use a big employer nowadays.

Loading mentions Retweet

I wrote a post a while back where I did a back of the envelope calculation of Facebook's valuation - somewhere between $1.5 to $1.75 billion. I based it on revenue numbers of about $300M to $350M (5 times revenue was my rationalization) and if Facebook revenues are higher, I'll revise that estimate up.
 
I was watching Tech Ticker today where Sarah Lacy was interviewing Paul Kedrosky about Facebook's outlook for 2009. The question of valuation came up and Paul stated his estimate was about $500M to $600M. Though I don't agree with that valuation, I can see how he came up with this number. The online advertising market has contracted since last year so even though Facebook may be growing in revenue, I don't see how it can grow in the most important number of revenue per user. Sarah's response showed she was well on the other side of the fence in her defense of Facebook, which I don't agree with, as well. Her argument that Facebook was still an early stage private company in product development mode and not focusing on revenue is a bit off. Facebook has been around since 2004 and has made a few attempts at monetizing its traffic with no real success. Her other assertion that Facebook was similar to Google and that eventually they'll pull it off is also a stretch. Google did not raise $516M (it raised about $25M) and in its 5th year of operation made almost $1.5B in sales and over $100M in net income. I don't know what Facebook's revenues are like but I doubt it's more than $400M-$500M and they're most certainly not profitable (break-even at best). The fallacy in comparing Facebook with Google is that it costs Google far less to support each user on its system than Facebook AND it generates far more revenue per user than Facebook does. Until Facebook can find the magic bullet, I can't justify giving it a higher valuation.

Loading mentions Retweet

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Facebook has pulled its planned employee stock sale. This would have allowed the 800+ employees of Facebook to sell a portion of their stock to private investors - supposedly $900,000 worth or 10% of vested shares, whichever is less. Reasons that some outlets are stating was that Facebook couldn't find any private investors who wanted to buy the stock at a company valuation of $4 billion - a far cry from the $15 billion valuation Microsoft got for its $240 million investment.
 
I'm not really shocked that there were no takers at $4 billion. At the time of the original Microsoft investment, I thought Facebook's value was somewhere around $7 - $8 billion. Then when Techcrunch got a hold of some internal financials, I did a back of the envelope recalculation and stated that they should be valued at $4.5 - $5.25 billion which is 15 times projected 2008 revenues. Contrast that with Yahoo or Google which are valued at 2.19 and 4.13, respectively. These have gone down some recently but even if you calculate at January 2008 share prices, Yahoo and Google would still only trade at 4.44 and 10.91 times revenue, respectively. You can make the argument that these are more mature, slower growing companies but these are also PROFITABLE companies - in the case of Google, VERY PROFITABLE. Facebook, on the other hand has huge capital expenditures for servers/bandwidth ($200 million according to Techcrunch) and a hard to monetize audience. They may be GAAP profitable or break-even but most definitely not cash flow positive. Given the eventual slowdown in the online advertising market, I don't think it will get easier for them to squeeze more revenue from their users. However, the cost to support their growing legion of users is going to grow as they'll need more servers and bandwidth.
 
With that said, my new calculation of Facebook's value would only be at best 5 times revenue or $1.5 - $1.75 billion. Of course if they had allowed the employee sale to reset the value of their company, I doubt they'd raise enough through an eventual IPO to cover their growing capital expenditures. The more important question is, how much of the $516 million that they've raised is still there? My guess is that if they can't raise another $100+ million round soon, Facebook could be in for some tough times.

Loading mentions Retweet

I guess we can't say this was unexpected. Though I have been critical of Yang in the past, I always maintained that he was only doing what he thought best for Yahoo. He can't really be blamed for the downturn in the online advertising market (everyone is hurting) or even losing market share in search to Google (Semel can take the brunt of that hit). The failure of the Microsoft deal will squarely fall on his shoulders but if it turns out a new CEO can turn Yahoo's fortunes around, the pain of that gaff will be greatly diminished.

So who would make a good CEO? I think they should go and poach a very senior executive from the Google ranks. It would have to be someone from outside the inner circle but still high enough to have had their fingers in a significant amount of Google's operations. My short list would be Shona Brown, Jonathan Rosenberg, David Eun, or perhaps even Marissa Mayer. If Facebook has shown it can poach, why not Yahoo? It has much better financials and a stronger foundation - i.e., better chance of success, in my opinion.

Loading mentions Retweet

Yahoo! is tanking on yesterday's confirmations from Jerry Yang and Steve Ballmer that the rumors of a new buy-out deal by Microsoft were indeed false. Yahoo!'s currently valued at about $16 billion, a far cry from the $46 billion that Microsoft had offered. The question now is, in this bad economic climate, how long will it take for Yahoo! (if at all) to reach that valuation on its own? 2 years? Maybe 4 years?

The big bet they are making is that YOS is going to blow up. I'm not necessarily sure being a platform translates into significantly higher reveneus/profits. It almost seems as if they want to get more people to interact with them in more of a Facebook style. To my knowledge, Facebook still hasn't found a way to effectively monetize all of its traffic.

I think they should take a page out of Google's book and copy AdSense but make it more open and transparent. As a former AdSense customer, it's a pretty cryptic system. "Just put this script up and trust that we'll pay you something." Yahoo! could improve upon this by treating publishers like partners and not kids. Yahoo! is at the point where they've got nothing to lose so why not try anything and everything?

Loading mentions Retweet