Live data from Hacker News

Groupon has no viable business model

blogs.hbr.org

21–30 of 129 posts

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#21
I'm not terribly impressed with this article. It rehashes the thinking of HN and other bloggers without adding anything new - other than the HBR logo at the top. I guess that's important for people who let HBR tell them what to believe. And the following point just seems completely wrong to me:

>> And unlike the very few successful companies that scaled before they were profitable (think Facebook or Amazon), Groupon's business model does not benefit from significant network effects.

Can someone explain how Amazon's consumers benefit from network effects? Amazon is a great business, but it's not more valuable to me because other HNers shop there. And then there's Google. Another company that experienced tremendous growth and unprofitability before finally turning on a fountain of cash. They would also seem to be a case where there's no obvious network effect fueling their growth.

There's good reason to be dubious about Groupon, but I'm pretty disappointed by the quality of the debate in many cases. Groupon's business model is really simple. They'll be OK if the life-time value of their subscriber base exceeds the money spent on customer acquisition (ok, and some operating costs). There are plenty of useful metrics we can use to forecast their likelihood of success. Data like offer quality, merchant churn, subscriber acquisition costs, revenue per customer, unsubscribe rates will determine their fate. Everything else is just a sideshow.

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe Groupon declined the offer because they knew they couldn't scam Google once they started their due diligence.

http://li82-18.members.linode.com/google-deal-said-have-25-b... That breakup fee would have been paid right after due diligence.

I'm guessing there was some pretty big performance (possibly profit) incentives for the founders and they knew they had no chance of hitting them. So their next option to cash everyone out and make a ton of $ was IPO.

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#23

I think such finance practices are deceitful and shouldn't be allowed. But re: biz model viability, remember it did take Amazon seven years to turn in a profit. Everyone was nervous, but Bezos was determined to build brand reputation before making money. Maybe that's what Groupon is doing too.

I think a key difference between Groupon and Amazon is the opportunity cost. Amazon spent tremendous amounts on warehouses and inventory, among other hard costs. Groupon has mostly burned through their money on customer acquisition. Amazon spent a lot of money on developing an online shopping system that has a high degree of reliability, ease of use, and functionality. Groupon's web functionality appears to be someth…

One need not really go too far to justify Amazon vs. Groupon, because Amazon is an outlier. If you're trying to convince that I should invest in your business, and your best argument is that you might be able to be as good as Amazon if I just give you a chance, my wallet will be closing tighter, not opening. You're throwing the Hail Mary. Good luck to you, but you'll be doing it not with my money. Hail Mary is an exciting play on the football field when it works, precisely because it usually doesn't.

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#24

I'm not terribly impressed with this article. It rehashes the thinking of HN and other bloggers without adding anything new - other than the HBR logo at the top. I guess that's important for people who let HBR tell them what to believe. And the following point just seems completely wrong to me: >> And unlike the very few successful companies that scaled before they were profitable (think Facebook or Amazon), Groupon'…

Well, to be fair, I'm more apt to buy something after reading positive Amazon reviews, so in that sense, the network effect is important.

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#25

I'm not terribly impressed with this article. It rehashes the thinking of HN and other bloggers without adding anything new - other than the HBR logo at the top. I guess that's important for people who let HBR tell them what to believe. And the following point just seems completely wrong to me: >> And unlike the very few successful companies that scaled before they were profitable (think Facebook or Amazon), Groupon'…

> Can someone explain how Amazon's consumers benefit from network effects?

Volume. Marginal cost of fulfilling 100,000 orders/day GroupOn's claim to scale is that you need eyeballs to convince businesses to put on good deals, and you need good deals to attract eyeballs. Also, there's a land grab going on. If they allow a competitor to become entrenched, taking him on later is going to be difficult, as I'd guess breaking someone else's eyeballs/deals loop is even harder than creating it in the first place.

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#26
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://li82-18.members.linode.com/google-deal-said-have-25-b... That breakup fee would have been paid right after due diligence.

I'm guessing there was some pretty big performance (possibly profit) incentives for the founders and they knew they had no chance of hitting them. So their next option to cash everyone out and make a ton of $ was IPO.

From what I heard they were bucking for a breakup payment of 5 billion - that would have been within an order of magnitude of what the Groupon investors would have liked to have.

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#27
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. I have also noticed the decline in Groupon quality recently for my area. That being said, once you are the 500 pound gorilla in the market, will people really have a choice but to go through you? I don't like ebay, but I deal with it because that is where everyone is. There must be some point where the hassle or loss of income is overcome by the potential benefits of advertising through Groupon. Even if…

The choice there is not to go through anyone at all. It's not like all businesses wanted to hold flash 75% sales and just didn't know how before Groupon.

I'm not a business owner, so I can't talk authoritatively on the subject, but I think there's something in the combination of wide audience and well-known number of pre-paid vouchers that make GroupOn more attractive than old-world sales marketing. Then there's something in their skimming 50% off that's quite less attractive.

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#28
post #5

Is the business model really so nonviable? Companies are coming to Groupon willing to give them exclusive coupons for their businesses, and Groupon gets to take 50% of the money from every Groupon bought. I thought the only reason they were unprofitable was the issue of scale -- they were blowing large amounts of money trying to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. Once they are the 500 pound gorilla on th…

The question is whether this is a fad or not. Companies always try new marketing tricks. The type of marketing that stays is the marketing that benefits the company.

This type of group buying is relatively new and lots of companies (small and large) are testing it out. They're willing to chance making a bad decision to see whether it works or not. The question isn't whether Groupon is getting a decent cut, but whether companies are going to see this as a long term part of their business in the same way that other marketing techniques are. Businesses might find that they try it out, lose money, don't get repeat business, and it becomes another thing that no one uses in a couple years.

Groupon's business is that it has a mailing list (basically) of people looking for deals. That's the service they're offering businesses. At what point do deals of 50% off or more need such publicity? So, even if they become the 500lb gorilla and group-deal marketing isn't a fad, how likely is it going to matter? I'm not saying that it doesn't matter, but truly great deals tend to be spread (I'm remembering an Old Navy one that half my friends posted on Facebook).

Beyond that, there's a danger in marketing to people specifically looking for deals - and specifically people looking for deals that don't require much hunting. Companies spend a lot on price discrimination (getting people who will pay more for a product to do so). Companies use coupons that people willing to pay more will ignore or forget about, they sell different editions of products to get the back of your head saying, "I can't tell a difference, but am I going to be disappointed if I buy the cheaper one?", etc. If Groupon becomes so popular, there is also the risk that the deals will become easy to the point that you aren't getting extra marginal business to people who might not buy your product, but rather lowering your average price since so many people are on it. In fact, using a less-known deal site might be beneficial since it could grab the people who really wouldn't pay full price while flying under the radar of those who are just casual deal people.

The worst thing might be if the government decides that Groupon is selling gift certificates. Gift certificates are regulated including things like expiry dates. Right now, there's the possibility for me to spend $20 for $40 of goods and forget to redeem it within the (usually) short redemption period. That might change as Groupon gets bigger or one Groupon user decides to sue over the expired "gift certificate" and a judge sides with them. In fact, at least in Massachusetts, Groupon the gift certificate law would seem to apply since it includes merchandise credits and "and any other medium that evidences the giving of consideration in exchange for the right to redeem it for goods, food, services, credit or money." I haven't looked over Groupon's filings, but that seems like it would impact on their business - either by taking more money from them or the business depending on who keeps the revenue from non-redeemed cards. And even if it's the business, that means a change in how willing businesses are to sign up. I'm sure businesses are keeping track of how many sold to how many redeemed.

I'm not saying that Groupon is terrible or won't become valuable. However, there are pitfalls. "Group buying" might be a fad. Businesses might not find it in their interest to give Groupon half of the revenue or might find these lazy deal-hunters not in their interest. Larger size could become a hindrance as the larger they get, the more it will affect average sales price rather than just marginal sales price. And the government or courts could affect their business model. New things come with risk, but when the founders start taking a lot of the cash they receive as investment for themselves (rather than for the business), it's a bad sign for me. They're signaling that they see their business as risky enough that they want to make sure they're covered if and when it goes belly up. They aren't holding their wealth in Groupon stock; they're holding it elsewhere.

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#29
post #28
post #5

Is the business model really so nonviable? Companies are coming to Groupon willing to give them exclusive coupons for their businesses, and Groupon gets to take 50% of the money from every Groupon bought. I thought the only reason they were unprofitable was the issue of scale -- they were blowing large amounts of money trying to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. Once they are the 500 pound gorilla on th…

The question is whether this is a fad or not. Companies always try new marketing tricks. The type of marketing that stays is the marketing that benefits the company. This type of group buying is relatively new and lots of companies (small and large) are testing it out. They're willing to chance making a bad decision to see whether it works or not. The question isn't whether Groupon is getting a decent cut, but whethe…

I'm guessing you don't know this -- Even if a groupon expires, you can redeem it for the purchase price. Ref: http://www.groupon.com/terms#terms-of-sale

Re: Groupon has no viable business model

#30
post #13

He forgot to mention Groupon brought in $878 million in the second quarter of 2011, 10x more than they did a year ago at $87.3 million. And $334M of the $1 billion of venture capital money went to buying stock from early investors, not pouring into the company.

> And $334M of the $1 billion of venture capital money went to buying stock from early investors

Isn't that a different way of saying that the early investors are cashing out(to the company too, not even other outside investors) at the current valuation? That raises more questions, why would they cash out if they think the valuation is going to go up?

Post reply on HN