Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#131

Post by wheels »

borisk wrote: post #116
dirtyaura wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% is quite standard for team acquisitions to my knowledge. However, for TechCrunch earn-out sounds quite high. I'm also surprised of the price, it seems low compared to many tech acquisitions. TechCrunch has a lot of eyeballs, even if it doesn't have main stream audience. Midsize Finnish regional newspaper companies have market caps around €180M. TechCrunch, a major international tech publication with millions of r…

It's a lot harder to get ads for an international media. I'd guess most of the ads on www.techcrunch.com are payed by US marketing budgets. The people who manage those only care about US viewers. So question N:1 is how many US viewers, without ad blockers the site has. N:2 - for how long is it gone keep them. A regional Finnish newspaper is very likely to keep it's audience in one form or another for a long time. Tha…

Note that there are also:

http://eu.techcrunch.com/ (Europe, UK-based)

http://fr.techcrunch.com/ (France)

http://jp.techcrunch.com/ (Japan)

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#132

Post by fbailey »

pmjoyce wrote: post #75
alain94040 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There clearly is some kind of earn-out, meaning that the founders get the whole money only if they stay long enough and/or if the business remains healthy. On stage, Mike Arrington mentioned that he'd stay for sure on board for 3 years, due to "incentives." So it's possible that the sale price is $25M upfront, with another $25M in 3 years. That would make both sources (one that says the price was only $25M, and one t…

Would a sale in that region make Techcrunch a "dipshit company" in Arrington's parlance? http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/07/lead-investors-dipshit-compa...

Techcrunch is not a scalable product business - so it'S not a dipshit business.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#133

Post by qq66 »

pmjoyce wrote: post #75
alain94040 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There clearly is some kind of earn-out, meaning that the founders get the whole money only if they stay long enough and/or if the business remains healthy. On stage, Mike Arrington mentioned that he'd stay for sure on board for 3 years, due to "incentives." So it's possible that the sale price is $25M upfront, with another $25M in 3 years. That would make both sources (one that says the price was only $25M, and one t…

Would a sale in that region make Techcrunch a "dipshit company" in Arrington's parlance? http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/07/lead-investors-dipshit-compa...

Arrington has never claimed to be building a company in the vein of those he covers as a journalist. It's more of a "very successful media outlet" than a "dipshit tech company."

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#134

Post by sireat »

dirtyaura wrote: post #111
brown9-2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are earn-outs usually that high (compared to the up-front purchase price)?

50% is quite standard for team acquisitions to my knowledge. However, for TechCrunch earn-out sounds quite high. I'm also surprised of the price, it seems low compared to many tech acquisitions. TechCrunch has a lot of eyeballs, even if it doesn't have main stream audience. Midsize Finnish regional newspaper companies have market caps around €180M. TechCrunch, a major international tech publication with millions of r…

What is the ticket tape symbol for that Finnish newspaper company?

They might have other sources of income/stability than just the papers. Maybe they are highly integrated(vertically and/or horizontally).

As others have noted, your first premise that the valuation is absurd sounds more likely without knowing more facts about that Finnish company.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#135

Post by loewenskind »

pierrefar wrote: post #102
melvinram wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called a good problem to have :)

I'm of the opinion that people who say something is a good problem to have are people who have never had that problem.

I don't think you understand what the phrase means if you think that. Having the "problem" of dealing with capital gains means you made money that is capital gains taxable. The alternative is to not make that money. Get it?

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#136

Post by pierrefar »

loewenskind wrote: post #135
pierrefar wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of the opinion that people who say something is a good problem to have are people who have never had that problem.

I don't think you understand what the phrase means if you think that. Having the "problem" of dealing with capital gains means you made money that is capital gains taxable. The alternative is to not make that money. Get it?

Oh I understand it perfectly and I think you misunderstood me.

Whether you say "scaling is a good problem to have" or "paying CGT is a good problem to have", it just means you never experienced how hard it really is to scale, and how hard it is to deal with taxes/accountants/lawyers and lose money. They're still problems and when you're in the thick of them, they're not good.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#137

Post by loewenskind »

pierrefar wrote: post #136
loewenskind wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand what the phrase means if you think that. Having the "problem" of dealing with capital gains means you made money that is capital gains taxable. The alternative is to not make that money. Get it?

Oh I understand it perfectly and I think you misunderstood me. Whether you say "scaling is a good problem to have" or "paying CGT is a good problem to have", it just means you never experienced how hard it really is to scale, and how hard it is to deal with taxes/accountants/lawyers and lose money. They're still problems and when you're in the thick of them, they're not good.

Of course they are. If you have scaling problems that means you have a ton of users. A hard problem but I'd rather have it than not have it. Same with capital gains tax. I'd rather make enough that I have to pay attention to this stuff then not ever have to think about it because I've never been financially successful enough for it to matter (and with taxes you're not "losing money", you're paying for the services that helped you get there. Of course that's not as clearly the case in the US tax system but that's the idea anyway).

If everything were effortless then anyone could do it.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#138

Post by pierrefar »

loewenskind wrote: post #137
pierrefar wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I understand it perfectly and I think you misunderstood me. Whether you say "scaling is a good problem to have" or "paying CGT is a good problem to have", it just means you never experienced how hard it really is to scale, and how hard it is to deal with taxes/accountants/lawyers and lose money. They're still problems and when you're in the thick of them, they're not good.

Of course they are. If you have scaling problems that means you have a ton of users. A hard problem but I'd rather have it than not have it. Same with capital gains tax. I'd rather make enough that I have to pay attention to this stuff then not ever have to think about it because I've never been financially successful enough for it to matter (and with taxes you're not "losing money", you're paying for the services th…

I think we're both looking at the same coin from different sides and disagreeing. As I understand my and your argument, we're arguing cup is half empty vs half full. My "half empty" argument is centred on the how stressful it is for people to go through these "good problems".

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#139

Post by loewenskind »

pierrefar wrote: post #138
loewenskind wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are. If you have scaling problems that means you have a ton of users. A hard problem but I'd rather have it than not have it. Same with capital gains tax. I'd rather make enough that I have to pay attention to this stuff then not ever have to think about it because I've never been financially successful enough for it to matter (and with taxes you're not "losing money", you're paying for the services th…

I think we're both looking at the same coin from different sides and disagreeing. As I understand my and your argument, we're arguing cup is half empty vs half full. My "half empty" argument is centred on the how stressful it is for people to go through these "good problems".

Possibly. Your messages read like "it would be better to not have that problem at all than to have it". I'm trying to say "it would be better to have it because you've succeeded than to not have because you haven't. Of course (and I haven't focused on this part or even mentioned it because I assumed it obvious), it would be best to have the success and no problems".

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#140

Post by pedalpete »

jw84 wrote: post #76
pedalpete wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a consensus of one? From a business perspective, this is a successful exit, though I seem to recall $100m valuation about a year ago. From a hacker perspective, I don't really think much about TC. They aren't a technology company, though they've done a really nice job with open data on the crunchbase.

Cute. The consensus is of six successful and pretty popular serial entrepreneurs/hackers and five of my high up tech hacks contacts that's been reading TechCrunch even before '05, when Arrington published on his first site. The hackers thought he was a startup hero but this is a sellout move to give it up like this. The hacks think the flacks must be effing elated. Now the process to get their bullshit published is s…

I don't think you deserve -points for this response, but I clearly it seems your sample isn't representative of the overall community.

Though I've become curious, what would your group have considered a positive result for MA and TC?

Is there an exit strategy that your group would have preferred? Why?

Or do you feel that any exit would have been selling out?

Is there some inherent value you see to TC being independent?

Post reply on HN