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

Snapchat Seeks to Raise as Much as $4B in IPO

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 261 posts

Re: Snapchat Seeks to Raise as Much as $4B in IPO

#251

Post by eternalban »

eksemplar wrote: post #204
eternalban wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fairy ad business model. Don't know about Facebook (never been) but I keep hearing about this fabled Google Ad business and honestly, not only I can't recall the last time I even noticed one, needless to say have never even clicked on one. Some interested party wants to keep these surveillance cum social networks afloat and the fairy ad business model and overblown evaluations and VC cash is the front for funding…

You can't use google much if you haven't noticed the top three results on your searches sometimes being tagged with the word "sponsored". Unless the reason it's showing here, is an European law thing?

I've been using it since pretty much since it came out. In the early days I definitely noticed the ads on the side, but very quickly it pretty much got filtered away in my eyes along with window decorations, etc.

Re: Snapchat Seeks to Raise as Much as $4B in IPO

#253

Post by usrusr »

iamatworknow wrote: post #247
usrusr wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did not stop Gopro. If you have been to a ski resort in recent years you have probably noticed that at some point, Gopro saturation started to become inversely proportional to riding skill. Where Gopros are sold with the promise of being like those who get really fast and have spectacularly high jumps, Snapchat specs will be sold with the promise of being like those who get really drunk and have spectacularly great p…

There are important differences between GoPros and Spectacles, though. GoPros are a convenient, high-quality, expandable memory camera that creates a regular video file as big as the storage space available that you can use however you want. Spectacles are a convenient, unknown quality camera creating a ten-second video that requires smartphone interaction, is designed to be on your face, and is tied to one specific…

I base my comparison on the observation that both are purpose built for capturing a very specific kind of experience that few have, but many think they should have (but never will).

This is certainly no predictor of absolute success, just an element of understanding the potential market.

Re: Snapchat Seeks to Raise as Much as $4B in IPO

#254

Post by rufb »

saretired wrote: post #217
rufb wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way it stands, Snapchat already has more data points to tap from and richer content and interaction opportunities than traditional media (television, radio, print, OOH...), and this could be further improved in future versions. You don't need to set out to compete against Google and Facebook when the actual big fish in the market are in fact easier to position yourself against.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the actual big fish in the market. Google's Q2 16 ad revenue was $19.1B, NBC's was $2.1B, CBS's was $1.6B, and ABC's was also $1.6B.

I was thinking verticals as a whole, not individual companies. The budget for TV, print, radio and so forth tells the size of the market, the fact that there are more players in these verticals than in online search is maybe yet another reason to attack them rather than Google.

Re: Snapchat Seeks to Raise as Much as $4B in IPO

#255

Post by azaydak »

kevinmannix wrote: post #240
argonaut wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm bullish too, but any comparisons to Facebook are lazy. Snapchat and Facebook are completely orthogonal (the closer competition is Instagram, owned by FB, and Snapchat, but even then I would argue it is lazy to say they are direct competitors, ignoring the Instagram Stories product). For better or worse Facebook is a piece of social infrastructure and utility . Everyone has Facebook. All the groups I know of are o…

Completely anecdotal, but my siblings and cousins that are teens don't have Facebook, and most of their classmates don't either. It's weird to imagine a world where not everyone has Facebook, but I don't think it's as ubiquitous for those who grew up where alternatives existed, such as Snapchat and Instagram (even Twitter as well).

I have been facebook clean for almost 3 years. Never felt better!

Re: Snapchat Seeks to Raise as Much as $4B in IPO

#256

Post by user5994461 »

dir wrote: post #140
user5994461 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't buy first and fire people afterwards. The cleansing would have dire effect on the alphabet parent company.

no need. Twitter announced it was firing ~20% of it's userbase. Guess Google can swoop in and buy it now :)

Or they can repeat the process till they have 20% left ;)

Re: Snapchat Seeks to Raise as Much as $4B in IPO

#257

Post by qwrusz »

serg_chernata wrote: post #2

When a company like Uber is raising insane amounts of money I think to myself - "ok, they're working on vehicle automation and other ambitious projects, it makes sense". When a company like snapchat is looking for 4B in addition to existing funding I am left completely dumbfounded. Can someone please explain why they would need this much cash?

You are right that $4B from an IPO is technically another fundraising round.

However, an IPO is a special case, as for years now a company/its board will consider an IPO as a business strategy decision and not as fundraising per se. Big shift in the 1980s.

There are some legal/regulatory aspects to an IPO and "liquidity event" type reasons an IPO is treated differently too.

Basically, an IPO brings many pros and cons with it. A company may choose to IPO even when it doesn't need the cash or even want the cash. The money raised is just a byproduct of choosing this particular business strategy.

(An analogy in pre-IPO startups: A startup may take an investment from a famous or influential VC even though the startup doesn't need the money at that point. Rather they look at it as a business decision because the startup really wants some other benefits they can get from having this famous VC as an investor. e.g. mentorship, network connections or even just more legitimacy by association... Lots of VCs provide non-cash benefits but you have to take cash to get them.)

As for how did Snap Inc. get that $4B number. That's complicated and not even an official number. But a simple answer could be if a company's current private valuation is ~$40B and they want to IPO for strategic reasons but only sell off/dilute as little as possible while still looking respectable.

They won't IPO only 1% of the company, too little, 10% is a respectable minimum. 10% of $40B = $4B.

Total speculation and just an example. But hopefully you see you are right to ask questions when these companies IPO as it's full of smoke and mirrors with a different story behind the scenes.

Re: Snapchat Seeks to Raise as Much as $4B in IPO

#258

Post by anon543210 »

jocro wrote: post #202
anon543210 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree in the similarities of Facebook. Snapchat is like twitter but worse. Because it's anonymous and not associated with real names, they don't have an actual relationship graph, unlike twitter they don't have an interest graph. All they really have is your location. Everything is ephemeral so it's going to be even harder to figure out what type of advertising they should actually target. Also we don't know whe…

> and the only thing they really are focusing on monetizing is stories Lenses are big business.

I'll believe it when I see it

Re: Snapchat Seeks to Raise as Much as $4B in IPO

#260

Post by argonaut »

delecti wrote: post #149
argonaut wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the very definition of mercurial. In 8 years it'll be a new cohort with new tastes.

The 12-20 demographic is mercurial, but 12-20 year olds are not. Though really my point was this: it isn't the case that you need to continually re-grab the same users, it is the case that there are continually new users to grab.

If the old users leave, then yes, there are continually new users to regrab.
Post reply on HN