Live data from Hacker News

Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

m.minyanville.com

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#91
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain how these guys spend money on the business, how can cost of running Groupon be so high?

Advertising. Groupon spends $100 million a month on buying web ads on Facebook and such. They're buying users essentially..

Just to give everyone an idea... my startup tracks advertising on the Google Display Network, which is one of the primary channels that Groupon has been using for advertising since the very beginning.

Up until just a few months ago, we were finding Groupon ads at a rate of 5x the next largest advertiser on the network (US data only). Google itself was the next largest, 2nd to Groupon.

5x the reach of the next largest advertiser on the largest ad network in the world is remarkable to say the least. I haven't seen anything like it in the 2+ years that our service has been operational

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's similar to other problems I have with sites recently: their super-special javascript on textareas screws up my own resizing of them, and even worse, ruins ctrl/cmd Z! I don't know how they do it, but screwing up Undo is pretty serious.

This happens when you listen to and then improperly handle keyboard events. Somebody probably just copied a script from w3schools and smashed their face into it for a few hours until it did some approximation of what they might have maybe wanted it to do. Unfortunately, the buckshot approach to software development leaves a lot to be desired. Especially when you start with such a horrible original product as w3school…

Are there any decent alternatives to w3schools? I have to introduce somebody to very basic web-development and would hate to have to point them to a resource as bad as w3schools.

Edit: I just found this excellent SO link on the topic: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4662304/online-html-css-j...

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#93
For possibly the most serious concern about GroupOn, the article came close with its statement:

"The Daily Deal I got offered today was for a restaurant 30 miles away: how does that make sense either for the customer or merchant?"

but still did not score the points:

The statement is a starkly clear illustration of a big, HUGE fact about GroupOn's business:

It's heavily just a LOCAL business.

So, even if they are in Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, and parts of Argentina and Australia doesn't cut much ice in Podunk. Instead, to make it in Podunk, they just have to be the best in Podunk, and the rest is irrelevant.

For the best 'coupons' in Podunk, customers and merchants in Podunk can go to a GroupOn competitor in Podunk who can be someone on the bank board and the school board, a former mayor, and known very well to all the merchants and most of the customers. This competitor in Podunk can be trusted in Podunk much more than GroupOn by both the merchants and the customers and, thus, get more deals and revenue, can have much lower overhead per dollar of revenue, and can undercut the GroupOn prices.

Such a local competitor has close to a 'geographic natural monopoly': In Podunk, the local guy can sign up several leading merchants just because they know him and trust him (and maybe invest with him); then he can get a lot of local customers signed up because he is well known and has the leading local merchants signed up. Then the rest of the merchants sign up not to get left behind. Then all the customers sign up because all the merchants did. Then all the merchants keep offering deals because all the customers are signed up. And there is no competition more than 60 miles away.

E.g., maybe the guy in Podunk also runs the popular local shopping center based on much the same mechanism of a 'geographic local monopoly'.

A Web site for the Podunk competitor? If that is a problem, then HN developers listen up: Develop a suitable general purpose Web site and lease it to the competitors in each of Podunk, Peoria, Poughkeepsie, Pleasantville, etc.

For the guy in Podunk, maybe there is another little town, Parsonville, 15 miles away: Okay, the guy in Podunk can use his success to expand to Parsonville.

More generally, if there are competitors in other surrounding towns, then he can, one town at a time, use his earnings from his natural monopolies in Podunk, Parsonville, etc. to undercut the prices in these other towns, buy out the competitors, raise prices, and repeat. Relevant terminology includes 'predatory marketing practices' and 'roll-up'.

I don't see how GroupOn can be successful for long with their current business model.

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quoted from http://shortlogic.tumblr.com/post/5834390772/right-now-our-d... : "Right now our desk is seeing something they’ve never seen before. It currently costs roughly 100% annualized to short LNKD. So put in monthly terms, if you borrowed $20,000 of LNKD to short, each month you would have to pay an 8.3% borrowing charge (100% / 12 months = 8.3%) or $1667 per month. That is absolutely unreal. Of course this char…

Could this be due to short demand from insiders to protect the IPO value of their stock until the lock-up period expires?

my colleagues have some finance background, they think it's because its a brand new stock, and current holders aren't sure what's going to happen so they don't want to decrease their agility by lending out shares to shorters. Long term holders would be more inclined to lend shares but its too soon for anyone to make a long-term commitment to LNKD.

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#95
post #4

To save people having to fight with that sites asshole design, here's the text: I'll start by tipping my hat to Andrew Mason. He caught social mood just right, creating a coupon/local/flashmob hybrid business model at the perfect time, and has created the fastest-growing company on a revenue basis in American history. That being said, it's operating like a Ponzi scheme that needs constant infusions of cash to stay af…

What is it with everything being described as a Ponzi scheme these days? Groupon, Bitcoin, Subprime MBSs, Social Security, etc.

At least 2 of those things are actually Ponzi schemes, sir.

I'm not sure what an unknown lady or gentleman thinks is wrong with this, but I wish he or she would tell me. These things (subprime MBS and Social Security) are Ponzi schemes in the sense that they are paying out more to participants than the participants put in, and not providing anything of value or performing any investment by which to make that process sustainable. In the case of subprime MBS this action is obscured by the fact that some participants have collected "promises" on the parts of borrowers who cannot possibly meet their obligations. Social Security is much more straightforward, however.

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it with everything being described as a Ponzi scheme these days? Groupon, Bitcoin, Subprime MBSs, Social Security, etc.

At least 2 of those things are actually Ponzi schemes, sir. I'm not sure what an unknown lady or gentleman thinks is wrong with this, but I wish he or she would tell me. These things (subprime MBS and Social Security) are Ponzi schemes in the sense that they are paying out more to participants than the participants put in, and not providing anything of value or performing any investment by which to make that process…

Calling Social Security a ponzy scheme is just partisan propaganda. Since 1983 workers have been putting in way more than is being paid out in anticipation of the retiring baby boomers. The trust fund is invested in Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of United States, some of the safest investment in the world unless Republicans manage to raid the fund to finance more tax cuts for the rich.

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#97
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least 2 of those things are actually Ponzi schemes, sir. I'm not sure what an unknown lady or gentleman thinks is wrong with this, but I wish he or she would tell me. These things (subprime MBS and Social Security) are Ponzi schemes in the sense that they are paying out more to participants than the participants put in, and not providing anything of value or performing any investment by which to make that process…

Calling Social Security a ponzy scheme is just partisan propaganda. Since 1983 workers have been putting in way more than is being paid out in anticipation of the retiring baby boomers. The trust fund is invested in Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of United States, some of the safest investment in the world unless Republicans manage to raid the fund to finance more tax cuts for the rich.

The SS surplus was spent by Congress, and replaced with non-marketable IOUs managed by Treasury (not securities!), literally kept in a file cabinet in West Virginia. There are no assets in the "trust fund" and there is no legal requirement for the government to pay anything on its Social Security promises.

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#98
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least 2 of those things are actually Ponzi schemes, sir. I'm not sure what an unknown lady or gentleman thinks is wrong with this, but I wish he or she would tell me. These things (subprime MBS and Social Security) are Ponzi schemes in the sense that they are paying out more to participants than the participants put in, and not providing anything of value or performing any investment by which to make that process…

Calling Social Security a ponzy scheme is just partisan propaganda. Since 1983 workers have been putting in way more than is being paid out in anticipation of the retiring baby boomers. The trust fund is invested in Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of United States, some of the safest investment in the world unless Republicans manage to raid the fund to finance more tax cuts for the rich.

Whether the trust fund contains anything of nonzero value or not (and I would say that it doesn't) is immaterial. The program is unsustainable in the long term as currently implemented because the ratio of people above the cutoff age to people contributing will be so high that the program is losing money indefinitely. There are many knobs we can turn to solve this problem, however. We could start killing old people, move the cutoff age to be later, limit the number of years benefits last, cut benefits, raise the payroll tax that partially funds the program, admit that the program has to be funded using other taxes and just accept that, implement a long-term policy of monetizing the program, lie about inflation so that the cost of living adjustment fails to retain value in real terms, or make a long-term commitment to explosive population growth. Right now I think our plan is a mix of lying about inflation and increasing the cutoff age.

I am not a Republican and I consider the word somewhat insulting, much like the word Democrat.

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#99

Don't roll your eyes, but this is exactly what Reagan did to the Russians. Basically, spend more and faster than the other guy until he cries uncle. Groupon is raising money, spending like crazy to be the top dog. When the other "coupon" companies can't keep up, Groupon will buy them, retaining their #1 position. Once all of the others are gone or reduced to a tiny size, they'll go back to a sustainable model. This e…

Perhaps. It took Amazon 6 years to turn a profit, and a mere $5m on $1bn revenue at that.

Totally true. At least one year in there it looks like they lost almost $1.5B: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=amazon+profit+from+1994...

Re: Groupon is Effectively Insolvent

#100
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising. Groupon spends $100 million a month on buying web ads on Facebook and such. They're buying users essentially..

They are also spending a lot on acquiring other daily deal sites around the globe. Everything they have done so far indicates great competence in what they are doing. There are numerous companies that have blown hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising and ended up with a tiny user base (I can think of a particular MVNO a few years back.) Then you have failed acquisitions such as Cisco buying Flip, where the bu…

"If they wanted a path on easy street, the original investors could have sat around pocketing millions of dollars a month for years"

Instead they cashed out for hundreds of millions of dollars with subsequent investor money.

Post reply on HN