Raising Money After The Second Bubble

As stock prices for Zynga and Facebook plummet, Silicon Valley is learning a hard reality. Users, the startup currency of choice for the last decade, are not money. They are as useful to Wall Street as “eyeballs” were in 1999. And now as Users are losing their value in the eyes of investors, the downward pressure on valuations has already begun.

Chris Dixon nailed the supply-side reasons for this change in fundraising economics with his blog post: “Ten million users is the new one million users”.

  • Thousands of early-stage consumer web/mobile companies were started and funded in the last 24 months
  • There are only a few dozen VCs who actively write consumer Series A checks, limiting the number of total deals
  • A few breakout early-stage consumer hits (Instagram, Pinterest) have reached tens of millions of users in record time.

His conclusion: with so many companies chasing the users-first-revenue-second consumer startup model, you need to show even more growth than before to expect a strong valuation. If you don’t, it’s likely that you will see less favorable terms than you expected. But in my opinion, this misses the point:

Today’s startups need to focus on Revenue, not Users.

While Silicon Valley investors have spent the last four years investing in companies that demonstrated they could get Users, this groupthink was largely validated by Facebook and the idea that “with so many Users, of course they’ll make money! They just need to figure out how.” (Frankly, I think Facebook is in a great position to do so too, but in the months since their IPO it’s clear that they haven’t had the kind of breakthrough that would validate their valuation in the short term.) With Facebook’s struggles since its IPO, investors are now reevaluating how they value consumer-facing companies.

If you’re a startup founder, how do you react to this changing landscape?

1) Make people pay. Instagram may have been sold for a billion dollars without earning a penny itself, but those startups will prove the exception, not the rule. Now is the time to start thinking about how your startup can make money, and to start working towards it.

2 ) Show the ability to monetize even a small amount of users. This demonstrates two things: that your product has value worth paying for, and that you know how to articulate that value to consumers.

3) Show the revenue growth chart in your pitch deck. VCs are now more money focused than they have ever been in this fundraising cycle. You need to demonstrate that now only is your user base growing, but your revenue base is growing with it.

Of course, making revenue growth a goal doesn’t mean abandoning all-important user growth goals. It just means that you’re beginning that learning process and making it a priority within your company. When you’re trying to figure out how to monetize your product, think about how users are getting value out of it, especially in interactions with other peers. It may not be in the way that you expected. But that’s better than postponing this learning until later. As Ilya said on his blog, people running freemium apps are afraid of money as they overextend their free product offerings to maintain user growth. Now, the game has changed: you need that revenue growth and you need to start building it sooner rather than later.

  • http://blog.betable.com/ Tyler York

    Looking forward to your comments (also testing Disqus)

  • yawnt

    interesting article, and i agree .. i’m developing an idea i’ve had in mind for a while and even though it relies on a big user base and my goal is not to make money out of it, i don’t think users === money, so i’m trying to find a way to pay at least for hosting :D

    • http://blog.betable.com/ Tyler York

      If it’s web based, advertising can probably cover hosting costs. It won’t cover your cost of living though without significant scale

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrewhchen Andrew Chen

    You know that Facebook and Zynga make billions of dollars a year right? And that they focused on revenue, getting to breakeven/profitability very early in their evolution? Same with Groupon.

    It actually seems like they did exactly what you advocate startups do.

    This is more an indictment of the expectations that got set before they IPO’d, not how they run their profitable, multi-billion revenue companies.

    • http://blog.betable.com/ Tyler York

      Sure, I see your point here, but I think you missed what my article was directed towards. I was saying that for small, pre-massive-traction startups looking to raise a Series A or B right now, they need to show some semblance of a business model. By proving that they make something people will pay for, they can command a better valuation than just focusing on user growth. Of course, they better figure out the business model before they hit Zynga or Twitter scale! :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/craze3 Seena Zandipour

      “This is more an indictment of the expectations that got set before they IPO’d…”

      That’s right, and those expectations have contributed greatly to inflating the bubble. They morphed the industry mindset to care more about users than revenue.

      Is it their fault? No- they’re just conducting business. Blame the people for buying into the hype.
      Hopefully Tyler’s post will bring this misconception to light, and people to their senses.

    • http://twitter.com/nateberkopec Nate Berkopec

      Hm, I think you might need to check your numbers on the “profitability” of Zynga and Groupon. Zynga hasn’t had a profitable quarter since they went public. Groupon only just barely did last quarter.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sebastian.andreatta Sebastian Andreatta

    Agreed – I recently read a blog post from an LA based VC describing the differences between Northern CA VCs and VC’s elsewhere in the US: The local guys ( I’m in Palo Alto) have been focusing on users as their metric, everyone else is looking more aggressively on revenue producing models, and that have a more sustainable business model. Excluding the giants like Andrew Chen notes below, the vast majority of local investments have been a shotgun approach. The overwhelming majority have only one business model : advertising. And as we all know (or should know, that’s a finite universe which Google owns the lion’s share in the digital portion).

    • http://blog.betable.com/ Tyler York

      Hey, thanks for the comment. Yeah, Facebook’s revenue model shouldn’t be based on advertising in the long term or they are in trouble. Ads are usually not a solution to the revenue problem, because they typically don’t grow once the userbase (or usage) stops growing.

      Now, advertising works for Google because people are explicitly *looking for something* when they search. It’s likely this could work for Pinterest as well, but unless your social media site/app is interest-based or action-based, it likely can’t rely on ads like those two sites can.

  • http://www.facebook.com/anikishaev Andrey Nikishaev

    users === value and users !== money. If you want to get money from startup/bissnes you must make something. Most services just an one more ad area, and i think this is fail. This is question about why google good and facebook bad.

    • http://blog.betable.com/ Tyler York

      My hope is that Facebook moves far, far beyond the ad-based revenue model.

  • http://www.hypedsound.com jonathanjaeger

    Perhaps it also depends on the entrepreneur. Someone who is a huge success with multiple exits and can walk into a VC room and get a blank check, maybe they worry about product ONLY rather than revenue. 99% of people don’t have this luxury and should also consider the possibility that they’ll never see an investor check before breakout growth in revenue or users.

  • http://www.callmejeffrey.com/ Jeffrey

    Great post!

  • Pingback: Stock (Over)Valuations: How Facebook and Other Startups Do It « Business Automation Software News

Post Navigation