45 Comments

Summary:

The huge price tag attached to Facebook’s purchase of WhatsApp — one of the largest web deals in history — actually makes more sense than you might think at first glance.

facebook-gold

Another day and another acquisition — and another one that is jaw dropping and seemingly insane.

Less than a week after Japan’s Rakuten acquired Viber for $900 million, Facebook co-founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg announced that he is buying WhatsApp for a whopping $16 billion in cash and stock. Add another $3 billion for WhatsApp employees may get over next few years in restricted stock, and this becomes a $19 billion company.

When I think about the deal, it actually makes what investor Paul Kedrosky calls “ridiculously rational” sense. It keeps WhatsApp out of the hands of Google and most importantly takes out an aggressive competitor for “attention” from the market.

Facebook is going to end up competing with apps like Line and WeChat in many markets for the consumer’s mobile minutes and WhatsApp gives the Menlo Park based company a strong competitive weapon. While potential monetization remains a bit of a head scratcher, there are more options for the company to think about, like new native advertisements in the near future. WhatsApp as an app store is not out of the realm; I said so as part of a roundtable hosted by Bloomberg West’s Emily Chang.

Images courtesy from Facebook messenger (L) and WhatsApp (R).

Images courtesy from Facebook messenger (L) and Whatsapp (R).

The deal makes (weird) sense especially if you view it from a historical lens. There are three such deals that have occurred in the past: Microsoft bought Hotmail in 1997 for $400 million and the reaction was, are they crazy? It allowed Microsoft to get to webscale really fast at a time when email was important as synchronous communication is today. It would be safe to say Microsoft did fine on that acquisition.

AOL, or America Online as it was known as then, acquired ICQ, another fast growing instant messaging network, for $400 million. Aol had its own IM network and whether it was hubris or corporate politics, it ruined ICQ and limited its own potential to control the IM market. Microsoft used the Hotmail community to jump start its IM efforts.

Another company that acquired a fast-growing communications platform was eBay, which bought Skype. There was no synergy in that deal and it wasn’t a surprise that it failed. Skype is now a part of Microsoft. Microsoft bought Skype in 2011 for a whopping $8.5 billion but has managed to muck up the deal.

Skype was ahead of the curve in terms of synchronous communications — textual and visual. A residency at Microsoft has been its undoing.

Now compare these with WhatsApp and Facebook. Both companies are in the same business — connecting people through communication. But their methods of communication — or modalities of communication — are different. WhatsApp is synchronous and has a different kind of immediacy, while Facebook’s atomic unit of communication is personal status updates with the intention of interacting with people you already know.

Facebook has had a tough time trying to invent new native behaviors, mostly because it has a powerful basic unit of communication and interaction. WhatsApp brings some unique capabilities, much like Instagram, which brought a different set of interaction attributes.

Over next few days you are going to hear that this deal is bad for Snapchat or Twitter and it is simply not true. They have different communication behaviors attached to them and Facebook and WhatsApp are not those applications.

Another bit of historical perspective — Cisco used to make aggressive acquisitions using its inflated stock market capitalization in order to stave off competitors who threatened its core business and move into parallel markets. Zuckerberg, too, is an aggressive CEO who knows that falling prey to “not invented here” philosophy is sure way to fall behind.

Most importantly — he knows if an app or service can get to a billion users, then it can do what he fears the most — take attention away from Facebook.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Ummm….. can’t believe you didn’t mention that the CIA owns a part of Facebook, and much like Skype, wants Whatsapp in US hands.

    No problem say the Libertarians – we’ll use Cryptocat! Except Cryptocat was turned down in the App store……

    Hmmmmm.

    1. libertarians? wrong group there bud.

  2. So what number would of been too much to pay? 20 bil? 30 bil? 50 bil??
    14 billion is a lot to pay. Sure, the inflated stock price made it the right time to do it. But this deal shows one thing. The companies that are in the business of “connecting people” are showing their cards…. Our data is worth a lot of money. I think it’s more about tapping into data collection as a valuable asset to AI.

    1. that’s really the only thing that would make sense, that and diversifying

  3. mikey b. ledesma Wednesday, February 19, 2014

    I say who cares…I loved when Silicon Valley old buisness people said go outside and play with friends and be active in sports and activities. I seen other areas of the world still growing up to this day like I did without media and are better off. America eats fastfood and sits in front of the T.V. and computer. People are on thier phones constantly even with friends in the room as well as in the car driveing. Im American born and bred. I say enoughs enough. Bet you want to sit there high on pot and be like…OH WELL. NO JOBS. PEOPLE EVERWHERE ELSE HAVE THEM. LET A COMPUTER RUN EVERYTHING. LIKE SOMETHING AND BE POLLED AS WELL AS MONITERED IN SECRET. WAKE UP.

  4. I still don’t think the purchase price is justified – matter how you look at it.

  5. OM tell me again the part about the 19 billion simoles. That’s my favorite.

  6. Om, interesting discussion but I still don’t see your logic.

    At $19 billion, Facebook is paying over $42 for each of WhatsApp’s 450 million users, most of which live in developing countries. Especially if Facebook will leave the company as an independent subsidiary without ads, I don’t see how it makes sense to pat $42 per customer, especially with their customer profile.

    Buying the company to avoid distractions is ridiculous at $19B. It sounds more like a desperate move to claim an additional half-billion users and sustain valuation until advertising revenue picks up. Very few marketers have success stories of Facebook marketing, the ROI is just not there. If you look at SuperBowl ads, unlike last year’s, most did not provide a Facebook URL.

    I guess time will tell who is right.

    1. Brilliant. At $42, Facebook could have bought the entire customer.

    2. Dude as soon as I get a whiff of Zuckerbergs FB shit on WhatsApp I am gone! I embraced them because it avoided the big guys and homogenized the process.

      Since the NSA owns Google and FB I may have to turn my back on Whatsapp anyway and its a damn shame.

    3. The assumption is obviously that the user base will continue to grow at a its break neck pace. Facebook ought to be able to actually increase the adoption rate of the app with its current resources (not to mention it is on the front of every newspaper and website across the world). It really only takes 1 app embedded in a phone receiving location, usage, phone type, among other things to make that user much more valuable to an advertiser. The fact that their customer profile is not what you expect may mean that it is a more valuable bucket of users because they are less likely to have other facebook owned apps embedded in their phones. Superbowl ads are on the opposite side of the spectrum of advanced and highly targeted advertising directed directly to a mobile phone. Although it is hard to spend lots of money on high target advertising currently because of the difficulty in structuring queries and because there isnt enough inventory to allow for a lot of highly targeted inventory (as it will by definition be a small part of total inventory). This acquisition ads greatly to FBs inventory and also keeps others from having it. I do not think it is as much about time share or mind share and actually more about phone and person share than people may be realizing.

  7. hear that this deal is bad for Snapchat or Twitter and it is simply not true. They have different communication behaviors attached to them and Facebook and WhatsApp are not those applications.

    Hmmmm. The question is not communication mode, but rather attention time, which is finite. This is going to be a near zero sum game.

    As for the deal price, FB is giving up 10% of its capitalization, and 5 years of OCF. This is to prevent larger losses if a competitor had bought the company? There will have to be a lot of earnings attached to the acquisition to make financial sense. This looks like a bubble to me.

  8. How can you call eBay’s purchase of Skype a bad deal?

    They paid $2.6B, sold for$8.5B and Skype was profitable every year, but 2006. Sure, it didn’t change eBay, but I would quite happy for an almost 300% return on my investment.

    Have we become so skewed that success is only measured in ridiculous over-valuations like FB’s purchase today? I mean c’mon. Skype wasn’t just generating revenue, it was profitable and Microsoft paid a lot less.

    1. WhatsApp is also profitable and much more than Skype will ever be. With $1 user/year the cashflow is there. When they get to a billion users (in the 12-15 months assuming constant growth) that’s another billion/year… just from the user base…

      1. Apparently their revenue last year is rumored at $20 Million. All those users are not paying. They get the first year free, and I’ve seen many people saying they’ve been using it for more than a year without paying. At $1 year, even if most people are paying (they’re not) – it would take 42 years to break even assuming zero cost of revenue (impossible).

  9. Only 5 years from now will this become a good or bad decision. If the ‘bubble’ bursts this will be the poster child for that.. if FB does well then it will be a very wise decision by a young CEO.. history is always written by the winner. At this point, all we can do is wait and watch someone going all-in in a poker game..

  10. Search a little more on the internet I might find a post which says “Smoking is good for health”.
    Overpriced deal even if the acquisition was in credit to data mine !

Comments have been disabled for this post