Blog Post

Why Investing $100M in Twitter Isn't Crazy

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

goodies_birdRaising $100 million is newsworthy for any company, but when it happened to Twitter this week, it also seemed to raise a hundred million eyebrows. Most notable was the company’s $1 billion valuation, which was labeled “exospheric” and “a new manifestation of the dot-com bubble” and invoked numerous comparisons to 1999 — aka, the Year of Investing Dangerously. But are Twitter’s new investors really crazy? Not at all. [digg=]

The skeptics have a point: From the perspective of fundamental analysis, there’s no rationale here whatsoever. The private investment valued Twitter at the same $1 billion as the public markets have accorded companies like TiVo (s tivo), which saw revenue of $250 million in its last fiscal year, and Ariba (s arba), which made $330 million. Google (s goog) is trading around seven times its revenue — using that ratio, Twitter should be raking in about $140 million annually.

As is often pointed out, Twitter has yet to make a dollar, and may not do so by the time we reach the end of 2009. Meanwhile, the company is facing a series of tech glitches, slowing traffic and a reluctance among mainstream users to embrace it as they have Facebook. With $100 million, Twitter, which employs 60 people, can hire another 500 and pay them $75,000 each for the next two-and-a-half years. By then, surely one of them will have figured out a way to make a buck.

But Twitters’ new investors have at least two options. The first, of course, is getting Twitter to make money, which isn’t beyond the pale. There is evidence that Twitterers are for some reason more likely to click on an ad, and if that doesn’t work Twitter can just buy one of the companies that makes money through its service. The harder part is making a profit and keeping it growing.

That may or may not happen in the next few years, which brings us to the investors’ second option. A cynical one, in my view, since it relies on the greater fool theory, which says that you can ignore fundamental analysis as long as you sell out at a higher price to someone even more reckless with their money than you are. The last decade has seen many tech and media giants all too happy to play the greater fool: Time-Warner (s twx) with AOL, eBay (s ebay) with Skype, Google with YouTube, News Corp (s nws) with MySpace. Even when the acquired company started churning out a profit, it was often too puny to justify the sale price.

The buzz around Twitter is so loud, and media companies are so awkward about using social media that they’ll jump at the chance to buy the startup and make it their own. But if past is prologue, here is what’s likely to happen: A rival (Facebook, Google) will find a way to steal market share from Twitter. Twitter will poke around for potential buyers, likely a media giant that has more cash than it does instinct for social media. Twitter’s new owner will plaster the service with ads, alienating longtime users and shrinking its market share even more. By then, Twitter’s early investors will have cashed out.

In the meantime, the Twitter investment does not herald another tech bubble. The IPO market is shifting into a higher gear this week, but valuations of tech IPOs like (s vitc) — an online retailer trading at two times revenue — are nowhere near the insane levels of 1999. Similarly, as PricewaterhouseCoopers and the NVCA noted recently, venture investments in 2009 will be on par with those of 1996, well before the dot-com bubble. Twitter may be a one-company bubble, but that doesn’t mean it’s a regrettable investment.

At least not right now.

Image courtesy of Twitter.

36 Responses to “Why Investing $100M in Twitter Isn't Crazy”

  1. If I was a big shot investor I would be all over this deal as well because Twitter clearly has created a path towards being a serious media player. They get approximately $55 million dollars/month in free PR and marketing so that alone is priceless because they will never have to spend a penny on advertising.

    We all know that Twitter as a website is successful, we just don’t know yet if Twitter as a business will work. Looking forward to the future of the Twitter story.

  2. Isn’t the eyeball numbers what caused the first bubble. With all the crap that large corporations bought based on eyeballs I would think that large companies will be a little smarter this time around. no company wants repeat Time Warner mistake

  3. Roman Geyzer

    Twitter is doing the smart thing: generating a dedicated following with significant eyeballs and incredible media attention supporting it.

    I believe monetizing Twitter will be relatively simple. I suspect they will take a two-tier approach:
    a) Free service for personal use
    b) Commercial service with a fee structure that is likely to be very palatable and additional features. If you’re tweeting for a profit, you’ll need to use the Commercial version.

    At a large scale, they will do for corporate marketing what Google did for targeted ads.

  4. Did Union Square Ventures (USV) participate in the $1B valuation round?

    If they sold half their position they would have made a nice chunk of change and let the rest ride. That would be impressive.

  5. Rafael Crue

    The buildout of social communication platforms has a high price. The elusive question is whether these platforms will be able to break out of a free model or monetize the vast community of users. Replicating a Google ad model is not going to apply. However these networks will work on a different scheme of advertising to generate revenue. Most twitter users are people with copious time on their hands. They are ideal for creating markets. Microblogging is going to give way to buzz-creation, trend-shaping and virals. Shaping those models is what businesses will be willing to pay for. That’s when twitter will demonstrate the value of its human networks.

  6. Twitter’s problem is they are not buying up all the spin off applications and making an integrated multi-media micro-blogging platform. Facebook is.

    If Twitter’s owners had some sense they would develop an ad vector that consisted of paid corporate microblogs that Twitter users could choose to follow. These commercial microblogs could be given a separate list in the twitter interface and, like adwords, bid for rank on a user’s twitter space.

    The thing most businesses and marketing companies don’t recognize is that media has not changed much at all. Just like the television media, internet media is a collection of free service vectors on which to place paid service vectors. Free service vectors are bait in which you set your hooks to paid service vectors and always has been. So the bait has changed and the hooks have changed. So what?

    Time for all the marketing firms to paddle back to shore and hump it to the bait store and buy some new tackle instead of sitting on their asses wondering why the fish ain’t biting.

    Rule number one: The rules are always changing.

  7. Kevin,

    I was referring to the “Twitter’s new owner will plaster the service with ads…” portion of your piece. The 3 companies that you cite other than Skype are at their cores destination sites. They are places whereas Twitter is a pipe.

    Besides that, I think Evan’s experience with Google after he sold Blogger to them will prevent the scenario you suggest.

    But thanks for checking in – much appreciated.

    • I think it depends less on the founders of these companies than on the acquirer. Google/Blogger is a positive example, but look at Yahoo and Flickr – the founders have moved on and this week we saw Yahoo make some moves that angered longtime users.

  8. Jeff,

    By past, I meant the big buyouts in the previous paragraph. Those big deals have a pattern, where either the parent tries to boost revenue (MySpace) and chases away users, or preserves a business model that doesn’t make enough money to justify the purchase price (Skype). You are certainly free to disagree, I am just presenting my view.

  9. @Kevin All due respect – I couldn’t disagree with more regarding your prognostication about Twitter’s likely future. Where’s the analogous example for your “past is prologue…” reference? I think you’ve missed the point completely.

  10. Om,

    I think the question of valuation is irrelevant (although plenty are happy to debate it). The market decides, and as real estate goes, it’s about location, location, location. Twitter is prime real estate.

    The larger question is why raise $100M (besides, that you can), when it sets extreme expectations as companies feel pressure to live up the dollars invested, can pollute the clear heads of founders who risk starting to believe their own PR, and can adversely impact company culture.

    The only rationale that I could come up with is that this financing makes sense if one assumes that Twitter’s plan is to roll up the choicest portions of the third-party twitter ecosystem into their core (through M&A); refine their API approach to this newly aggregated/federated platform; and then cultivate a deeper, richer ecosystem around same.

    Then, when the tree needs a good “pruning” again, they can start the M&A process anew.

    If interested, I blogged on this one in a post called:

    Twitter Financing: Pruning the Garden with $100M Shears

    Check it out and let me know if the thesis resonates or not.


  11. Agree with Steven …

    I hate perfectly good companies loosing their sanity, direction and purpose in this mad mad game of valuations. Skype IS fundamentally a great product and company. Who cares how much its worth. Its for a stock market to decide. When they sold out based on some crazy game of who is a bigger fool they lost strategic direction. I think they finally have a little direction but its in a way too late,

    Even facebook has been subjected to this unending search for their true worth. But I do like Facebooks IPO focussed strategy. In the end they are in for the long haul.

    Twitter too is fundamentally a great product and company. I am sure It will find a way to make money and be profitable. However I hope that this mad game of fools valuation does not catch up with them. By delaying the search for A revenue stream they are letting people put mad figures on their head and thus the ridicule…

  12. The valuation from my point of view is irrelevant – it’s just what those investors agreed to pay – might be a good or bad bet for them. What *is* important is twitter raising $100million – which is an awesome some and gives the company a great shot at staying independent (possibly even for good and innovating) – something that wouldn’t happen if they had sell out.

    And if someone is offering to buy in a $1 billion – take their money!

  13. I wrote a piece yesterday entitled “Why Would Any Rational Person Invest In Twitter At A $1 Billion Dollar Valuation?” that I think adds some additional perspective on the Twitter funding. You can read it here:

    In a nutshell, if you didn’t participate in this round you’ll probably never get a chance to invest unless and until they go public. And btw, can we please move beyond the “but Twitter isn’t making any money yet” nonsense? It’s boring and tiresome.

  14. glasshouse

    Here’s the real issue that I find distasteful having been in this industry for 15 years and having two exits under my belt: Twitter is being sold as “real-time search” AND a “social network”. It’s neither. It’s just a micro-blogging system and a communications platform. That’s it. I am not saying that it is without value, quite the contrary. Anything with millions of users has some value.

    The billion dollar valuation is all about a VC in NY with a sub-par reputation trying to regain some mojo. Twitter just happens to be the vehicle. None of the top tier firms would have led the round which is why we ended up with a firm that no one on the east coast *ever* thinks about.

    • It’s a platform which gets many eyeballs which advertisment can be sold against. If I start a website that is called “The Nothing Website” which is nothing but white background and absolutely does nothing but extracts 100 million eyeballs, that site is worth a lot of money. Here’s the real world. Valuation is based on the value it brings in no matter what it is. It’s all about creating a platform.

    • “It’s just a micro-blogging system and a communications platform.”

      Yep, that’s it allright. AOL bought ICQ. What became of that $280,000,000 cash purchase? Nuttin Honey.

      IMO there WILL be many winners as a result of what the brilliant people at Twitter have created. The rub maybe that the real winners may not be the Twitter folks. I’m cool with that.

      But I suspect they will demonstrate the same kind of vision they did when they decided not to focus on monetization earlier than coventional wisdom dictated. They will witness new opportunities as they become available, or they may even create them. But when that happens I think they will take advantage with a success rate that will surprise many.

      It will be interesting.

      Pass the popcorn..