5

What's Facebook's killer-app revenue model?

It'll need a proven, predictable business to secure more cash at its last valuation

Financial trends and news by Bambi Francisco Roizen
October 31, 2008 | Comments (6)
Short URL: http://vator.tv/n/4d2

 If Facebook does go back to the well, it better have a killer-app revenue model if it wants to come close to maintaining half of its $15 billion valuation. Alternatively, finding petrodollars may work too. 

There's a lot of chatter today that Facebook has to raise additional funds, despite the fact that the popular social network raised half a billion in the last 12 months - seemingly sufficient enough funds for the company to get through 2009.

But that's before its acceleration in growth. TechCrunch reported that Facebook is growing so quickly it needs to raise additional funds, and is speaking to Dubai International Capital. VentureBeat reports that Facebook is on track to double its $150 million annual sales from last year, according to a source close to the Palo Alto-based social network.

Here's Facebook's official statement to VentureBeat:

"As a matter of policy, we don’t comment on market speculation or rumor about our finances. Facebook is well-positioned both financially and within the market and any thoughtful attempt to model our business should reflect that. Our advertising business has great depth and breadth. While no ad business can ever be 100% recession proof, the breadth of our advertiser base and the innovative products we offer bolster our position in the current cycle. We’ve also been closely managing the business so we can continue to hire great people and scale. While we’ve achieved certain milestones, we are deeply committed to even greater business success in the future."

The Facebook source also told VentureBeat that the company doesn't face a "deadly burn rate nor lacks access to cash." Yet that's not according to TechCrunch's piece, which outlines Facebook's expenses:

"The company is likely spending well over a $1 million per month on electricity alone, say experts we’ve spoken with. Bandwidth is likely another $500,000 or more per month on top of that. The company has earmarked $100 million to buy 50,000 servers this year and next. And sources say they’ve been buying noe NetApp 30770 storage system per week just to keep up with all this user generated content. At up to $2 million each, that adds up quickly - we’ve heard estimates that they may have spent as much as $30 million this year alone with the company. And the icing on the cake - earmark another $15 million per year in office and datacenter rent payments. And don’t forget those human assets. With 750 employees and growing, Facebook is spending at least another $10 million per month on payroll."

The bottom line it seems is that Facebook may have to raise money sooner rather than later, like most companies. But regardless if the company hits an impressive $300 million in sales, its valuation will likely reset, like the entire market. One year ago, Google's stock traded at nearly $700. Today, it trades at $350. Yahoo is worth $18 billion, and at $13, trades at half the $33 price it traded at a year ago. Sina, China's largest portal, has several hundred million dollars in cash and is worth $2 billion. Baidu, China's biggest search engine, has a market valuation of $7 billion

Silicon Alley's Henry Blodget, a former Internet analyst, estimates that based on $300 million in sales and decent income, Facebook could be worth $5 billion.

That may be a bit high, just based on today's revenue.

Importantly, it's not the revenue that Facebook brings in, as much as the "type" of predictable, proven and scalable revenue and profit model going forward.

Google stumbled upon its ad-auction model, thanks to Overture. But its that killer-app model that's made Google what it is today. The Microsoft monolith was created because hardware vendors absorbed all the costs for developing CD-Rom copies while the software giant just gave them an image of the Windows operating system. Basically, Microsoft receives sales with zero cost-of-goods sold.

It's really unclear exactly what Facebook's model is. There isn't that easy ka-ching that you hear from Microsoft and Google.

Sure, it has advertising today. And, it probably has a significant share of the ads on social networks. But there isn't a killer-app model that is apparent.

Even Google is sitting at 50% of its value even though its search market share increased and click-through rates essentially stayed the same to the tune of 18% y/y, in the third quarter.

If you're an investor, you've got to know what the future payout is before paying last year's valuation.

Comments

David Gehring
David Gehring, on October 31, 2008

Based on the TechCrunch's napkin math, Facebook should be burning about 250M this year to operate the company as is...without scaling the variable according to next year's anticipated traffic/content storage growth. If this is right, and they are planning on booking 300M in revenue this year, then they should be profitable. Does that profitability inflection carry on at scale to some level where they can safely expect revenue of 1+B? I'm not wondering what new revenue rabbit they can pull out of a hat as much as whether the existing revenue model/operation scales efficiently and has a ceiling high enough to warrant the valuation. It seems though, no matter what happens, Microsoft's investment should be viewed like a walmart-ish loss leader strategy giving them the benefit of the doubt of course.


Comment_gbg
Bambi Francisco Roizen, on October 31, 2008

Hey, Dave:
I think we're saying the same thing. I'm not sure if the existing revenue lines are scalable. Long ago, when I covered Google during its earlier days, it didn't seem like it had a business model, but it was mainly because it was still struggling to be a search leader. When it found the Overture model, it just had to increase its search share. Facebook has already done a good job capturing the social network market. Yet it's still unclear what is the "scalable" model. It's unclear what they need to drive people to do to make money off those actions. Maybe there's something in sponsored virtual goods. Other networks are making a killing off of virtual goods. They're all clever over there. So, I'm sure they'll figure it out.


Ezra Roizen
Ezra Roizen, on October 31, 2008

When you put an ad in front of someone who's searching for something, and you know what that something is, that's a good time.

When you put an ad in front of someone who's checking out photos of their prom date, that's a considerably less good time.


Brett Hill
Brett Hill, on October 31, 2008

Right on Ezra--your statements should be copyrighted as they have a lot of power behind them. The question is will the players like YouTube and Facebook understand the importance of those words and act on them? And Bambi, very well written summation of the revenue concerns of Facebook.

I have been very public on my thoughts regarding intrusive advertising on Video Insider--throwing ads up next to user generated content is wrong. It's wrong for the consumer as it's intrusive and it's wrong for the advertiser as they never know what their content is going to display next to. How do you control that?

Bottom line is the bottom line and both mega-giants should think about Ezra's comment,"When you put an ad in front of someone who's checking out photos of their prom date, that's a considerably less good time," while they are looking to create revenue from video advertising.

What's the answer? You know where I am coming from--it's the whole basis of Hot Pluto--bringing advertisers and consumers together in a non-intrusive and interactive environment.


Rich Reader
Rich Reader, on November 1, 2008

The killer-app will remain invisible and unadvertised, like a black hole, observed only by the apparent effect that it has on the parts of the universe that surround it. It will dependably power actionable business intelligence and decisions based upon mining profile and live feed data to gain rapid insights into broad-based shifts in consumer behavior, while still protecting every individual's privacy and confidentiality.


Gary Silver
Gary Silver, on November 1, 2008

Revenue is half their battle, that's some growth in infrastructure, and what are they doing with 750 employees? And if the math is even close to right(???): $10M/750=13,333 per mos.= $160k per employee per annum x 750. By comparison our burn rate is like a spec of dust to that. What happened to the advantages of scalability with internet business models?


Gary Silver
Gary Silver, on November 1, 2008

Rich, that sounds very professorial, but what is the mechanism for converting the collection of information into the collection of dollars?


Comment_gbg
Bambi Francisco Roizen, on November 1, 2008

Brett and Ezra: In those environments, branding dollars make more sense. But the good news for Facebook is that branding dollars have yet to make it online in a meaningful way.


Comment_gbg
Bambi Francisco Roizen, on November 1, 2008

Gary: Ditto


blog comments powered by Disqus
Find your friends' startup new!
Vator is more valuable if you know who's here.
Discover who has a startup and help their success by following their progress!

Featured Stories

Latest company news bites on Vator

Kiip was featured in a article: "A list of top LA accelerators and incubators" 1 day ago
Amplify, Launchpad, MuckerLab, Idealab and Science among those churning out new startups See more
BetterWorks was featured in a article: "A list of top LA accelerators and incubators" 1 day ago
Amplify, Launchpad, MuckerLab, Idealab and Science among those churning out new startups See more
DogVacay.com was featured in a article: "A list of top LA accelerators and incubators" 1 day ago
Amplify, Launchpad, MuckerLab, Idealab and Science among those churning out new startups See more
Zynga was featured in a article: "A list of top LA accelerators and incubators" 1 day ago
Amplify, Launchpad, MuckerLab, Idealab and Science among those churning out new startups See more