Its very telling of IAC what they are pulling. I have spoken to Sean a few times (way in the past) and its insulting what they are doing. Hes created a great company (and has done so several times- orgoo, adly, etc.) He has proven his worth and IAC is getting greedy. Yes, there appears to have been slight mistakes lately, but this is a guy who has created a company worth over a billion- Give him some slack. The fact they are pulling this shit is ridiculous, when tinder likely has more value than IAC itself if it wasnt for the public market. If tinder was private, its valuation would likely trump that of IAC. I only wish him the best- Honestly my advice to him would be to drop it and move on. Hes a talented dude (obviously) who should focus on creating his next big win. I am rooting for him.
Tinder has made 0 revenue since it's inception in 2012. That's not a company, that's a product. (a great product mind you)
> If tinder was private, its valuation would likely trump that of IAC.
IAC makes a lot of money ($3bil) and has a high market cap ($6bil). Given it's ownership of every large dating site, it's it conceivable that IAC has set the precedence for the total addressable market for online dating. Or at the very least, has an indication of such. I'm curious as to the rationale that would make Tinder worth more than IAC given that (1) Tinder hasn't made a single dime (2) the sites that do make money already have a large market share and continue to grow despite a free contender like Tinder existing and (3) a company "worth over a billion" needs to theoretically have a trajectory to not only bring in $150mil in revenue but exceed that in the foreseeable future in order for a billion dollar price tag to be realistic (on that same note - "billion dollar" valuations only make sense when their is a buyer who can foot that bill or the company has a trajectory to make those kind of profits. to my knowledge IAC would be the only company in existence to do such a thing).
Lastly, I'm genuinely curious about the history and terms setup between IAC and Tinder. If Tinder is such a darly of the tech world and is a "billion dollar business" then why did it chose to be so restricted by IAC when it's valuation "would likely trump that of IAC"? I curiously ask not because I have any sort of knowledge of their history, but rather the current arrangement suggests a story entirely different than the prescribed narrative that you suggest.
no. it's a company. It's valued on future potential. Same as Whatsapp can be valued at $19billion, despite only having $10 million in revenue. Many examples; there is future monetization potential, that they're already discussing.
Oh how remarks like this make me think it's 1999 again. The valuation per registered user is also starting to get to that level (I had friends with business plans calling out values of $500 per user at that time). See what happens this time.
IAC is a tightly managed group, which tends to issue hard objectives and demand large returns. Call it capitalism, call it old-style management, call it whatever you like. It has been that way since the beginning.
I am surprised that Tinder hasn't been monetized, as profits heavily drive management decisions. I've no idea what happened, but I wouldn't be surprised if a major target was missed.
IAC is a very rewarding company for those that deliver results as promised. I enjoyed working at a couple of IAC jobs many years ago, but it can certainly be an adjustment!
