The news today that Facebook was buying messaging app "Whatsapp"
for an amount of 19 Billion dollars was greeted mainly by shock in the
financial media. While most agreed that the amount is excessive for a company
which in 2013 had $20 million worth of revenue, some have tried to justify the
valuation based on the potential future profits if Whatsapp is able to
eventually monetize the user base. Recent tech acquisitions (Instagram, Nest)
and the valuation of companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Tencent have drawn
comparison with the 90's tech bubble, but i think this is the clearest example
that we are actually in the middle of a tech bubble.
Firstly we have the absurdity of Henry
Blodget chastising us for thinking that $19Bn is too much http://www.businessinsider.com/why-facebook-buying-whatsapp-2014-2. Blodget is the
founder of "Business Insider" and was one of the original internet
stock gurus, touting internet stocks like etoys.com publicly while referring to
them as "junk" in his private emails.
Secondly we have the re-emergence of
financial metrics that may have no relation to how much profit the business is
actually making. We now see tech companies again being valued on metrics such
as "price to sales". In the case of social media companies and now
messaging apps "price per user" is used to justify a high valuation
in the absence of revenue. Whatsapp ostensibly charges $1 per year for each
user, but no one actually seems to pay it. A big part of why Whatsapp's user
base has grown to an impressive 450 million is that HAS no revenue model (ie it
is free). If it did have a
revenue model it would not have 450 million users.
I have used whatsapp almost exclusively
for the last few years and its speed, ease of use and lack of ads has made it
the standard here in South Africa. Their implementation has been excellent and
far superior to similar apps which were launched at the time (eBuddy is one i
tried but it was slower and full of ads). While Whatsapp is touted as the
fastest growing social media app of all time, network effects in instant
messaging are much lower than social media and it is a business which is easily
to replicate. Most people have several messaging apps on their phone and
can easily switch if necessary. I can also see Apple (iMessage) or Google
(gchat/hangouts) launching cross platform "whatsapp" style versions
of their messaging apps in the same way as Blackberry did with their BBM
messenger. An offering from Apple or Google will be a compelling alternative,
and mean that Whatsapp will never be able to monetize their offering as it
would risk destroying their user base.
One mitigating factor in the valuation of
the transaction is that only $4 billion of the purchase price is in cash, with
the rest in settled in Facebook’s expensive (50-110 PE) stock. This makes the
headline purchase price somewhat academic.
_______________________________
On a side note this transaction got me
thinking about the nature of implementation and luck in internet start-ups. In
South Africa there was a free messaging app called Mxit which was launched
around 2003 and was the messaging standard among South African youth for most
of the decade. It but it began to lose favour towards the end of 2010 with the
proliferation of smartphones and Blackberry messenger. While it still exists
today, and recently launched in India, it has been through several management
changes and seems unlikely to survive. What amazes me is that this free
messaging app predated whatsapp (which launched in 2009) by about 6 years, an
absolute age in the tech industry. Even though Naspers, SA's biggest media and
technology company, purchased a 30% stake in 2007, Mxit never managed to expand
their reach or capture a user base in the way that whatsapp was able to so
quickly after its launch. I would be very interested from those close to the
story to understand why.
Great post Rashaad.
ReplyDeleteIt's always tough to say why some apps make it and others don't. Looking back, I'd venture to say that the largest reasons that Mxit didn't become the next Whatsapp were as follows:
1. Mxit was run as a business
The app expanded far beyond the core messaging service in efforts to monetize the use base. This adds complexity.
2. Mxit focused on feature phones
The company failed to adapt their core product as smart phone penetration grew. This is because a large part of the use base access Mxit on feature phones
3. Mxit was based in South Africa
Geographic distance made it difficult to grow organically internationally
Seems like they made the mistake of thinking about revenues and business model before they had 100 million (1Bn??) users. Very old fashioned.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of a quote i saw last year.
"Having a large number of users and the inability to monetize them is a non-existent problem. People talk about it all the time, but it doesn’t really happen—at least it doesn’t happen in today’s world. I’m not even sure it ever did."
https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/a5890c2c2cc0