|
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of whatever Microsoft ultimately decides to do, many feel Yahoo! could still benefit from an immediate cash infusion. One asset of particular interest is Flickr. Yahoo! acquired the photo sharing site for an estimated $40 million in 2005. Given the current, albeit somewhat disturbing uptake in dot come valuations, Flickr could now potentially be worth billions of dollars based upon monetization from proven traffic growth and already established premium accounts.
If Flickr could get $5/CPM, that would generate $10-million in advertising/year based on the assumption it’s getting about 100 million global pageviews/month. It’s not a lot of revenue given the conservative approach to how much advertising Flickr would present and how much it would charge but, nevertheless, it would give Flickr an additional $250-million based on Blodget's formula. Then, you're looking at a company worth $1.75-billion to $3.25-billion. Add on a takeover or IPO premium of perhaps 25%, and you’re looking at a valuation of $2.2-billion to $4-billion.
 Delicious |  Digg |  Reddit |  Technorati
|
|
More Info: Mark Evans
|
|
| Author |
| Thread |
 |
|
|
dunbar
PCLinuxOS MiniMe 2008
Registered: 1/2001
Posts: 3570
Google is your next manual. Registered Linux user 260423. |
| I won't be using sites that get cluttered or lose their focus. In general, when a company puts money into developing something, the invested money has to return profit, and has to be profitable ASAP. Efforts to regain invested capital will mean Flickr will get revamped and ultimately lose the simpler 'Google-like' ui because more content groupings mean more menu items. Further, in an effort to increase capital, membership based content restriction and thus logins will consume the majority of the capitalized site, so depth of unregistered use will fall away. From there, the sought-after revenue stream begins to fumble and falter because visitors see only 'You must join to view that link!', which membership has to generate revenues... It doesn't matter where in a website you manage to alienate the visitor, a peeved visitor is an exvisitor. All these mergers and infusions are prone to creating a loss mechanism which defeat the necessary revenue stream. In summary, a site gets popular by doing something one way, then the site merges and/or gets upgraded and/or capitalized, from there it gets revamped for revenue intentions and ultimately alienates everyone. When a revenue stream cannot repay infused capital (no matter if the amount of capital amounted to a significant portion of the assets of the funding company), somebody is going to get hurt, and the hurt comes FROM the capital provider. |
Rating: 1/5 |
|
5-19-2008 10:56am |
|
|
| |
|
