Fidelity has cut Reddit valuation to $5.5B from $10B
Girlparts@kbin.social to 
Reddit Migration@kbin.social – 286 points – 
techcrunch.com
You are viewing a single comment
Girlparts@kbin.social to Reddit Migration@kbin.social – 286 points – Girlparts@kbin.social to Reddit Migration@kbin.social – 286 points –
I get that, but who would want to buy a company that's never been profitable? It smacks of a scam. "Hey, bro! Buy my company! It never managed to make any money for me, but it'll be highly profitable for you!" Sounds like the company founder is looking to pull a fast one and laugh all the way to the bank while their investor is left holding the bag.
The only way I can see this working is if the idea is to build a large user base by offering a good user experience, i.e. not monetizing the platform very much, just enough so that it barely pays for its own operating costs. Then you sell that user base to someone else for the express purpose of shoving tons of ads down everyone's throat. In that case it's still a fast one, only in this scenario the users are the victims. But even then I'm skeptical. If that's the plan, why sell the company instead of enshittifying your platform yourself?
Have you heard of
our lord and saviorenshittification?Profits don't matter under capitalism, it's only stock money. Trying to profit is a death sentence in the tech space, as we're all seeing right now. This system doesn't work for the 21st century
Because it's a lot easier to find someone who thinks they can do it than it is to actually successfully do it yourself - as we are currently seeing with how wonderfully incompetent Spez is with Reddit.
When Yahoo bought Tumblr for $1.1 billion in 2013 - only to sell it for $3 million in 2019 - was Tumblr bringing in millions and millions of profit? No. But Yahoo thought that they would be able to make it.
Elon Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter, it hasn't turned any profit either (and never will enough for him to get his moneys worth, but that's just because Musk is an idiot).
But yeah, quite often it does feel like a scam. Or kinda like... gambling? You hope someone will pay a lot for your company, while they hope they can make it turn wildly profitable, both may or may not come true.
That's pretty much what I said, though. That's the core of the scam. You sell something you know to be worthless to someone too ignorant to understand that. Maybe I'm just extremely ignorant and naive in matters of business, but selling a fake company like that seems no different than selling pyrite to someone who can't tell it apart from gold.
You're basically assuming that the company can't be made to turn a profit, in which case, yes, it would be a scam.
But that's not the case. The company could potentially be made to make a profit, and you're basically selling that potential. It often works out, like in the case of Amazon. Sometimes it doesn't, like Yahoo buying Tumblr.
As long as what the prospective buyer is actually getting is clear and up-front, it can hardly be a scam. With your "You sell something you know to be worthless to someone too ignorant to understand that.", you're essentially assuming the company can't be made profitable, and that the seller knows that, but doesn't disclose it to the buyer, and that the buyer is somehow naive enough to not be able to tell.
It's generally unlikely that a company can't be made profitable, it would be unlikely for the seller to know that, and it would be unlikely for the buyer to be unable to find out before buying it, which altogether, makes it unlikely this would happen. Which is why it's big news when it does happen, like with Theranos (Which was eventually found out)
If the company can be made profitable, why isn't it? Why wouldn't the current owner rake in some profits before selling? Surely a company that is already profitable would be even more attractive for buyers.