The following tweet is the umpteenth time I’ve seen the media size a company by valuation, not revenue, in the past few years:
Calling Palantir a $20B company suggests they are doing $20B in revenues, which is certainly not the case. (They say they did $1B in 2015 and that’s bookings, not revenue.) So we’re not talking a small difference here. Depending on the hype factor surrounding a company, we might be talking 20x.
Domo is another company the media loves to size by its market cap.
I’ve heard revenue estimates of $50M to $100M for Domo, so here again, we’re not talking about a small difference. Maybe 20x.
When my friend Max Schireson stepped down from MongoDB to spend more time with his family, the media did it again (see the first line of text below the picture)
I love Max. I love MongoDB. While I don’t know what their revenues were when he left (I’d guess $50M to $100M), they certainly were not a “billion-dollar database company.” But, hey, the article got 4,000 shares. Inflation-wise, I’m again guessing 10-20x.
So why does the media do this? Why do they want to mislead readers by a factor of 20?
- Because if makes the numbers bigger
- And makes the headlines cooler
- And increases drama
In the end, because it (metaphorically) sells more newspapers. “Wow, some guy just quit as CEO of a billion-dollar company to actually spend more time with his family” just sounds a whole lot better than the same line with a comparatively paltry $50M instead. Man Bites Dog beats Dog Bites Man every time.
But it’s wrong, and the media should stop doing it. Why?
- It’s misleading, and not just a little. Up to 20x as the above examples demonstrate.
- It’s not verifiable. For private companies, you can’t really know or verify the valuation. It’s not in any public filing. (While private companies don’t disclose revenue either, it’s much more easily triangulated.)
- Private company valuations are misleading because VCs buy preferred stock and employees/founders have common stock. So you take a preferred share price and multiply it by the total number of outstanding shares, both preferred and common. (This ignores the fact that the common is definitionally worth less than the preferred and basically assumes an IPO scenario, which happens only for the fortunate few, where the preferred converts into common.)
- In the past few years, companies are increasingly taking late-stage money that often comes with “structure” that makes it non-comparable in rights to both the regular preferred and the common. So just compound the prior problem with a new class of essentially super-preferred stock. The valuation gets even more misleading.
- Finally, compound the prior problem with a hyped environment where everyone wants to be a unicorn so they might deliberately take unfavorable terms/structure in order get a higher valuation and hopefully cross into unicorn-dom. The valuation gets even-more-misleading squared. See the following Tweet as my favorite example of this phenom. (OH means overheard.)
When was the last time I saw the media consistently size companies by valuation instead of revenue? 1997 to 2001. Bubble 1.0.
Maybe we’ll soon be talking about eyeballs again. Or, if you like Stance, the company that has raised $116in VC and has “ignited a movement of art and self-expression,” in socks (yes, socks) then maybe we’ll be talking about feet.
# # #
(And while I’m not sure about the $116M, I do love the socks.)