Not what I meant. I am wondering what LinkedIn needs the funds for. Their technology is pretty straight forward and honestly not all that advanced -a professional resume slash lead list slash exploratory network slash social network interface. It's a good company, no doubt, but a $300MM IPO. What are they doing, building a space shuttle? jeje.
PS, Mike, I Hub Pages gets Venture Cap backing for an IPO, I would definitely mortgage my house to buy a block!
James, I haven't researched the company itself. I have no idea of their plans for the future. Usually, IPOs are done for only one reason- capital?
If people(Wall Street) didn't think there was solid ground for the IPO, trust me, it wouldn't move. I've seen other IPOs come looking for capital injections, and actually lose money on the first day it was public.
Well, my money is on companies like Hulu. They have a solid company, excellent management team, support of the likes of GE & Disney, etc, not to mention a great product and potential for advancement in technology. Companies like Twitter and LinkedIn just don't seem impressive enough to warrant investment. On the interim, sure a short sale. Long term, not so much.
Hulu is a joint venture by several of the top media companies, and it would have never been possible for a private company to start something like that and be successful, because getting the rights to that content would have been way too expensive.
For sites like LinkedIn the question becomes "how much is information worth?" I would say a LinkedIn profile is worth more on average than a Facebook profile, because that person is generally more valuable to people who might want information about them (potential employers, clients, etc), while a Facebook profile might be for my cat's favorite play toy. That said, I get worried when Wall Street types start trying to put a value on something that isn't a straightforward asset or debit. This is what happened in the late-1990's, when people were throwing around numbers estimating how much 1 million hits on a website is worth, and in the end most of those dot coms went bankrupt because a hit isn't worth a thing if it can't be turned into money. In fact, those hits were often negative value because they ate up bandwidth.
Absolutely. I think the reality is: an actual technology has value, like a specific programming code, even a CMS, like SquareSpace. Agreed, a visitor to a website can't really valuate the site --unless of course it is ad driven or compiling a database of users and that information used for alternate marketing strategies, as most sites do not actually provide a premium service, based on a technology or product. Correction, SquareSpace, et al, do charge for a service. Sites like Facebook, LinkedIn --even HubPages-- definitely have value, in a secondary marketplace. They are ultimately at the mercy of a primary market: adverts.
My good buddy Daniel, is a marketing rep for a disgustingly beautiful VC firm in Texas. He has seen well over 50,000 dot com concepts come across his desk (email) in less than five years. Only a handful had genuine market value, above and beyond hits and clicks. If this is any indication of where the next gen market is going, well...
Hello fellow hubbers!I have the day off work today (hurray!!!) I've been up since the wee hours of the morning working on hubs and going through some of the technical stuff in my profile and account to make sure I'm...
Hi All,I am organically adding my hubs to these sites:DiggDeliciousSlashdotTumblrStumpeuponReddit (need to research this as I have had problems wit this site before)Google+Twitter (via Hootsuite free version 10...