I tend to always be justifying valuations of companies way ahead of the market. Over 2 years ago, BEFORE Microsoft invested in Facebook, I wrote this blog post, valuing Facebook at $10bn. Shortly thereafter, I was vinnycated (pun intended!) when Microsoft subsequently invested in Facebook at a $15bn valuation.
In the Facebook post, I analyzed Facebook’s business model, using my background in search & online marketing, to justify why as a business, the valuation made sense.
Now, 2 years later, a new player has arrived in the online world, Twitter. The valuation of $1bn on Twitter as a business is potentially not as strong as the rationale behind the investment at that price. In order to explain briefly – I’m going to go light on the business model and heavy on the investment rationale.
As a business, Twitter has about 50m users and is becoming a major player in the Real Time search market. I use it more often than Google sometimes, to figure out what’s happen, in real time. Search is a $20bn market. If Microsoft (through Bing) and Google really wanted to get serious about this space, paying $1bn for Twitter would be a paltry sum of cash or stock for either of them. Twitter’s volume easily justifies it (read the leaked Twitter docs). Facebook already made moves to acquire Twitter for $500m, earlier this year.
So, without delving into the business model behind Twitter, let’s just assume that there is acquisition value for Twitter, if it were sold tomorrow to either Google, Facebook or Microsoft. even at a 80% discount to the Facebook price, I don’t think anyone would argue that Twitter is worth at least $100m.
And that’s my point. Twitter has just raised $100m from a number of investors. What (most) journalists, don’t understand, is that the way the term sheets and documents are prepared and signed off, investors typically receive preferred stock in the company that they are investing in.
Note: I have no inside information on Twitter and this is purely speculation, based upon best practices and my experience in investing and the startup world.
Let’s assume the terms of the deal were typical:
Investors receive 10% of Twitter for a $100m investment.
This 10% constitute Series “C”? preferred stock.
The preferred stock has a liquidation preference of 1x (which means no matter what Twitter is ultimately sold for, the investors get the first $100m back + interest (2-5%?) – sometimes you can get 1.25-2x liquidation preferences, which would sweeten the deal even more for investors (e.g. 2x their money back upon exit/sale before anyone else gets anything).
So, for a mere $100m, these savvy investors realized that investing in Twitter to receive a 10% share in the upside (above $1bn – which is very possible), with limited downside (they always get their money out first + interest), it was better than leaving the money in the bank.
The reality of the situation right now is that money in the bank is not attracting any real interest in the developed markets (typically 1%).
So, if you could get a piece of the upside in a fast growing tech company, with very limited downside and interest in the bank – why would you not invest in Twitter on a $1bn valuation? In fact, depending on the liquidation preference, even a $5bn valuation would make sense!
From an investment point of view, this is a great investment with good upside and low risk – these investors are not crazy, they just understand time value of money. The current state of the world’s fixed interest income markets means that we’re going to see a lot more deals like this, where investors take small stakes in fast growing companies at high prices but first money out.
As long as the company is worth AT LEAST what you are putting in ($100m in this case), the downside is very limited and the upside exceeds the current cost of capital.
Great investment – win-win for everyone, and overall, well done to Evan & the guys at Twitter.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Comments On This Post
September 28, 2009 at 12:58 am
As a humble financial journalist I have to disagree completely.
To say that something is worth US$1bn because the investor who put in US$100m for a 10% stake has effectively guaranteed their investment through pref. stock is warped logic.
To argue this point I am going to point to the banks and insurers who also issued “Guaranteed” products to their clients / policy holders / depositors.
When liquidity dried up and people couldn’t get their hands on physical cash and policies were worth bugger all. Look at the pressure that Old Mutual came under when it had to keep shipping capital to shore up guarantees at its US life operations or Saambou when there was a run on the bank.
Will there be a liquidity crisis in the US? I think that question has been answered…
At the end of the day both OM and Saambou had more than enough cash to cover policies and deposits, it didn’t stop Saambou going into curatorship and Old Mutual losing 70% of its “value” in its share price.
The difference is that OM had profitable cash generative underlying activities which Twitter doesn’t have. You can’t dismiss the fact that the business doesn’t have a long-term business model and I don’t think you can place a valuation on something that doesn’t make any money and doesn’t have a business model to do so.
DISCLAIMER HERE – I know bugger all about internet business models and could easily be proven wrong. I’m just looking at the here and now and the cash is not there to support the valuation.
Yes the guarantee is “good” for the current investors but if anything is a noose around the neck of future investors in Twitter. If I could invest in something where my money was guaranteed I would also do it – just make sure I cashed in my profit early enough that my guarantee isn’t guaranteeing somebody elses investment.
Finally in my humble opinion – Twitter is a ponzi scheme waiting to disappear in front of your eyes and I’ll wager it won’t be around in 5 years time… like I said humble opinion….
September 28, 2009 at 1:59 am
Twitter has a ton of value, but until they monetize the user base and the huge number of pageviews somehow, it seems like all the value is only being distributed among users. Of course, the new investors on the scene will probably push them toward building revenue sooner rather than later. Waiting to include ads gave them a chance to establish a place in the field, but its probably inevitable that some sort of income starts backing up the potential valuations.
September 28, 2009 at 3:13 am
[...] Cash zum Ausbau seiner Infrastruktur, Suche und zum Etablieren eines validen Geschäftsmodells. – Die Investoren spekulieren evtl. auch auf eine Ãœbernahme durch Google, Microsoft und co. oder auf einen [...]
September 28, 2009 at 5:56 am
very interesting analysis.
Your main premise that Twitter is worth at least $100m based on its acquisition appeal reminds me of the dot com boom. Surely at the time people will think similar lines to fibre optics.
But what if the appeal suddenly dissapear? What if the peer leaders in twitter suddenly jump out of the twitter bandwagon, consequently their followers, and off to the next big thing.
Unlike Google, in terms of search twitter is only valueable when the peer leaders are injecting original ideas and valueable information.
September 28, 2009 at 8:50 am
Where did my comment go?
September 28, 2009 at 8:50 am
And then it reappeared – ignore my last
September 28, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Great points, guys. My argument is that Twitter is worth at least $100m as a company – not that it’s worth a billion. Let’s assume that Twitter converted 2% of users into paying customers – paying just $10/year. That’s $10m in revenue and with a standard 10x revenues multiple, a $100m valuation. Just because they have not yet monetized, does not mean that they will not. Traffic comes first, then monetization will follow.
September 28, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Twitter might be worth a lot in cash but in terms of value it adds to the world it’s not worth a thing
September 28, 2009 at 2:49 pm
@Marc
I came to the same conclusion about Facebook, and they’re in the process of proving me completely wrong!
It doesn’t take long to edit a template and put some dynamic advertisements on it. If it works well, they might be able to set up their own ad market and cut out more middle-men.
Internet advertising profitability has matured a lot since the dotcot bubble. Despite a general downturn, the sector is surviving the crash a hundred times better than print and television media are. Ads are increasingly well-matched to users and topics on a page People are also a lot more comfortable making purchases online than they were 10 years ago.
50 million people may not be enough on its own to achieve $1b in profits quickly, but as long as the company trend stays toward growth for a bit longer, they’ll probably achieve it without too much trouble.
And in five years? Well, that’s almost an eternity for any online business model. Twitter has plenty of time to pull down $1b in profit before the service inevitably fades into memory and the internet archive.
The potential for profit is there and growing, but it can vanish just as quickly as it arrived. Of course, this implies the risk of the valuation. If the ads don’t convert in to sales or there is a huge backlash among the user base that drives them away, well, the investors might not get their money back.
September 28, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Good debate though and it at least says a bit about the business climate that people are considering placing decent valuations on potential growth.
September 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I agree with Vinny and one day I can see this too been vinnycated!
September 29, 2009 at 2:03 am
Paying is a big risk..
Lose traffics..BTW,Chinese government already blocked twitter because of politic problems.. if it is a place where news can be made by everyone, search Time Search can be really complicated and ppl should think more than once to decide what to believe..
September 30, 2009 at 2:46 am
I think an investment of this kind can only turn profitable if an exit actually occurs, acquisition etc.
Your assertions on possible multiple revenues did not consider your previous point on time value of the investors money.
But then again its a dotcom company where anything can happen, considering another entity that has already made it, could consider sharing its wealth by acquiring it for its user base for even 2bn in cash or a worthy book value of 1 billion in stocks.
September 30, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I understand Twitter has a value. And I agree with your point in that as a “company” Twitter is worth $100m. Good post.
September 30, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Using Twitter for search? I think you just turned on a bulb in my head – thanks!
Ana Hoffman
/YourNetBiz System
October 1, 2009 at 4:39 am
Great arguments!
I think that twitter isn’t worth that money. The same situation with youtube. Google bought it and don’t know how to get their investment back. lately they are doing quite good but still could be better.
Another example you all know is skype and ebuy.
So twitter is overvalued.
October 2, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I think that’s ridiculous in this global crises that tweeter can worth that much money.
October 2, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Vinny, remember what George Santayana said: “Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
I remember all of the talk of “eyeballs” back in the day. Think about all of those companies that had eyeballs but no busines model beyond cashing the checks from companies with new-found VC or Wall Street money. Now think about how many are still around.
Did the Webvan truck drop off your groceries last week?
October 4, 2009 at 7:00 am
its abit exagrating the correct value. I think twitter is no more than 100ms. There is big compettitor called facebook.
October 4, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I think they are pretty late on monetizing it and i really wonder why is that…
Perhaps im the end they will decide adsense is better for them although i would like to see something completely different form them than the usual
October 5, 2009 at 12:42 am
Where did my comment go ? ed hardy
October 5, 2009 at 5:25 am
I do admit that twitter is worth million of dollars but now the main question is how long it will remain. Twitter is the number one target for spammers and hackers. But I have also seen some good work from twitter as .they are banning spammers account very fast. But anyways twitter has helped me a lot in my marketing so I hope it remain alive for a long time
October 5, 2009 at 8:21 pm
You made a good point about twitter.. twitter had made an impact in internet marketing. Anyway does twitter had this limit when it comes to posting and messages? thanks…
This is a very good site!!!
Kudos!
October 6, 2009 at 4:22 am
The advertising revenue potentially could be worth a fortune too.. So many opportunities there…
October 6, 2009 at 11:05 am
[...] Vinny Lingham thought it was a sound investment if the investors have a liquidation preference. Of course, that assumes liquidation value of at least $100 million. Chris Dixon reminds us not to forget that the VCs take home $2 million per year in carry and describes the destruction of VC funding. [...]
October 7, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Hi, the value of the company depends on how people think to the value is.. 100m… maybe.
regards.
October 9, 2009 at 10:49 am
I actually agree, twitter has brought something very new to the online world. It’s the first of its kind and certainly the biggest by far. There could be no other way for twitter but up.
October 11, 2009 at 6:07 am
Twitter has a ton of value, but until they monetize the user base and the huge number of pageviews somehow, it seems like all the value is only being distributed among users. Of course, the new investors on the scene will probably push them toward building revenue sooner rather than later. Waiting to include ads gave them a chance to establish a place in the field, but its probably inevitable that some sort of income starts backing up the potential valuations.
October 12, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Hey… that’s ridiculous in this global crises that tweeter can worth that much money.
October 13, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Where did my comment go?
October 13, 2009 at 12:44 pm
My concern is that what Twitter brings to the table can be duplicated – maybe not the name recognition though.
October 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I wrote about why Twitter isn’t worth $1BB based on revenue (http://dlew.is/tw1) and why it will sell for over $2BB in 2010 (http://dlew.is/tw3).
October 14, 2009 at 12:28 am
Great analysis! BUT… I still do not see the exit-option (apart from selling to Google, so that Mountain View can have REALTIME Search without any extra efford, too) so far.
Will people pay for using Twitter? Or will Twitter plaster their tweets with (unwanted) ads? Time will tell.
October 14, 2009 at 10:30 pm
The benifits of Twitter generates is more than enough..
October 15, 2009 at 3:54 am
There is no advertising on Twitter at the min, so how can they put a value on a consumer if they don’t know how much they will “indirectly” spend?
October 16, 2009 at 12:39 am
I think that sounds like an overinflated evaluation like back when the dot com bubble burst. If someone can show me how they will make that money back from monetising it, then it’s justified.
October 16, 2009 at 3:20 am
Vinny
I think that it is dangerous to assume that the old rules will apply when the dust settles on this economic period. Bankers may have relied on state money to go back to business as usual, but I believe that industries like advertising are a better model for our future. Nothing is going to look the same in 24 months time, therefore general risk is increased and valuations become guesswork.
October 19, 2009 at 12:43 am
i get asked by people – what is so different in twitter and what is there in tweets that is not in others like myspace or facebook?Well,despite a aggressive tweeter i pause for the answer.Then i say it is the real time thingy that makes it so awesome.I am very eager to know how twitter evolves and how it finds a business model.
October 19, 2009 at 11:14 am
I guess it depends how you value a stock/business. Different methods will offer different results just like people use in the stockmarkets.
October 20, 2009 at 12:33 am
The difference is that OM had profitable cash generative underlying activities which Twitter doesn’t have. You can’t dismiss the fact that the business doesn’t have a long-term business model and I don’t think you can place a valuation on something that doesn’t make any money and doesn’t have a business model to do so.
October 20, 2009 at 12:50 am
To say that something is worth US$1bn because the investor who put in US$100m for a 10% stake has effectively guaranteed their investment through pref. stock is warped logic.
To argue this point I am going to point to the banks and insurers who also issued “Guaranteed†products to their clients / policy holders / depositors.
October 21, 2009 at 12:04 am
It seems a little bit ridiculous to say that Twitter is worth $1 billion simply because the investors were smart enough to work out a deal that protected their initial investment. It seems to me that you made a good case for investing in a way so as to protect your initial investment and not a case for why you think Twitter is worth $1 billion. The post should probably be more accurately titled “Why the Investors in Twitter Were Smart” or something similar.
- Joel Ohman
Domain Superstar
October 21, 2009 at 12:18 am
While I agree with some of what you have said. Twitter is only as good as what people post on it, and they have to do it in what, 150 characters or so? Google catches everything, its a true web spider. Twitter isn’t. Not sure where the profitability comes from either and its more open to competitors unlike Google.
October 21, 2009 at 12:23 am
Although I would add that Twitter may very well be worth $1 billion but I just don’t think that the reasons you gave are reason for Twitter being worth $1 billion
-Joel Ohman
Domain Superstar.com
October 21, 2009 at 8:54 pm
this is an interesting entry.. very informative to those who are using twitter. And i am of of them.
@Barbara – i guess the direct messages has this limit of 250 daily.. and also you need more followers in order to follow many.
nice page you got here..
October 25, 2009 at 3:52 pm
The argument is interesting.
Twitter may or may not be worth all that money. But undoubtedly, along with Facebook, it has made the greatest impact on internet marketing in the latest years. Its growth in such crisis time is nothing short of amazing.
BTW, what a great site!
October 27, 2009 at 3:49 am
They were simply the first, but not the best in my opinion. My company is working on an improved, multi-language version that will be released Q1 2010.
Bram Branson
http://nokian97mini.com
October 29, 2009 at 3:57 pm
There is no way that Twitter can be worth that valuation. How are they going to find a way to monetize their traffic?
October 31, 2009 at 7:54 am
My concern is that what Twitter brings to the table can be duplicated – maybe not the name recognition though. yess
October 31, 2009 at 5:15 pm
1B is a lot for a service that makes no money. But Im sure they will come up with something to bring in a lot!
November 1, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Interesting article.
The worth of Twitter blows my mind
November 2, 2009 at 1:53 am
Then good luck for the buyers. I am a bit skeptical about the pricing, since an uproming of a rival for twitter is only a question of time, compare to Skype.
November 2, 2009 at 8:40 am
Add Facebook i wanna share this page thank you very much
November 3, 2009 at 12:18 am
You made a good point about twitter.. twitter had made an impact in internet marketing. Anyway does twitter had this limit when it comes to posting and messages? thanks…
Nice Places to Visit and Computer Tutorials and Nice Places to Visit
November 3, 2009 at 1:38 am
hmmm, i’m not a big surprise because nowaday twitter become even popular after facebook.
November 4, 2009 at 12:23 am
I still think tweeter isn’t worth anywhere close to 1 million since the things it does, a lot of websites already do. It’s domain is somewhat valuable and it sticks to peoples minds. May be that will worth something.
Thanks
November 5, 2009 at 9:23 am
Twitter has a ton of value, but until they monetize the user base and the huge number of pageviews somehow, it seems like all the value is only being distributed among users. Of course, the new investors on the scene will probably push them toward building revenue sooner rather than later. Waiting to include ads gave them a chance to establish a place in the field, but its probably inevitable that some sort of income starts backing up the potential valuations.
auto insurance
November 5, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I agree with this post. Twitter is being used by CNN and nearly every big name media outlet everywhere. That tells you it has mega value.
November 6, 2009 at 8:29 am
Twitter is a mecca for spammers that’s why it’s worth more.
November 7, 2009 at 9:57 am
Just like every other hot new web 2.0 site out there, if they can’t figure out how to monetize efficiently or handle exploding growth… they’re doomed to fail. It’s hit and miss, but if something more interesting comes out, they’ll slowly fade out.
November 8, 2009 at 1:53 am
nice Posting. I just starting with Internet. My parents didn’t allow me this, before I was 16 years old. It’s very nice, becaus now can I improve my English language.
Cora from Frankfurt in Germany
November 8, 2009 at 8:16 am
I can see them being worth $100m but like others have said until twitter finds a better way of making money they will be more hype than substance. Youtube gets a ton of visitors but they haven’t seemed to figure out a good model yet. Although I noticed they are playing commercials more now.
November 9, 2009 at 4:33 am
It has got the most crowd nowadays Everyone has got the craze of using twitter….
November 9, 2009 at 5:12 am
There was no doubt about Facebook having that much value, at least IMO. Its predecessors already proved that. What I can’t figure out is Twitter. Yeah Twitter is neat, used by a lot of people, big companies but I have yet to see something come out of it. But oh well are’nt we all waiting for that to happen to begin with? I guess we just wait and see…
November 9, 2009 at 7:52 am
I can’t understand how to monetize Twitter! There is any model?
November 9, 2009 at 9:18 am
I think twitter hard to monitize..
Sory may english bad..
November 10, 2009 at 6:06 am
Twitter is set to secure a $1bn valuation from investors before it earns its first substantial revenues after the micro-blogging site raised $100m in new funding.
Twitter’s choice of financial investors over strategic partnerships could give it more flexibility in the future.
November 10, 2009 at 7:12 am
Twitter twitter twitter…
November 10, 2009 at 8:06 am
I think you did lot of research to write this bog post here. Your analysis about twitter valuation is simply great and easily understandable. Being a twitter enthusiast I can say that twitter is worth of more than 100 billion. It has got potential to attract customers, can be used as platform to market products and services and real time search. Once again thank you for posting this information.
November 10, 2009 at 10:38 am
Actually, YouTube makes over $400m a year in revenues!
November 10, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Twitter is a great tool . . . when used for social applications. It is great to get a quick update on somebody, but to share meaningful information, it is a terrible forum. I for one do not want to start getting news feeds 1 sentence at a time.
People will argue that they are just sending an update and further reading is required. If you want to say, I just updated my blog, check it out that is fine. However what most people do is come up with a controversial headline that gets people thinking or even angry without the ability to get the rest of the story.
Maybe I am just old fashioned and want to have all the information before I get upset about something.
Dave
November 10, 2009 at 3:17 pm
It’s not warped logic – it’s simple math. Is there any doubt that Microsoft, Facebook or Google would buy Twitter for $100m at the very least? The last Facebook offer was $500m…
November 11, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Twitter is set to secure a $1bn valuation from investors before it earns its first substantial revenues after the micro-blogging site raised $100m in new funding.
November 12, 2009 at 3:09 am
I think that the problem with twitter is that the money source just is not there yet. Once that starts to become clearer then the valuation starts to make sense, but that the moment it is just flashes of the dot com bust.
November 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I agree with Vinny.
Twitter will eventually turn all the eyeballs into revenue – but the question is, for how long?
November 16, 2009 at 8:57 am
I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.
November 16, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I am also a bit skeptical about the pricing, I do believe they have a huge early mover advantage, but it will only take time when a competitor will enter the arena. As an example you already see Linkedin adding status updates, etc.
In all I have a lot of fun reading your posts and articles, thanks for that.
November 16, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I agree with you…Its worth billion…
November 18, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I have been using twitter for some time now and I really stars to understand its power!
November 19, 2009 at 4:13 am
twitter is one of the best social networking site for me…
November 21, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I can’t believe its still taken this long before even Twitter themselves to try and make some sort of revenue out of their business, or is the invester’s revenue in itself? Surely they’ll want some sort of return soon. Technology like this has BURST onto the scene, and I’d say because of how realtively shallow it actually is, I can’t see it lasting TOO long, before MS, Google, Apple or one of the other `big` boys make a rival that is more fully featured….. hmmm..
November 22, 2009 at 4:10 am
Thanks for the information! Great article!
November 24, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I like twitter for getting lightening-fast news, right as it happens. its good for that. but, I don’t personally tweet very much. Twitter is pretty amazing though.
November 25, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Twitter did a great job of getting a ton of traffic.. the next step is the monetizing.. and it will happen.. ads alone would provide a great deal of revenue.
November 28, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I think it is very hard to value these kind of companies, if there are not already generating a substantial revenue, look at eBay when the acquired Skype for $2.5 or $3 billion? For many people it seamed obvious to integrate Skype into the EBay platform, and generate revenue in this way, this never happened, so now they have sold majority of their Skype stake to an investor group and the two Skype founders.
I guess my point is, there can be value in these companies it they are acquired by people who understands how to develop them into money machines, but it can also go the other way.
Morten
November 30, 2009 at 5:19 pm
So i don´t understand why, but with this reach its another marketing tool to make money…
December 1, 2009 at 10:01 am
Twitter i think is business oriented that is why they consider it. While facebook is all rounder in all terms. Nice info
December 2, 2009 at 7:05 am
Twitter is for business purpose whether facebook is good for every purpose. Thanks for sharing info
December 2, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I think that Twittr is really worth that and probabaly will be mcuh more worth than that each year.
December 2, 2009 at 11:53 pm
wow I want to buy it
December 3, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The problme is that once you monetize the idea of twitter it loses some of its charm and becomes just another money making scheme which will flair up when the next big thing comes along.
December 3, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Twitter is worth $1 billion . I didn’t know that , but I am not surprised . The owners had a great idea to build twitter . Congrats!!
hypotheekrente http://www.laagstehypotheekrentes.com
December 7, 2009 at 9:12 am
Twitter indeed is primarily new compared to other social media websites but its functions and features have a lot of potential in the world of social media. The number of its users are also promising and its increasing popularity all over the world is not something to be taken for granted.
Whoever decides to acquire twitter in the near future regardless of how much its valuation is should be able to establish a well defined position and a long-term plan which will allow twitter to gain more users. I think Twitter is gradually leaning towards offering the people a tool where they can promote online. I just hope they would be able to catch up with the times and re-invent it according to the needs of its users.
It’s important they stay focused with their goals and objectives.
December 7, 2009 at 10:57 am
I agree with you…Its worth billion…
News & Technology
December 14, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I read a few months ago that the guys who started Twitter have not begun monetizing it yet. I don’t know if this has changed since it has been quite some time since I have been on it.
December 16, 2009 at 7:31 am
I would say twitter worth more than a billion dollar its demand is only on the rise everyday then ever.
seo your blog
December 16, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I’m sure that it is worth that much to any company who has the money to spend but I still think that it’s totally crazy money. If I had that much I certainly wouldn’t buy Twitter for it. I think people are starting to get bored of it personally. Dan
December 18, 2009 at 2:53 pm
You make a very good point. I think I’ll invest into Twitter after a little more research.
December 18, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I see Twitter results coming up in Google’s Organic listings. They will go sky high. They will be worth double next year. Never ending question is, when to sell?
January 3, 2010 at 2:20 pm
its very hard to make a program which part of other complex program up to 1bn. its just a “what i’m doing now” think why you guy made this king?
January 4, 2010 at 9:26 am
I don’t like twitter
January 5, 2010 at 6:31 am
i think it’s well worth this price too.
January 5, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Ya!
I don’t twitter worth as much as it is valuated!
There are so many other services in web more valuable than twitter but i don’t know why is everyone is running over twitter!
And as now Google is indexing twitter messages also.
I think twitter will be more popular now!
But twitter don’t worth it!
January 6, 2010 at 2:10 pm
After 2-3 years, i believe that twitter will cost at around 5 billion. That is due to internet marketing.
January 7, 2010 at 2:15 pm
A really interesting article. I’m also thinking, that twitter has a lot of unused potential. It’s exciting to see what changes the future will bring to the platform…
January 8, 2010 at 6:20 am
i think it’s worth more than 10 billion dollars, honestly.
January 10, 2010 at 6:47 am
I agree twitter as company worth 100m but not for 1bn unless twitter decide to move forward to introduce more advertisement app.
January 10, 2010 at 6:53 am
I dont see any good reason for big company to invest 1 billion for twitter. I dont see any ROI on twitter right now especially twitter full load with spammer
January 10, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Its amazing! But your right about twitter. I remember when they were just a small startup!
January 11, 2010 at 9:00 am
it’s good to know
January 11, 2010 at 3:04 pm
I agree with you, but I can’t believe …
January 11, 2010 at 9:41 pm
The reason behind the lower worth of twitter is everyone is getting benefit from twitter free of cost just by tweeting.
January 13, 2010 at 5:11 am
Wow incredible achievement that can occur through twitter. This makes me want to try to use twitter for a variety of interactions.
January 13, 2010 at 8:02 am
Twitter has a ton of value, but until they monetize the user base and the huge number of pageviews somehow, it seems like all the value is only being distributed among users. Of course, the new investors on the scene will probably push them toward building revenue sooner rather than later. Waiting to include ads gave them a chance to establish a place in the field, but its probably inevitable that some sort of income starts backing up the potential valuations.
January 13, 2010 at 12:14 pm
twitter is huge and just like many other sites that started to take off I bet Google will want to sink their teeth in this one just like they did with youtube.
January 15, 2010 at 8:46 am
Wow, Twitter worth $1 billion? I’m not quite sure if I believe it or not. I do believe they are worth a lot, but I don’t know about $1 billion. In my opinion it has less appeal than facebook.
January 15, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Yea, most of the users on twitter are spammers, i hate people that always try to sell me the new get rich in 5 days programs
I dont think twitter is worth that much.
January 16, 2010 at 4:17 pm
I think twitter is worth a billion. It’s especially taken over the cell phone world.
January 17, 2010 at 3:34 am
I guess right now everyone agrees that Twitter is worth a lot, butdoes it cost 1 billion? And more over would someone pay that much money?
January 17, 2010 at 6:45 am
These numbers bandied around are pretty meaningless. Has Twitter made a profit yet?
January 17, 2010 at 11:17 am
Twitter is for business purpose
January 17, 2010 at 10:41 pm
No way it’s worth a billion. More than half of the people using it are owned by people botting it to make money.
January 18, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Thinking of buying it shares…
Does it available to Public…?
January 19, 2010 at 10:45 am
Actually, Twitter is now profitable, with $25m in revenues/year and growing!
February 4, 2010 at 3:59 pm
25M profit is nothing to sneeze at – well worth having I’d say.
Twitter is all the rage at the moment, and 25M profit can pay a lot of mortgages!
February 4, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more Vinny… traffic first and then monetizing.
Join the Dicussion