Hacker News Reader

Comment by heyrhett | Hacker News Reader

Isn't the "social proof" for a lot of investors the supposed $6B buyout offer they rejected from Google, last year? Was Google just way off in their valuation?

Remember all those stories about how Youtube was just a huge liability, and they were burning through bandwidth expenses, and it was so stupid for Google or anyone to buy it?

View on HN

Being part of Google changes things as (1) Google can finance a money losing operation for quite some time and (2) Google offers integration into its huge ecosystem, especially its existing robust advertising network.

Thus Google brought a lot to the table in such acquisition which would increase Groupon's value.

This is the most insightful and concise thing I've read about the Google proposal so far. Google offering B$6 doesn't mean Groupon is worth B$6 on its own, it means it's worth B$6 to Google.

Google is not Warren Buffet investing in the hope of a passive but safe return on investment. Google was betting that Google + Groupon was worth more than Google + B$6.

You mean

Google - B$6 + Groupon > Google

Google - B$6 + Groupon > Google - B$6 + investing in other ideas or companies

I wrote something along those lines originally, but it seemed simpler to leave the details out. I trusted HN readers to fill in the rest :-)

Have to keep in mind that the 40%+ that Groupon spends on marketing and customer acquisition largely goes to Google in the form of AdWords spend.

Google still wins because of all they make from Groupon from AdWords.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com