Although these numbers may seem obsence here my estimates for the value of each of these major social networking type websites Myspace: 40 billion dollars Youtube: 28 billion Digg: 10 billion Facebook: 20 billion reddit: 5 billion linked in: 3 billion these valuations are based on staggering astronomic growth in traffic and revenue. For such growth and technology you pay a large premium. these sites are on the cutting edge of information transfer via a new medium (the internet). Humanity will be forever changed as we enter "the creator" era and the acceleration phase.
Did you base your valuations on current earnings, earnings growth, or ??? Companies are evaluated on industry price earnings ratios, discounted cash flow, and a number of other models.
A key element to valuations is "goodwill" (or at least it is the UK name for it) - ie the value of the brand itself. I would agree that the above sites would have a high goodwill as there is a lot of "potential" in them though would consider the values too high. Unfortunately this is what happened in the 90s dot com boom and bust, the goodwill of companies was massively over valued
not at all though. All of the companies I listed are extremely profitable and showing staggering growth. in five year myspace could be bigger than yahoo and youtube could have more revenue than CNN or Fox
Of course myspace could be like friendster. I am not sure if it will sustain its popularity. YouTube could eclipse some TV network as it could provide TV on demand. It wasn't that long ago that kids were into IM, push was going to be the next big thing, ringtones was all the rage, and on and on.
Exactly. Allthough some of those sites might/will survive some will likely be replaced by new up and comers as the deveolpment and trends change.
Sounds like you just pulled these figures from thin air and then put added some fluff after it to sound like an analysis... sorry to sound so abrupt but what where you looking to achieve out of this thread? Valuations of any kind are done via careful calculations made up of thousands of variables... not just a sentence like "oh I think MySpace with its x million of pageviews should be valued at $x"
The internet is a difficult place to set a price on something. As other said, trends continue to change and there is no way of knowing if Youtube will be as popular as it is now 5 years from now. Unlike Brick and Mortar companies, internet based companies are more likely to fluctuate in value.
There is no way that MySpace is worth $40 billion dollars or YouTube is worth $28 billion now...they haven't been optimized for generating revenue. How did you come up with your numbers? What data did you use?
As I said before these valuations aren't absurd given the staggering growth of these sites. Such growth carries a very high premium and I wouldn't be surprised to see myspace have a valuation of $100 billion in the next five to ten years. The companies listed will continue to retain their market dominance in the years to come. There will never be another myspace of facebook. Niether will there ever be a successfull 'digg killer'. No one can compete with digg or reddit or youtube. Youtube will be bigger than CNN and fox combined in the next seven years which puts its valuation between $25 and $40 billion.
If you're saying growth = premium, then myspace, which isn't growing much anymore, shouldn't be worth more than Facebook, which is growing at twice the rate of myspace.
Only twice the users of myspace. Consider that facebook has only been public since October and Facebook will be worth much more in the future.
Or it could be the next FoxPro or Bob. It might be the next PointCast or Pixelon. I don't see anything special about it. Is it better than myspace, linkedin, boomj, stumbleupon, digg, or any of the other gazillion social sites? At least Microsquish didn't spend $5 billion on it like Yahoo! did on Broadcast.com.