Category: Digital Media, Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

10 Responses to “Instagram vs The New York Times”

  1. Moopheus says:

    An excellent example of what Edward Tufte would refer to as chartjunk.

  2. NoKidding says:

    Making a revenue of 499.4 million sounds fun. So if I owned it, how much would I get to _keep_.

    They cite 7,000 employees as if it were a positive. Sounds like a pain in the arse. The writers are unionized too, right? Google was not clear on the matter.

  3. cognos says:

    Has the NYT made ANY money the last 5-10 years?!?

    This post “raises a lot of questions” about yellow journalism and general witch hunting by stupid people.

    Instagram was clearly (to those who know or follow such things) the #1 most interesting APP on iPhone… and their social networking approach was fascinating and potentially disruptive to huge businesses in the space (like FB).

    With said “12 employees” the company had grown to 40 MILLION users in just a year or 2. NYT on-line has 500k subs, or about 1%! But yeah… lets bring in the regulators! (F-ing banks and mortgages WERE REGULATED!… Stupid people like Shelia Bair, Eliz Warren, Ron Paul, and whomever killed the T-mobile merger… are the PROBLEM, not the solution. I have nothing against regulation, where its warranted, which is NOT here… but I do have something against stupidity.) The FB acquisition of Instagram was brilliant.

  4. Shawn Thompson says:

    Not sure how “trendy and timeless” Radio Shack is, lol…

  5. Gnatman says:

    Negative adopters, like me, have no chance of equating this comparison.

  6. GB says:

    re: chartjunk

    Confusing, and not quite right. NYT vs. Instagram employees chart should be approximately the same relative sizes as market value per employee.

    Not to nit pick or anything…

  7. ssc says:

    If I remember correctly, Yahoo paid Mark Cuban $5B for (let’s not forget the Time Warner and AOL deal), many people think those were simply beyond brilliant, no less than a slam dunk. Fast forward, Murdock paid $6B for WSJ, it was considered so much money that there wasn’t a competing bid. WSJ vs What was the Buffet quote that appeared here a few days ago?? “You paid price and you get value”??

  8. qwsp says:

    Nobody ever mentions the balance sheet. I kicked the tires on NYT a while back. Enough debt and pension liabilities to choke a horse. And as already mentioned, how do you carry that without any earnings? Of course there’s asset value but at this point, the equity holders could get wiped out.

  9. RC says:

    Excellent representation of the “social” bubble. LNKD is 16 times sales but RHI only 1 times sales because Robert Half (RHI) is not “social”.
    Incredibly Marc Andreesen and co. are still trying to pump air into this bubble. I think in this little “social” fad the closing chapter- the short side of the trade – is yet to be written.

  10. JimRino says:

    All Ten look overvalues except GE.
    Even GE I’m not sure about.