Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I recently saw a claim in a sycophantic piece of coverage that Wikia was the 75th most popular website. That didn't sound right, and its not. Wikia.com has an http://www.alexa.com/search?q=wikia.com&r=site_screener&p=top of 216 (world) and 116 (USA). That seems not too shabby. Probably much better than the Web 1.0 equivalents of Geocities, Anglefire or Tripod ever had. Has Wikia started to make significant money yet or is the business model so FUBAR to make even a lot of traffic not amount to success? Greg?

Posted by: thekohser

Jimbo's http://blog.jimmywales.com/2009/08/19/wikia-hits-top-100-on-quantcast/ the http://www.quantcast.com/wikia.com, not Alexa.

These ranking systems are not foolproof, and you can see Wikia's already back down to 105 from the recent 75 claim. (Or is that "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:7-15-07NAP_441.jpg"?) (NSFW)

I've tried to figure out Wikia's bottom line, and all I've ever been able to conclude is that maybe after paying their own office rent, collect the sub-lease money (now ceased) from the Wikimedia Foundation, pay staff, return the trampoline to the trampoline store, and rake in ad-click money...

Wikia might be clearing $10,000 to $20,000 per month in profit margin.

Now, remember, the investors are trying to recuperate $14,000,000, so that's going to take about fifty-eight years to break even, unless the pace picks up.

Posted by: thekohser

Don't belittle those old sites. If my memory serves, I believe that back in 1997 or so, they were all in the Top 20.

I don't have time to dig up the old data, but even http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2004/01/Top_US_Web_Sites is instructive. How many of those Top 20 site properties are still around? Most of them, but...

Lycos?

Excite?

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

Still around, though they don't nearly have the share they used to. I'd probably hazard a guess and blame Google's exponential growth over the years for the drop.

It's still a pretty apt comparison, though. The nature of the service is similar to what Angelfire/Tripod would used to do...however the industry since then has severely fragmented. More people are technically capable of setting up and running a website than there were 10 years ago. It's not like where if you really didn't understand HTML but wanted a webpage, all you had to do is mess around with Angelfire or Tripod to get the lok you wanted.

Now all I have to do is get the kid down the street to design me a webpage if I wanted one.

Posted by: Push the button

Except, of course, the investors' investment was into equity, and not into debt.

Posted by: Milton Roe

You do know that the shareholders in a for-profit private corporation are last-in-line to get paid? All creditors are paid before owners can claim anything against assets (positive equity). The whole idea is the corporation's debt is the shareholder's debt also, up to the amount they invested. They can't choose to just "invest in equity", if by "equity" you mean something positive. The owners of Wikia, Inc., a Delaware corporation, have equity, all right, but it's negative equity right now. It's probably about equal to the amount of money they put in and may never get back out.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Probably meant "equity, not debt" as in "shares, not bonds." If all the investors took "equity positions" (stock) there should be no debt other than ordinary payables. Previous losses would be reflected as lower equity on the balance sheet.

Posted by: Milton Roe

I suppose, but the fact that corporate bond-debt doesn't show up as investor negative equity on the books in any sort of accounting, doesn't mean it isn't effectively there anyway. The bond holders are actually in a better position than the stockholders. When the company is liquidated or sold, those bonds have to be paid before the "equity-investors" get anything, so it's effectly an extra debt taken out against the possibility of equity-holders ever making a return (if not an actual liability for them personally, beyond the fact that they stand to lose their initial investment only. But then that's all the liability that bondholders have, too.).

Of course that's the reason why many small limited liability corporations can't get loans at all without somebody countersigning for them, so that they ARE personally responsible. That's so that LLC corporations can't declare bankrupcy with impunity, defaulting on their debt without affecting anybody's real-life credit. Only larger LLC corps (GM comes to mind) get to do stuff like that.

BTW, don't you think the Obama team is rather sweet? They gave all that fed money to banks, and then expected that the recued banks would turn around and put the money into the same kinds of bubble investments that got them into trouble in the first place. No, they're not doing it. So now, Obama's plan is to force them to. Which is ALSO sort of how they wound up making all those crappy loans. The feds always think they can turn a high-risk loan into a low-risk one, by passing a law! As I said, I'm waiting for one of Obama's advisors to announce that this Administration can command the tides and otherwise amend the laws of physics.

Posted by: the_undertow

Those that inc in Delaware think they are savvy, when i reality it's not the best situation for everyone.

First, i have a question: why does anyone visit wikia?

Second, the only DE advantage is to escape a state tax, which also entails specifically that the tax benefit is that a nexus will not be met. WP is a global site. Unless DE is prevented from using Wikia (again, not sure why one would visit the site), there is fail there. I'm all for DE incs. the advantages are fucking rad for for-profit corps. as long as you don't do business in that state.

wales should have set it up in Ireland. his accountancy force is subpar.

Posted by: Push the button

Thanks for the impromptu (and a bit unnecessary) Corporate Law 101, but my point was a simple one, that Mr. Kohs was, in his original post, confusing the position between an equity investor and a debt investors.

Whatever terminology one uses, and I was using UK terminology, Amazon et. al.'s investment was an equity investment into Wikia, and not a debt investment by way of a loan to it. They're not trying to recoup their investment through the dividends that any profit would presumably generate (and debt investors wouldn't be repaid out of profits, as repayments of interest and capital to them would come out much further up the profit and loss account), they'd recoup their investment on one of three exits - a float, a sale, or a solvent liquidation. Claiming that whilst Wikia generates $20k a month profits they'd have to wait 58 years to break even was, therefore, mixing the two. Depending on your valuation mechanism, they may well have already broken even on their investment, if their stake is worth the same as or more than they originally invested . Dividends flowing from monthly profits are, well, profit.

To pick up on one of your points, Milton, whilst debt-holders would be paid out before equity holders in a solvent winding up (and either partly, in whole, or not at all on an insolvent winding up), that's not necessarily the case on a sale. In that situation whether or not bond-holders would be paid out would depend on the terms of the bond (on the presumption that US corporate bonds are broadly equivalent to, say, UK loan note instruments). A proposed sale could be a trigger for repayment, but there's absolutely no reason why the one must trigger the other. The transaction between the equity-holders and the people purchasing their shares is a completely separate arrangement to the day-to-day financing of the company and its operations. A bank wouldn't necessarily be in a position to insist that an overdraft owed to it by a company be repaid before the owners of the company can sell there shares, for example, and depending on the terms of the bond the same analogy will extend to bond holders.

And if we're being really picky in my original post I could also have pointed out that $10k to $20k a month is profit, and not a profit margin. 10% to 20% would be a profit margin. But hey, who cares.

Posted by: thekohser

As someone who lived in Delaware for about 9 years, and as the founder of a Delaware corporation, it strikes me that you don't really know much about the advantages of Delaware incorporation, but wish to sound like you do. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Posted by: thekohser

Sometimes I "dumb things down" for consumption here on Wikipedia Review, because I've been told by some members that the business side of things can confuse them, but they trust me to evaluate whether some business proposition is (net) good or bad, or ethical or unethical. I will make mistakes because this is not my line of experience, either; and I am biased. I'm sorry I didn't try to get into EBITDA and cash flow and valuation for your consumption, Button. Frankly, I don't think Wikia is worth my time to try to estimate value based on their publicly disclosed and inferred financials (which are practically nil).

But, since you brought it up -- what would you guess Wikia, Inc.'s current valuation is, if the entire company and assets were sold to an interested buyer? Or, what might an IPO draw if 49% of the company were sold as common stock through a market maker? Please make sure your answer is clear enough to indicate whether or not that dollar amount is above or below $14,000,000, and try to justify your estimate with reasonable comparables. You clearly know more about this than me, so I'll be very interested in your response. Thanks!

Posted by: Push the button

Fair enough - but whether because you were dumbing it down or because it isn't your field of expertise, there were two errors in your post, and my apologies, but I felt it sensible to point them out. Well, the first one, at least - the profit margin thing was me just being a bit grouchy. As is my pointing out that you wouldn't sell an IPO through a market-maker, you'd sell it through an underwriter, and whilst the lead underwriter is almost always (in fact, always) subsequently the dominant market-maker, that's only post-IPO. But anyway.


No need to apologise - that stuff bores the shit out of me.


Whatever the interested buyer would be prepared to pay for it. That's all anything is worth.


How much information is a Delaware company obliged to file annually? And are filings available for public consumption? If, as you say and I suspect, the publically available information is limited, then you probably couldn't have gotten into the EBITDA or any valuation even if you'd wanted to.

If there is little to no publically available information then any estimate of Wikia's financial position, or a valuation on a sale or floatation, would be nothing more than guesswork - absent financials, none of the standard valuation models would work. It's a bit difficult to do a discounted cash flow valuation, or a multiple of turnover, or profit, if you don't know what the cash flow, turnover or profit are.

On top of that there would be so many variables inherent in an IPO itself (just to pick a few - timing - pricing six months from now will be very different to pricing six years from now - the country it floated in and exchange it floated on, who the underwriter(s) was/were, and so on...) that even if you had their last few years management accounts and audited P&L and balance sheet, coming up with a valuation on a floatation would still be nothing more than guesswork. Just a little more informed guesswork.

You could potentially come up with a figure that you could justify as being more on the estimate side of things than on the guesswork side of things if you were to use comparables, but there are still too many unknowns and variables. What marketplace would you be looking at? In the absence of financials, how would you determine which recent transactions in that marketplace involved companies of a similar size to Wikia? And so on.

Not a particularly interesting response (although I have this nagging feeling that you asked the question more for the asking than for the answering), but a truer one than any which were to profess "I think Wikia's worth $X...".

Posted by: Milton Roe

I'm not at all sure it's possible to tell how much business Wikia does in Delaware. Do you really think the corporation pays any DE state tax?

As for setting up in Ireland to escape fed taxes, that doesn't work, except at the corporate tax level (which is irrelevent anyway if the corporation isn't showing a profit). If you're a US citizen, the US wants income tax on any money you personally make as salary outside the US. And Ireland will certainly narc on you to the treasury. I suppose you can try to have the profits transported into the country in less-than-$10,000 increments, to escape the eyes of the feds. But if they go electronically, they go into a US account that the feds "see." Even if it's an account in a US branch of a Swiss bank like UBS, it's no longer safe from being seen.

Maybe if Jimbo had set up the servers and banking in Venezuela. But there's still the problem of getting your money back to the US. I suppose you could set up slush fund abroad for purposes of buying hookers, wine, and really expensive washing machines, while traveling...

[Edit] I see there's another advantage to a DE corp, and that is the entire board of directors and officers can be ONE person if you like, and that person can be anonymous and foreign. So I dunno how the hell the feds collect taxes on profitable DE corporations. I suppose they monitor the corporate bank accounts, which have to be connected to somebody's SSN or foreign equivalent ID. So that SOMEBODY (who'd have to be an officer, perhaps the only officer) is on the line for the tax. If the corpiration files a corporate fed return that looks funny when compared with corporate account money, there's an audit and somebody faces fine and even jail.

Posted by: One

I don't think you're wrong here, Kohs.

Delaware has a great, great pro-management corporate laws, not to mentioned seasoned courts, like the world-famous Delaware Court of Chancery.


You mean, of course, besides the franchise taxes? No, probably not.

Posted by: thekohser

Of note, since we were just talking about this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-and-twitter-will-always-be-crappy-businesses-2010-2

I don't trust this Bo Peabody guy, if he claims that Tripod is still making $350,000 a month in advertising, and if he thinks that "Everyday Health" is the Web’s largest health information property.

Posted by: thekohser

Jimbo is http://ow.ly/13heJ that Wikia gets 30 million monthly unique visitors now.

If I had to translate that to revenue, I'd suppose they're getting 7 pageviews per visitor (according to Alexa), so that's 210 million page views per month. Let's give them 0.75% click-through to advertising, at 6 cents per ad click.

I'm thus estimating $94,500 per month from ad revenue. Even if we more than triple that, just in case they're getting some exclusive ad deals, and I've been unfair in my estimates, that would be about $300,000 per month in revenue.

Wikipedia says they have 42 employees. Even if these are mostly low-paid, Polish slave workers, let's say the average employee compensation and benefits costs Wikia about $2,500 per month (and you know Gil Penchina's not low-paid, living in that $1.7 million house of his), that would be $105,000 per month in compensation. Servers and bandwidth can't be more than about $2,000 a month. Rent for office space might be $15,000 a month, right?

So, best case scenario right now, Wikia has a profit of $180,000 per month. Best case. It's more likely in the $50,000 range, but we'll leave it at that. It still took about 5 years and $14,000,000 invested to get them to this point. Probably could have done much better with opening a fun Mongolian BBQ restaurant in Redwood City.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Unlike Wikipedia accounts, most of them aren't me, but still — a unique IP does not a unique visitor make.

Yours re*dubly,

IP Freely

Posted by: Push the button

Clicking through the link and then on the graph takes you to Quantcast itself, where you can change what's being measured. If you change it to impressions per person (that's the same as pageviews per visitor, no?) then unless I'm misreading it they reckon it's closer to 28 - certainly they have a figure for global impressions of 734 million. Feeding that through your figures of .75% and 6 cents would bring them out at $330,000 a month, or thereabouts.

If impressions per person is the same as pageviews, how come Quantcast and Alexa have such different figures?

Posted by: Somey

I'm not so sure it is the same thing - AFAIK "page impressions" includes content that's hotlinked (or "transcluded") on other sites, so that if you have a Facebook app or something that displays stuff from whatever.com, it counts as an impression for whatever.com whenever someone looks at the Facebook page.

Also, I don't know if this is still true, but in the past Alexa relied heavily on data from people who have (had?) its toolbar running, which would probably tend to skew things a bit. I remember that Encyclopedia Dramatica got into the Top 2000 for a while because of that - they were pushing their users to run the Alexa toolbar for months. (I just checked and they're currently at #3,659.) And if ED was doing it openly, that means Wikipedia was doing it too, just not quite as openly.

Posted by: thekohser

New data on this front:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Fan-Wiki-Platform-Wikia-Is-Now-Profitable-134289.shtml
by Lucian Parfeni, Web News Editor

You will want to note the data (read, "lies") that Wikia received 21 million monthly visitors in December and about 2.7 billion page views. That's about 125 views per visitor. Think that's reasonable? Consider that Facebook and YouTube get about 15 views per visitor. Yeah, right.

It also looks like the first comment left is by someone screwed by Gil Penchina. The second comment, if it slips through moderation, will be equally damning.

Furthermore, http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/wikia-says-its-profitable-goes-on-hiring-spree/ the Wikia moment in the sun as "a hiring spree". My comments have made it through there, at least for the time being.

Posted by: thekohser

My contact at Compete.com ComScore delivered me the following data for Wikia.com, worldwide, in the month of December:


20,500,000 unique visitors

379,000,000 page views


Yet, TechCrunch is saying "2.7 billion" page views.

What gives?


I estimate that this would translate into about $150,000 per month in ad revenues.

Posted by: thekohser

Michael Arrington quietly http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/wikia-says-its-profitable-goes-on-hiring-spree/ the TechCrunch article to read "380 million" page views, with no comment or editor's note.

Posted by: thekohser

Since I'm the only one talking here at this point, this may be throw-away info, but...

My contact at comScore further commented about this matter:

So, it looks like Wikia's page views per user's usage day is about 3/8ths that of YouTube, and about 1/5th that of Facebook.

Alexa also informs that about 33% of visitors to Wikia.com leave immediately after looking once at the arrival page (the "bounce rate"). Compare Wikipedia Review.com at about 46%. Facebook, 12%. YouTube, 21%. YouPorn, 8%.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I think that flashing red banner is part of the problem.

Some days it pushes me to the edge of an e-pileptic fit.

Jon

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

Consider though that most people who go to Facebook or YouPorn know exactly why they are going there. What's the bounce rate for other major wikis or specialized encyclopedias?

Posted by: thekohser

The flashing red text is only on the main page, and I'd estimate that the main page gets only about 8%-10% StatCounter tells me it gets less than 1% of initial landing page activity.



NewWorldEncyclopedia.org, 70% bounce rate.

Citizendium.org, 45% bounce rate.

Wikipedia.org, 46% bounce rate, same as Wikipedia Review.

Posted by: NotARepublican55

I don't think I've read anything on Wikia that I couldn't find on Wikipedia (usually much better written, even if that's not saying a whole lot). Well other than maybe Uncyclopedia (and it mostly sucks).

Posted by: Trick cyclist

Thats because Spankingwiki got thrown off and Furrywiki left in a huff or something.

Sh. Thats Someys fault.

Posted by: tarantino

One type of wiki that's driving a lot of traffic to Wikia is the linkfarm. Two of the largest are websitewiki.wikia.com and websites.wikia.com. Between them they have 1.4 million pages, and as a rough guestimate, generate 1-2% of Wikia's traffic. Typically each of their pages contain a description, a thumbnail picture of a home page, links and ads. Like most linkfarms they're chock full of porn.
http://websites.wikia.com/index.php?title=Category:Erotic
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=site:websitewiki.wikia.com+porn&start=0&sa=N


Every page on websitewiki.wikia.com redirects to websitewiki.de and every photo on websites.wikia.com is hosted on websitewiki.de, but it's mostly a redirect by domain name only because it still uses the same IP, mail servers and name server as all the other Wikia sites.

Here's a few examples out of the thousands of the hard core porn ads on Wikia.

Posted by: EricBarbour

In San Francisco? You can't hire a busboy for $2500/month.
Maybe more like $3500-4000 for office drones.


Bandwidth is probably more than that, even in a cheap offshore serverfarm. Rent is likely to be more than that too. SF is even more expensive than Manhattan for some commercial properties, because it's "hipper".


Never, EVER trust anything you see on TechCrunch. Arrington is a complete scum.


The average 200-seat nightclub in SF makes more than $50k/month.
If this is typical of what Wikia is netting, they are in trouble.

I think Tarantino is right.
They are basically just another skeezy linkfarm, full of porn links.
That's where the really fast money is.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Obviously you don't have a lust for the Klingon Wiki.

Posted by: thekohser

Not all the Wikia employees are in the Bay Area. Quite literally, many of them are Poles working for Jimbo, from http://www.wikia.com/About_Us.

I suppose it's just a "coincidence" that Wikimania 2010 will be held in Gdansk, about a 4 hour drive from Poznań.

Posted by: thekohser

The latest http://www.thestar.com/generic/article/884003 from the Big Jimbo at Wikia, Inc.:

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Apparently Jimmy doesn't actually use web forums much, or at least know how they're managed:



While there's a rather large difference of scale, I don't think I've ever been on a web forum that had quite as much trouble shutting up the unwelcome.

Posted by: thekohser

Who is http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062157.html about to get banned from the Foundation-l mailing list?

Posted by: Peter Damian

I noticed he (or she) spelled 'its' correctly.

Posted by: WikiWatch

http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4791

Two major Wikia RPG wikis have split off - WoWWiki and PathfinderWiki.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Bruhahahah. Gotta be Kohs, then, as there are only a couple of dozen people who can.

Posted by: Abd

It's "its."

Maybe it's Durova, or Durova's its/it's demon. Which seems to have gone lost. Was it Durova?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

So much for Jimbo's "day job".

Posted by: thekohser

And http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111012006618/en/Wikia-Begins-Growth-Phase-Key-Executive-Hires as CEO.

I know that somewhere I asserted that I would eat my hat (or something) if Gil Penchina was still with Wikia in 2013, or something to that effect. If someone can find what I'm talking about, I'll pay you $5. http://www.honestly.com/profile/profilePage/462030.

Posted by: thekohser

And the new SVP of Marketing was previously caught on YouTube, talking about breaking wind.

Posted by: thekohser

I thought it appropriate that Penchina would get http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikia-deletes-ceo-gil-penchina.

Posted by: thekohser

Steve Scherf from Gracenote e-mailed me last night, pointing out a rather grave mistake in how I portrayed the "Gracenote licensing controversy". Silly me, I had relied on Wikipedia to give me a background on the matter! So, I've rewritten a substantial part of the Examiner article, to now read:

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

Greg, look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RMeiss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fish_hat

Read the tweets from RMeiss, ptzut, and n_bonina from March:

http://twitter.com/RMeiss

http://twitter.com/ptzut

http://twitter.com/n_bonina

The Gracenote licensing controversy (T-H-L-K-D) article was planned and executed by a group of student free music activists who organized and communicated online.

Posted by: Meepsheep

I think Wikia is a good Social Network/Blogging site.

Posted by: thekohser

Good thing Jimbo put the clamps down on paid editors, huh? That leaves Wikipedia for only the impartial, non-paid editors to craft the "neutral" point of view, right?

Posted by: communicat

WTF do you of all people know about NPOV?

Posted by: Vigilant

Excellent retort!

If you keep working at this then, maybe, one day your opinion will be as highly regarded as an armpit fart.

Posted by: thekohser

Maybe it was http://community.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACharitwo&action=historysubmit&diff=497336&oldid=497295 that motivated the Wikia board to have remorse about Gil's talents running a wiki site.

Or maybe it was questions and answers like http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/Wala_pa_bang_result_in_napolcom.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Gil#Advertising_on_Wikia

Gil didn't really have a good grasp on wiki editing.

Posted by: thekohser

Now I realize why Jimbo is always citing Quantcast as the arbiter of Wikia traffic rankings. Quantcast is a provider of ad network banners to Wikia, so (of course) they're going to make sure that every page view of Wikia (human, bot, or scraper -- who cares?!) is counted, because it's then in their financial best interest!

Silly me for thinking that Jimbo would have just happened to pick Quantcast for ranking data because it "independently" produced the ranking for Wikia from among Alexa, Comscore, and other similar services. It's always, always, always about the money.