Hacker News Reader

Comment by anthony_franco | Hacker News Reader

I doubt the $4m was for 100% of the company. It's unknown what the ROI would've been for the investors.

But still probably something the founders are regretting.

Yeah, wasn't implying that - basically, if the investors have a controlling stake, it's a pretty okay return for something that seemingly had no business model besides "maybe sell ads/filters?".

If the investors didn't have a controlling stake, then the founders would be pretty damn rich.

Anything that can accumulate attention can be easily monetized. The hard part is accumulating attention. Wondering about business models is exceedingly tired.

Can you please tell me how to convert attention into money? Genuine question, since it seems like the business model of a lot of B2C startups out there.

Ads, sponsorships, in-app purchases, membership, suscription, pro features, sell the data, premium features, etc, etc, etc.

i consider membership, subscription, pro features, in app purchases and premium features to be almost equal. Same for ads and sponsorships. In other words: that leaves you with ads, premium featues or selling the data. Which can be quite hard to sell, depending on your audience (I consider Twitter a good example).

I disagree. With ads revenue in free falling monetizing eyeballs without any sort of premium service attached makes hard to get any return.

Players who suceede in this space have either 100x the eyeballs and/or their internal ad network with better revenues.

Depends if they rejected waiting for better buyout, maybe.

If they rejected to better execute their vision, probably not

Reply on news.ycombinator.com