What is Happening at Tesla?

If we want to reduce poverty and misery, if we want to give to every deserving individual what is needed for a safe existence of an intelligent being, we want to provide more machinery, more power. Power is our mainstay, the primary source of our many-sided energies. - Nikola Tesla 

I thought long and hard about the perspective from which I would be writing this post. On the one hand, Tesla is the underdog car manufacturer, in combat with gas-guzzling titans. On the other, it is a company that creates batteries that just happen to have four wheels attached to them and get you from point A to point Z. After several hours of deep-thinking and consternation, I settled on an answer. The answer came from Tesla’s 2014 Annual Report, after reading what Tesla identifies itself as (emphasis mine):

“We design, develop, manufacture and sell high-performance fully electric vehicles, advanced electric vehicle powertrain components and stationary energy storage systems. We have established our own network of sales and service centers and Supercharger stations globally to accelerate the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. We believe our vehicles, electric vehicle engineering expertise, and business model differentiates us from incumbent automobile manufacturers.”

As analysts, we are often quick to jump to conclusions, but let’s repress that instinct for this post. Personally, I’ve always viewed the word “vehicles” to represent cars, trucks, and motorcycles. But vehicles are actually much more than that - they're a mechanism for transportation. I bet the same objects come to your mind when you hear the word vehicle, in part because traditionally, that is what vehicles were, and still are to this day. Tesla isn’t a battery company, as many are led to believe. It’s a transportation and energy company based on electric technology. 

Today, that technology finds its habitat in the Model S, which is Tesla’s premium four door sedan. Later this year, that electric technology will be crammed into the Model X, a crossover between a SUV and a minivan. In 2017, we will have the Model 3, a lower-priced sedan, as electric technology becomes cheaper to manufacture and consequently moves downmarket. It isn’t too hard to see a future where this electric tech will be found in bikes, trains, helicopters, airplanes, and other vehicles of transportation. In short, Tesla is in the business of providing energy. 

That’s the future of Tesla, but the present is the presence for this post. Let’s take off our rose-colored glasses for a second, and view Tesla with more conservatism (as accountants such as myself are classically trained to do). What is currently going on in Elon Musk’s lair? 

Revenues have been growing rapidly at Tesla $386M in 2012, $2B in 2013, and $3.2B in 2014. By my calculations, Tesla will generate $5.6B in revenues in 2015, mostly due to production improvements and the introduction of the Model X in 3Q15. Tesla’s revenues could actually be much higher - they’re held back by supply. The faster Tesla is able to manufacture more cars, the faster revenues will grow. 

As we’ve discussed before, automotive industry profit margins are nothing to be jealous of. Traditional car company gross margins range from 11% (GM) to 26% (Honda). Tesla beats them all, with 28% margins. Unless you work as an accountant for Tesla (if so, please do not hesitate to contact me), it’s difficult to say with certainty why Tesla commands the highest margins. That said, I can offer a few pontifications. 

Tesla is a premium car brand and charges premium car prices. The starting price for a Model S is $70K, but the average revenue Tesla makes per car is approximately $97K (not a perfect comparison, but a Honda Civic starts at $18K). Obviously the margins will be much higher for expensive vehicles, which Tesla is in the market of producing. It will be interesting to see if margins will remain high once Tesla releases the Model 3, which is supposed to start at a much lower price-point. 

Tesla margins may also be high because of lower cost of revenues, which in English means cheaper parts (in relation to the selling price of the car). Most gas-powered cars use an internal combustion engine (ICE), which has many moving parts that need to be purchased from individual suppliers. Prices for these parts tend to fluctuate - in some periods prices may go up, and in others prices may go down. As a result, the cost of manufacturing a car with an ICE can be a volatile and expensive proposition. Tesla doesn’t use an ICE in any of its vehicles. Instead, the cars are powered by an electric motor which in turn is powered by a muscular battery. Tesla’s electric motor has many fewer parts than the ICE, which I suspect is another critical reason for the higher margins. 

The inefficiencies of Tesla begin to appear a bit lower in the income statement, namely with Research and Development (R&D) and Sales, General, and Administrative (SG&A) expenses, which account for 15% and 19% of revenue, respectively. In other words, $34 out of every $100 Tesla makes in car sales goes to keeping the lights on for the business! I’ve made a handy chart to see a simplified version of Tesla’s income statement, just in case the accounting minutiae goes over your head:

As Tesla grows, it should scale its operating expenditures (which include R&D and SG&A) to be more in line with the growth of revenues. In 2014, revenues grew 58% while operating expenses grow 106% - nearly twice as much as revenues! This isn’t a huge cause for concern yet, but it is something worth keeping in mind.

Tesla posted net losses of $396M in 2012, $74M in 2013, and $294M in 2014. From an investors point of view, Tesla is an extremely young company, and an insanely risky investment (Tesla paid a lot of money in interest, over $100M, to compensate creditors for this risk). That said, many great companies have initially started as unprofitable enterprises, later to become billion dollar printing machines. 

What is Tesla, really?

Tesla is currently manufacturing electric cars, and viewed in that light, it’s a decent business. Tesla sold 32K cars in 2014, and plans to sell 55K in 2015. Global car sales in 2014 were 71M, so there is plenty of room for growth. But as I’ve mentioned at the outset of this post, I wouldn’t view Tesla solely as a car company, because based on that alone, the future isn’t bright. I don’t see Tesla succeeding in the car market if they continue making expensive, electric cars. Unless they get the Model 3 to very low price point (<$30K), there is a natural limit to their growth. Only so many people can afford $100K cars, and out of those, even fewer want an electric car. 

When viewed as a transportation company and an energy provider, however, the future of Tesla looks much better. They would be in the business of providing energy solutions, be it vehicles or stationary power sources, which would be both a lucrative and fascinating market to enter. Cars would be just one product offering (“look how powerful our electric energy solution is in our car; would you like to purchase the same solution to power your house?”). Tesla never got the recognition he deserved during his lifetime, but the Tesla of our generation is determined to change that.


Slideshow

Strategies for Spotify

Just recently we’ve taken a look at some strategies Beats could take to steal the throne from Spotify, and to a lesser extent, the other music streaming services (Rdio, Deezer, Rhapsody, etc). Since we don’t discriminate on music services here, we will be doing the same strategy recommendation piece for Spotify. Spotify will not just sit idle when the Beats redesign goes live, and it will presumably retaliate through its own strategies. I don’t know, of course, but I would speculate that Beats is one of the major topics that gets discussed during management meetings at Spotify HQ. If it isn’t, Spotify is doing themselves a huge disservice, by shutting their eyes from impending competitive pressures. 

Before we get into the strategies section, let’s take a brief glimpse at the data. Currently, Spotify is the largest on-demand streaming service, with 60M users, of which 15M are paying subscribers (20% pay-to-free ratio). By my calculations, Spotify has been growing users at a rate of 3.75% per month. This percentage was calculated by taking the user-growth numbers Spotify has provided every few months. It is impossible to say with certainty if this is a high or low rate of growth, since none of the competing music services provide enough data to compare them to each other. If you want to read the technical details of my calculations, this post from November is your destination. Otherwise, we can continue to the meat and potatoes of this analysis. 

Strategies for Spotify

#1 Partnerships with music social networks

In my strategies for Beats piece, one of the strategies I recommended was exclusives. Beats could pay labels $X amount in royalties in exchange for being the exclusive streaming provider for an artists newest album (I advised the period to be a month to lock users into Beats). Spotify doesn’t have billions in cash like Apple does, which is why the exclusives strategy is not feasible. Instead, Spotify should partner with music social networks, specifically The Hype Machine and SoundCloud

Spotify is great for major artists who are signed with music labels. In my experience, it’s very rare that I can’t find an artist I like on Spotify. Kendrick Lamar’s latest album, To Pimp A Butterfly, was ready to stream the day it was released. Barring few exceptions (I’m looking at you, Taylor Swift), popular artists always have their music available on Spotify. The same can’t be said about many indie artists and song remixes, which are often found on sites like Hypem and SoundCloud. Spotify should partner with these indie music social networks, and structure the deal in a mutually beneficial way. Spotify would gain many users who previously listened to indie music on Hypem/SoundCloud. In return, Spotify would pay Hypem/SoundCloud for the access to their data and music. To be fair, this deal would benefit Spotify much more than the indie social networks, but so goes the nature of business. Hypem is run lean, so it’s probably profitable. What it needs is more users, which Spotify can provide. SoundCloud, by all acounts, is losing money, despite have millions of registered users. Getting paid by Spotify could help them become profitable. Ideally, Spotify could purchase either Hypem or SoundCloud, but it is doubtful they have the cash for it.

These partnerships would also be a powerful competitive advantage to retaliate against the personalized playlists Beats offers. Unless Beats makes its own partnership with Hypem/SoundCloud (doubtful), Spotify would be the only streaming service to offer the type of indie music that’s only available on these music aggregators. 

#2 Audiobooks

The music streaming business is a loss-leader. It is an offering that adds value to existing customers in order to keep them attached to your ecosystem. That’s what Google is doing with Google Music, Microsoft with Xbox Music, and now Apple with Beats. I can’t say with certainty since the data is unavailable, but I have strong suspicions that the above companies are actually losing money on operating their music streaming offerings. We know as a fact that Spotify is posting net losses, and will probably continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The tech giants can afford to lose money on streaming in order to strengthen their ecosystem, but Spotify and the other streaming services can’t. Even if Spotify does manage to operate at extreme efficiencies of scale and achieve profitability (big if), that income won’t be enough for a company of that size, especially if Spotify has plans to go public. What then, could Spotify do to become profitable? 

Spotify has an incredible engineering culture, and the service experiences almost no downtime. Compared to competitors, Spotify streams songs the fastest: I’ve been using Spotify for the past two years and I have never experienced any stream-related problems. I can’t say the same for Beats/Rdio (I’ve not used the other streaming services). Spotify also has well designed apps, which are only getter better (early on, Spotify was not well designed, but lately I have been very impressed with the UX). These strengths can be used to enter a new market: audiobooks. 

Essentially, Spotify will be diversifying its income streams by entering into a new market for audiobooks. While we again encounter the problem of a lack of data, this time on audiobook profitability, the nature of the business implies positive profit margins (unlike music streaming, a book won’t be bought twice). Spotify won’t be starting from the ground-up here, as their infrastructure is already set up, so it is likely that they can enter the audiobook business at a lower cost than music streaming through economies of scale and leverage. 

In fact, there are already some audiobooks available on Spotify, but from what I found they mostly include public domain books (Pride and Prejudice, The Art of War, Romeo and Juliet). The Spotify app, however, is currently optimized for music listening rather than audiobooks, so listening to multi-hour audio streams is an obstreperous affair. Similar to how Facebook broke its main app into a web of focused applications (Facebook classic, messenger, groups, etc), Spotify should make a separate app specifically designed for audiobook listening. If that is seen as a big risk, I would advise to start with an app that provides only free, public domain books, since they’re already hosted on Spotify servers. If there is indeed demand for audiobooks, slowly add books from other publishers to eventually compete with Audible and iTunes. 

#3 Podcasts

Podcasts are another vertical Spotify could enter, especially if they partner with SoundCloud. SoundCloud, by the way, already hosts thousands of podcasts, and makes the process easy for both creators and listeners. Despite SoundCloud’s podcast features, there is still no comprehensive platform (monetization, hosting, dedicated apps, portal, listener data) for podcasts, despite many years of existence. What’s more in their favor is that podcast popularity is increasing, as internet connectivity and better apps make them simpler to find and consume. The good news for Spotify is that it doesn’t look like Apple has plans to host the podcasts - instead, iTunes is merely a portal to find them. 

Even if the SoundCloud partnership is not possible, Spotify already has the expertise to host and make them available to listeners. Not a podcast per-say, but spoken-word comedy shows are already available on Spotify. All it needs to add now is a dedicated app, a better way to find podcasts, and most importantly, the ability to host them. Podcast creators (especially indie ones) would be willing to pay for the service, and it would serve as another outlet to help creators find new listeners. 

Coda

Spotify should do its absolute best to become the go-to audio destination on desktop, mobile, and wearable devices. Competition in music streaming is already fierce and will only get more competitive when the rebranded Beats enters the market. Worse, the music streaming business is currently unprofitable. Huge companies can afford to subsidize their music offerings as an additional value-add for their ecosystem, but Spotify can’t. Spotify can try to turn the industry on its head and attempt to become profitable, but it will be swimming upstream against the Niagara Falls. That is why it should be leveraging its existing infrastructure and competitive strengths to enter the other audio markets, audiobooks and podcasts. The partnerships with SoundCloud and Hypem (especially SoundCloud) would not only boost the value of its music streaming service, but also help them enter the market for podcasts. Spotify already has data about its users. Now imagine if they could provide this data to podcast creators, which in turn can sell tailored ad spots to advertisers. Being a music streaming provider is not enough for Spotify to turn into a profitable business. Platforms make profitable businesses, and Spotify should try to become a comprehensive audio platform: music, audiobooks, and podcasts (The Spotify MAP). 


If you have anything to add, or just want to share your meandering thoughts about what we covered, please comment below! I’m also active on Twitter, so don’t hesitate to reach me at @lsukernik.

Automotive Industry Exploration (Part III)

In Parts I and II of our Automotive Industry Exploration, we took a look at the revenues and costs of some of the largest players in the automotive world. We found that industry profits are quite low compared to those Apple is used to, mainly due to the intense costs of manufacturing a vehicle (materials, labor, equipment, etc). We also noted that if Apple were to enter the business of manufacturing cars, they would need to introduce some new technology into the equation. That new technology could come in the form of production efficiencies, new use cases, or something we cannot currently surmise. If not for this missing piece, Apple would be just like every other car manufacturer - high revenues, high costs, and average margins. If that doesn’t sound enticing to you, you might be right. It probably isn’t (for you and Apple). 

For Part III of our exploration, we will be delving into the unit sales of the car manufacturers we visited previously. If you are like me, your best educated guess about which car brand is the most popular came from what you saw on the streets of your city, which may not be the most accurate data. After comparing the unit sales of the car manufacturers, we will dive into the unit sales of only one company: BMW. This choice was made for a few academically valid reasons. First, BMW is my favorite car manufacturer. Second, they gave the clearest breakdown of unit sales by car model (1 Series, 2 Series…). Third (and perhaps most arguable), out of all the car companies, BMW is most like Apple. They value design, they make premium products that are still affordable by most of the middle-class, and finally, they sweat the details. Part III will be the final post in this three-part series on the automotive industry as a whole. In future posts, we may explore some car companies independently (Tesla, Daimler, Volkswagen) and in greater detail, as well as keep a tab on what is happening with the Apple Car. 

Big Picture: Automotive Industry

The companies in this chart sell roughly 60% of all the cars sold in the world. Estimates of global car unit sales range from 72M - 84M in 2014, and this chart covers 48M of those sales, hence 60%. If we assume the world population is 7 billion, then we can say that around 1 out of every 100 people buy a new car every year. In reality, that statistic is lower, but the thought is nonetheless intriguing. Some other points:

  • Toyota simply dominates the other car manufacturers: it sold 1.2x the cars of Volkswagen, 1.4x Ford, 2.1x Honda, and 4.3x BMW.
  • The German luxury brands (BMW & Daimler) together sold 3.7M vehicles in 2014. In terms of unit sales, they are positively paltry compared to the Japanese (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) and American (Ford, GM, Chrysler) titans. If we add Audi unit sales to 3.7M (since Audi is also a German luxury brand part of the Volkswagen Group), that number will equal roughly 5M. German luxury cars thus account for approximately 6% of global car sales.
  • For such an old industry, there is surprisingly lots of competition in the manufacture of cars. Although it is true that many car companies have over time consolidated (i.e. GM produces Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC), no one brand controls over 20% of the global market share. For consumers, this is great news. But if you’re thinking of getting into the car business, you better step up your game, because there’s plenty of competition. 

Small Picture: BMW

In total, BMW sold 1.8M cars in 2014. The above chart gives us a breakdown of those unit sales, model by model (BMW uses the word “Series” in substitute of model). A few things stand out in particular:

  • The 1, 3, and 5 Series alone account for 33% of BMW’s unit sales. They are by far the most popular cars BMW produces.
  • 70% of BMW’s unit sales are from compact cars (Series 1 - 7). 29% of the unit sales are from SUV’s (X1 - X6, no X2 exists yet). 1% is from the BMW i, which is their electric model.
  • If you wanted to compete with BMW, you could strike from one of three places (or all three, if you’re feeling audacious). You could attempt to steal from their most lucrative business, luxury compact cars, since there’s a huge market for them. Alternatively, you could make luxury SUV’s. Finally, and probably the best choice, you could make electric cars. BMW only sold 18K i cars in 2014. Perhaps there is no demand for them, or, most likely, BMW is underserving the market for electric vehicles. If Apple were to enter the car business, I’d wager they would produce electric vehicles (you will recall I am not a betting man though, so rest assured that your money is safe). 

This chart is the same as the last, but it adds one additional detail - the base MSRP of each BMW model.

  • With few exceptions, it would be fair to say that the cheapest models sell in the largest quantities. Meanwhile, the most expensive models sell in predictably lower quantities. If you asked me, I would venture to say that the supply for low-end luxury cars matches demand. The supply of high-end luxury cars also seems to match the demand for them.
  • BMW covers a wide area of the pricing spectrum: the lowest MSRP is $32,100, while the highest is $76,100 on the opposite side of the spectrum. Of course, these prices are not at all indicative of what you will actually pay for a souped-up BMW - that price will be much higher. Still, I find it interesting how diverse the pricing is for a luxury car. It is much less surprising now to see that Apple Watch pricing is similarly spread out over a large area ($350 - $17,000). 

Coda

Overall, the car market is a competitive and somewhat unfriendly place to do business. If you had billions of dollars lying around and were interested in starting a new business, it is doubtful the automotive industry would be it. The profits are decent, but the costs and barriers to entry are huge (but not insurmountable, as Tesla has proven). Moreover, not that many cars actually get sold every year (around 78M). If you want to compete in this business, you’re not going to make much money using economies of scale, since margins aren’t good. The best way to make money in this industry is to be extremely efficient (Toyota, Honda), or to charge premium prices (BMW, Daimler). Even the efficient brands manufacture premium versions of their vehicles: Toyota makes Lexus, and Honda makes Acura. What you don’t want to be is Ford, GM, or Chrysler, which are neither efficient nor have successful premium brands (Lincoln and Cadillac barely qualify as such). As our previous analysis has shown, the American car companies are some of the least profitable car companies around, so replicating them is a fool’s errand. You can, however, make a healthy profit selling premium cars, as BMW has shown us.

So let’s return to our original question: what would Apple gain from entering the car market? In short, not much. Our three part analysis has shown that the automotive industry isn’t nearly as profitable as consumer technology. Of course, profits aren’t everything, and Apple’s goal when entering into the automotive industry could be a nobler one. But you would be hesitant to spend dozens of billions of dollars on a business that won’t return them to you. For this reason, I have come to the conclusion that Apple will not enter the car business as it exists today. If they do enter, it will have to be with something totally different. We’ve touched on what that difference could be in Part II, so I won’t go into that here, but it cannot simply be a superior version of a gas-powered car. Success might come from a place Apple has been before: Think different.

For next week, we will explore some strategies Spotify can take to combat the impending Beats (by Apple) release.


If you have anything to add, or just want to share your meandering thoughts about what we covered, please comment below! I’m also very active on Twitter, so don’t hesitate to @lsukernik me!

Strategies for Beats

It has been quite some time since I wrote about Spotify and Beats, so let’s briefly step aside from the automotive and tech posts and into music. Some fairly important news got lost in the Apple Watch shuffle last week — music labels aren’t willing to go below $9.99 per month for music streaming. The most interesting information is tucked away in the last paragraph of the Billboard article (emphasis mine):

There’s also an element of geopolitics at play. A weakened Spotify could help create a more powerful Apple subscription service. That would remove the comfortable, valuable counterweight to Apple that labels don’t have in the digital download space. There’s even some doubt that Apple is out to beat Spotify rather than grow the music subscription marketplace. “If they’re out to kill Spotify, it’s news to us,” says an industry source. "And it’s the last thing we want. We want Spotify to be a strong competitor.

Spotify is king when it comes to music streaming — it has around 15M paying subscribers, and 60M free users. Probably the most important variable to Spotify’s growth is that it allows you to use the desktop apps for free, which is always the preferred option. Spotify is available in most countries and practically on every platform. It was also one of the first entrants in the play-on-demand business (Pandora doesn’t allow for this), which undoubtedly gave it a first-mover advantage in terms of total users. 

Unlike what smartphones have become today, music streaming is a luxury that not every person needs. Therefore, the total market size for paid-for music streaming is quite limited. Although Spotify + Rdio + Deezer + Rhapsody have much more room to grow their paying subscribers, that growth is slowing down. The best way for Beats to grow is either to convert existing iTunes users into paying subscribers (a challenge made even harder if that user is already paying for a competing service), or to steal market share away from Spotify/Rdio/Deezer/Rhapsody. The best way to steal market share would be to offer Beats at a lower monthly price ($7.99), which reports suggest Apple has tried to do and failed. The music industry doesn’t want to make the same mistake as it did with iTunes, which allowed Apple to become a monopoly on music sales. The more competition exists, the more bargaining power the music labels have over steaming services. Since it is unlikely Apple will convince the labels to a lower price tier, Apple must find a different way to grow the Beats brand into the next iTunes. Here are some strategies I would advise Apple to partake with Beats (preferably more than one):

#1 Take the hit

Just because the music labels won’t go lower than $9.99 doesn’t mean Apple can’t. There is always the option of taking the difference ($9.99 - $7.99 = $2) as an expense, thereby subsidizing users. It’s doubtful that existing users of Spotify/Rdio/etc will be enticed purely by the features of Beats, which might be less expansive (compared to the competition) when Apple’s redesign of Beats goes live. A user of Spotify myself, I’ve been extremely impressed with the latest updates to their apps (ample gesture support, song lyrics, and the overall design aesthetic), and I can’t imagine the first version of Beats to be as fully fleshed out. Although features themselves won’t entice users to switch to Beats, a slightly lower price of $7.99 surely will. Finally, it’s worth pointing out that most of the existing streaming services offer a 50% student discount, effectively making the monthly price $4.99. I use this discount, and I know many other friends who do the same. Beats doesn’t currently offer any student discount, but they will have to if they want to reach the price-conscious college age audience. 

#2 Exclusives

There is a new Kanye West album coming out later this year. What if Beats were able to snag it as an exclusive for the first month, thus having it before all of the other streaming services get it. That would be a very powerful value proposition, and one only Apple can negotiate. Of course Kanye wouldn’t be the only artist Beats would have exclusive rights to — they should negotiate similar exclusivity rights for as many artists as possible. If you knew that your favorite artists new album will only be available on Beats for the first month, you sure as hell would consider switching to Beats. It should be noted that these type of deals are expensive and difficult to negotiate, but Apple has money, and money talks. 

#3 Preinstalled with hardware

Apple has complete control over the hardware and software of its products. Just as the the music app is bundled with all devices, so should Beats. The Beats app should come preinstalled on the iPhone, iPad, Mac, and the Apple Watch. This will serve two main purposes. First, it will cement the brand name. Most people aren’t as familiar with Beats music streaming as the Beats headphones, mostly because the service has done very little promoting of itself. Coming preinstalled with Apple hardware would certainly fix that. 

Deriving from this first benefit of being preinstalled on hardware is the second benefit — increased usage of Beats. If more people are aware of the Beats music service, it is logical to assume more people will use it. Where these users come from doesn’t matter; it may be those uninitiated to any music streaming service, or those switching from Spotify/Rdio/etc. 

#4 First-party advantages

As the software chieftain of its products, Apple can use API’s not available to 3rd party streaming services. You don’t need to search too hard to find miffed developers complaining online about their apps not being able to using the same API’s Apple uses in its apps. These API’s are locked from 3rd parties for safety and privacy reasons, but they allow for many functions regular apps simply cannot do. It’s still not clear how Spotify will work with the Apple Watch, but I imagine the limitations will be plentiful. For one, the Apple Watch comes with 8GB of storage, but only 2GB are available for storing photo’s and music, with the remaining 6GB used to store the OS. Perhaps the Spotify app will be limited to offline storing of only 2GB of music on the Watch. Meanwhile, the Beats app will allow for more, since it will be graced with Apple’s first-party stamp of approval. This is all conjecture, of couse, but you can bet that Apple will use 1st-party API’s to allow for more features that 3rd party apps can only dream of. 

Précis

I have many more ideas for what Apple should do with Beats to make it overtake the other streaming services, but we can leave that novella for a later time. The four strategies I have listed above are the most vital to the success of Beats. So vital, in fact, that I don’t think Beats will succeed unless at least two of the four options will be chosen. Realistically, options 3 and 4 will be implemented by Apple, mostly because they come with no additional costs. I do not think, however, they will be enough to convince people to switch to Beats. To steal market share from the other music streaming services, options 1 and/or 2 should be chosen. They will likely cost an additional few hundred million per year, but I think those costs will be indemnified by the goodwill they generate, and the influx of new, paying users. 

For next week, we will continue our automotive industry discussion by comparing the unit sales of the major automotive manufactures.


If you have anything to add, or just want to share your meandering thoughts about what we covered, please comment below! I’m also very active on Twitter, so don’t hesitate to @lsukernik me!

Twitter and the Pursuit of Revenues

What happens when you cannot find new customers to sell your product to? Usually, you will try to squeeze out as much money as you possibly can from your current customers. That is precisely what is going on at Twitter HQ. 

During 4Q14, Twitter added 4M users. During the year 2014, Twitter added 47M users, which brings the total monthly active users (MAUs) Twitter has to 288M. If you’re a heavy Twitter user, you probably love the service and can’t imagine living without it. If you merely like Twitter, you probably use it occasionally whenever you have some downtime. This brings us to the average Twitter user: they made an account to try Twitter, but never came back; either because they didn’t like the service, found no use for it, or as I’ve written many times before, found Twitter confusing. 

So now we know that Twitter has a user growth problem, and for reasons above, the company can’t seem to get users to stay and use Twitter. We will circle back to MAUs later, but first let us check in with Twitter’s financials. You would think a company that isn’t gaining traction with the users is also not making much money, but you would be wrong. Before I begin discussing revenues, let me preface this by saying that Twitter is an extremely young company (it went public in November 2013), which means that there isn’t a large collection of historical data we an analyze. While that makes the job of the analyst harder since he is working with so many unknowns, it is invariably more interesting! 

Revenue Growth

Revenues increased 33% QoQ, and 111% FY14 vs FY13. Whatever Twitter is doing to get more advertising dollars, it is working splendidly. The company now earns roughly half a billion dollars every quarter. It is still a tiny business, but the way Twitter has been able to grow revenues is impressive. Twitter expects to earn $440-$450M in 1Q15, which is a slight decline from this past quarters’ performance ($479M). 

The first few years of a company after an initial public offering are always a mess, especially in terms of expenses. Usually, formal processes for expenses are not set up yet (employee credit cards, traveling costs, etc) and budgets are either nonexistent or valueless, since everything is constantly in flux. The company is tackling bigger issues such as growth and product, which makes the expenses side of things of secondary or tertiary importance. For these reasons, it is not fruitful to dive deep into the expenses of a young company such as Twitter - they’re not indicative of future trends. 

There are some interesting things going on in Twitter’s expenses, though. R&D, as a percentage of revenues, has been diminishing for the last year. I believe this is happening because management feels the opportunity cost of investing in R&D is too high. Instead, that money is being spent on Sales and Marketing (S&M). Twitter spent $0.43 on each $1 it made on S&M in 2014, which would be an atrocious statistic if not for the immaturity of the company. 

Twitter has never been profitable, and will likely continue posting net losses in the immediate future (1–2 years). You can look at Twitter’s net losses in one of two ways. As an investor, you should be risk-averse and be highly skeptical of Twitter’s ability to post a profit. Social networks come and go, internet bubbles burst and pop, but you aren’t going anywhere. Would Warren Buffet hold Twitter stock? Probably not. The alternative viewpoint you can take on Twitter is that you truly believe in the product and see it as an unbridled social network that advocates the freedom of information, or some other noble or cool pursuit. You may believe that Twitter represents freedom, and the profits will certainly come later, leading you to invest in the company despite continuous net losses. Which viewpoint you choose is a personal question, but now you are armed with the facts. 

If we take all of Twitter’s revenues and expenses, and spread them over MAU, we will get two rough estimates of profitability: total revenue per user, and total cost per user. Although MAU may not be the best metric to use as the denominator, it is a more accurate representation of per-user profitability than “timeline views”, which is the other metric Twitter provides. 

Unlike other analysts, I included all sources of revenue (advertising & licensing) as well as all expenses (cost of revenues, research and development, sales and marketing, and general and administrative) to compute per-user costs, because they provide the most comprehensive picture of profitability.

With that said, you can see for yourself that the total cost per user of running Twitter is higher than the total revenues - by approximately $0.34 per user in 4Q14. That is - Twitter is losing roughly 34 cents for every user of the service.

In Short

Given that Twitter is still such a young company, it is difficult to evaluate its performance in financial terms, since the expectations aren’t set yet. Twitter’s user growth, however, is a different story. MAU are not growing as fast as investors, and more importantly Twitter, would like to see them grow. Twitter probably has one more year to figure things out before investors start to really get antsy. As I’ve made abundantly clear before, the first problem I would tackle would be Twitter’s onboarding process, which remains a confusing mess. Twitter remains my favorite social network, and I remain rooting for the little blue bird even if it’s learning to fly very, very slowly.