"Groupon keeps itself in cash by collecting money immediately when it sells its daily coupons to consumers while extending payments to the merchants over 60 days."
Certainly in the past we were "offered" the opportunity to do a 75% off deal. Then IIRC it was 60-40 in their favour. They got all the breakage (payees that didn't turn up) and we had ty wait until the end of the deal period to apply for the money.
It was as close to a con as you could get. Like selling pensioners ludicrously expensive fascia boards and guttering when what they needed was their gutters cleaning.
Groupon knew the business it was good for but seemingly marketed to those with little financial nous. They promised winning repeat custom on the one side and cheap one-off deals to the end-customer on the other.
IMO some version of this could have been good for businesses in my sector but it would require the company not to be greedy. Investors don't go for those companies.
Interesting. My memory of the subject is pretty out of date by now, as I don't follow Groupon much, but I'm certain that's how it worked during its hypergrowth period.
Indeed, it appears that we're both correct, assuming you're not in the US. Interesting article from 2012 sheds some light:
Some context about how the company operates: Groupon has had two very different payment structures. In what I call the American model, merchants receive cash upfront for a deal. Once the deal is closed, Groupon tallies up how much it owes the merchant and sends them the money in installments, with the vast majority of the money delivered within 60 days. If a Groupon isn’t redeemed, the merchant gets to keep the money. (Known in the industry as “breakage.”)
Outside the U.S. and Canada, Groupon has used a different scheme. For simplicity, I will call that the European model. In this scheme, Groupon only pays merchants when a Groupon is redeemed; merchants do not get cash up front. If a Groupon isn’t redeemed, Groupon gets to keep the money. Breakage is considered to be 20-25% of Groupon purchases, so this amount is significant.
There are exceptions to the above. I know of one popular merchant in Europe that negotiated to get the American model. But this is largely how it works.
Yes, UK here and I didn't follow the later progress as after being propositioned (early in the Groupon era) as a mark by them I pretty soon decided it was far from being good for the business I was in at the time.
Good follow up, thanks.
I wonder why they took those differing approaches - regulatory pressure?
Certainly in the past we were "offered" the opportunity to do a 75% off deal. Then IIRC it was 60-40 in their favour. They got all the breakage (payees that didn't turn up) and we had ty wait until the end of the deal period to apply for the money.
It was as close to a con as you could get. Like selling pensioners ludicrously expensive fascia boards and guttering when what they needed was their gutters cleaning.
Groupon knew the business it was good for but seemingly marketed to those with little financial nous. They promised winning repeat custom on the one side and cheap one-off deals to the end-customer on the other.
IMO some version of this could have been good for businesses in my sector but it would require the company not to be greedy. Investors don't go for those companies.