[gringoDan]

> When I asked Dominique Delport, the chief revenue officer, whether the company was profitable, he declined to say and suggested that dollar figures were the wrong way to think about Vice. “The company profit is to everybody who watches Vice, because they feel smarter,” he said.

Investors should run away as quickly as possible. If that quote from the Chief Revenue Officer isn't a red flag, I don't know what is.

[godzillabrennus]

It took Twitter 10 years to turn a profit: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/02/08/twitter-...

To suggest that an investor can't earn a profit by putting cash into a business with a burn rate is as sophomoric as believing you can run a business on investor money without ever turning a profit.

[gringoDan]

I wasn’t suggesting that a business needs to be profitable from day one. I was suggesting that the Chief Revenue Officer should measure revenue & profitability in dollars and cents, rather than in the number of people that “feel smarter”.

He could have talked about revenue growth, investing in expansion, CAC decreasing at scale, etc. There are many ways to approach this question that demonstrate a quantitative grasp of the business and inspire confidence. His answer was not one of them.

[fenomas]

In the quote you pulled he was talking to the press, right? That's no reason to assume he gives the same answer to investors, or more generally that he has no other answers to give.

[ggg9990]

That would be off-brand. Most executives speak very demurely to the public about their interest in making money.

[geezerjay]

> It took Twitter 10 years to turn a profit:

So a company took 10 years of burning through cash until a moment it didn't. Is that supposed to mean it was a sound investment?

[godzillabrennus]

http://fortune.com/2013/10/16/twitters-huge-payday-for-early...

Seems like it worked out great for the early investors.

[nl]

It doesn't mean that it is, but it can be. In Twitter's case it was.

[bogomipz]

>"It took Twitter 10 years to turn a profit"

Twitter and Vice Media(as opposed to just the magazine) both have origins of 2006.

From the article:

>"In 2006, Vice started Virtue, a cheekily named ad agency that allowed the magazine to deploy its creative talents on behalf of brands. A year later, Vice became one of the first digital-media outlets to get into online video with vbs.tv, a digital-video site funded with a $2 million investment from Viacom."

[okayNotReally]

Vice has been around since the mid 90's. It started as the Montreal Voice.

[bogomipz]

Yes which is why I clearly stated - "Vice Media(as opposed to just the magazine)"

[pllbnk]

The economy is at its height now, so it's not that surprising. We don't know if Twitter survives the next low.

[class4behavior]

You're equating a conversation with a journalist (=the public) with one with an investor, though.

[randycupertino]

Lol... this is the CRO response of basically saying, "oh yeah? Well we're cool and you're not!" Unlike those rich boring financial nerd companies who turn profit, we increase the feeling of cool intangible things.

[acct1771]

The mistake you're making is assuming people who control media outlets always care about money.

Money just retains control of the industry on the long-term.

It's all about the power, and influence.

Murdoch isn't invested in Vice for shits.

[partiallypro]

Elon Musk recently said profit isn't what drives his company, which isn't much different than what the CRO was saying here.

[workinthehead]

Everybody says that. Especially when they aren't doing so good at profit.

[lainga]

What do you mean? That's the way journalism works. "Don't think about salaries or dollar figures, think about the exposure you'll be getting!"