[soup10]

Groupon is the poster child for everything that's wrong with the silicon valley startup model.

Founders creating stupid companies with marginally useful products and the VCs pumping millions into them in hopes of a quick profit.

[pbreit]

Disagree. Besides that it's not in silicon valley, it made huge progress in a notoriously difficult yet humongous service category: local and small business marketing. It could have remained a tiny player like the 100s of copycats but instead decided to "go for it" by raising lots of money and expanding rapidly (the best use of vc and ipo money). People are much to focused on the original daily deal business (which remains massive and growing) and fail to see that Groupon is amassing an arsenal of valuable local/smb services. For example, it now offers both a cybersource and square competitor. And calendaring, loyalty services, etc.

If the company can continue stringing together solid quarterly results, it should get back to its ipo price and more.

[jerf]

I might agree with you if it weren't for the strong stench of fraud coming off the whole enterprise. And I don't mean vague "I'm misusing the term Ponzi scheme" fraud concerns about the entire business model, I mean, accounting fraud. (And I also mean the term more colloquially than legally. It may be the case that their numbers are entirely legal, but still carefully spun to produce results that mislead people.)

[jordo37]

I am curious about this especially given their most recent 2012Q1 earnings which were solid and I am assuming from what I have read seemed to address the returns loss and other financial issues from previous quarters.

[jfarmer]

When Groupon was growing early on, it was an example of a successful startup founded without the usual Silicon Valley trappings, in Chicago. When Groupon flames out, it's an example of Silicon Valley's excess.

Can't win, it seems. ;)

[wavephorm]

Groupon isn't a stupid company, it's a great idea actually. They turned down a lofty Google offer and decided to go the IPO route. Only time will tell if their business can last, and not get eaten alive by competitors.

I think it's a good thing their share price isn't just going to the moon and then crashing and wiping out an entire industry like what happened in the Dom-Com crash. Maybe a subdued IPO market will mean this time it'll be more like a boom period, and not another bubble getting ready to burst.

[wololo]

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/12/16/debunking-google-group...

[its_so_on]

Don't know why you're getting downvotes, I'd rather people reply to you as you're pretty specific.

Personally, I prefer SV when it's leaner. I'm actually working on a project that is actually innovative, and I'd much prefer to raise money later, hopefully when all this madness has dried up and VC's have time to evaluate something new.

[ForrestN]

I downvoted because the opinion is generic, reactionary and not insightful. Groupon has lots of problems, but some blanket stereotype about VC funding and the identification of Groupon, which millions of people choose to use, as "stupid," is neither "pretty specific" nor helpful.

Groupon might not be a strong company, might not have a good product, might be in for a lower share price, etc. But it doesn't add anything to call it "stupid" or lament the fact that they were given money, especially given how many times this sentiment is reiterated on every thread relating to Groupon.

[its_so_on]

I don't think the opinion, as the other poster actually expressed it, is generic at all. Turn back a few years to the Google IPO and try to read the two sentences with the word "Google" (of the time) and see if either the first or second sentence still reads the same. Or pick another company of that period and try it.

The post just doesn't seem general enough to cover a different climate (which you might not have been active in, and which I personally hope we will return to eventually.)

That's all I have to say. I don't mind the current climate as much as the OP does. You're still free to disagree, but the sentiment as expressed is pretty clear and specific.

Still, glad you shared your thoughts.