Posts from Revenue

Like last week's post on mobile revenue models, gaming isn't a revenue model itself, but it does offer a number of interesting revenue models and is worth discussing in a post in this series. This is the last post in the revenue model series, which is based on the peer produced revenue model hackpad we created at the start of the series.

Gaming is interesting because there are a number of revenue options that game developers can choose from when thinking about how to make money from their game. The hackpad lists the following:

There is still a sizeable business in selling a version of the game to the game player. That's how the console game (xbox, etc) market works. It is also how downloadable games market works. And there is a vibrant market in mobile games that you have to pay for to play.

But the games market has been moving to newer models in recent years. In app upgrades is certainly one of the more important revenue models. Many of the most popular mobile games are free to play but offer in app upgrades to get more game elements or simply to eliminate the ads. This is an example of the freemium business model in action.

Advertising is another important revenue model. For many web based games, advertising is the dominant form of revenue. On mobile, advertising supports the free offer and the elimination of advertising is often the value proposition for the in app upgrade.

The revenue model that is mostly (but not totally) unique to gaming is virtual goods. Virtual goods (like a tractor in Farmville) allow the player to have more capability in the game and they can be earned over time but are often purchased to enhance game play. This revenue model was inititally created in the asian gaming market but has been adopted by game developers all over the world.

I have been waiting for non gaming web and mobile services to adopt the virtual goods model but have yet to see anything that feels like it is working really well. Virtual goods is another excellent implementation of the freemium approach to business model.

There are game developers who use all of these models at the same time. They might sell their game on certain platforms, they might offer a free ad supported version on mobile with in app upgrades and virtual goods. In many ways, I think the gaming market is the most sophisticated about revenue models of all the sectors in web and mobile. That may stem from the fact that most games have a finite life and so the developer has to extract real revenue quickly to get a return on the investment they have made in developing the game. I think there is a lot that the rest of the web and mobile services world can learn from the gaming market.

The idea of peer producing a comprehensive web/mobile revenue model list was a success. The hackpad I created and linked to last week got a ton of contributions. I took the time this morning to clean it up a good deal. I will outline the high level changes I made in a bit. But since that hackpad is still wide open, I also made a final version and I have made it invitation only so I can control the edits this one gets. There may be a way in hackpad for the initial author to lock down a hackpad but I couldn't find it, so I did it this way.

So what edits did I make to the wide open hackpad? Well first, I tried to clean up the examples and make them as definitive as I could. The more well known a company/service is, the better example it is. I also took out many of the multiple examples. I think one is generally sufficient. I also took out the revenue models I thought were duplicative or slight variants of other revenue models. And there were a number of sections at the end that I would call "business models" as opposed to revenue models. So I took them out. Finally, there were a few entrepreneurs who were using this hackpad as a way to promote their companies. In effect, they were spamming the hackpad. I took out everything that felt like spam to me.

We are left with nine categories:

I think six of them are truly definitive revenue model categories (advertising, commerce, subscription, transactions, licensing, and data). The other three (peer to peer, mobile, and gaming) could be folded into the first six since they mostly map to existing models (mobile ads are ads). But these three categoris are unique in many ways and so I felt like leaving them in even though it's not as clean this way.

The "final" hackpad still needs work. There are some entries that are missing examples. I noted them with (??). There also may still be important or emerging business models we are missing. If you would like an invite to help fix the final version, please leave a comment to this post and I will invite you if I think your edit is useful.

My hope is by next week, we will have a truly definitive list of mobile and web revenue models and then I can use the list as a template for the MBA Mondays series on Revenue Models. Thanks for everyone's help on this.

We are kicking off our next series on MBA Mondays with an assignment. We are going to peer produce an exhaustive list of revenue models for web and mobile businesses. Then I will publish that list and use it as a template to do this series. I am not going to write a post on each revenue model but I am going to write posts on the top ones as well as discuss the pros and cons of each.

I've created a hackpad that we will use to do this assignment. I've filled in a few of the most obvious revenue models and have started grouping them into the big categories (advertising, commerce, subscriptions). There are certainly more revenue models and additional big categories that aren't on the list yet. So please go take a look and add anything that you think is missing.

I will publish the comprehensive list next monday and use that to kick off this series.

Back when we were doing our MBA Monday series on Financing Options For Startups, I got an email from my friend Andy Sack. Andy was one of the first entrepreneurs we funded by in the mid 90s with our Flatiron Fund. He's done something like a half dozen startups since then and he's a veteran in the very best sense of the word.

Andy said "You missed an important option Fred – revenue based financing. I've got a new firm called Lighter Capital that does just that". I said, "Can you write a blog post for MBA Mondays explaining how it works?" So today, we have a guest post/advertorial on Revenue Based Financing from Andy/Lighter Capital. I hope you like it.

———

Fred’s series on alternative financing options has been awesome to follow, especially because it broadens the discussion of how companies can fund business growth when they can’t (or don’t want to) raise venture capital or bank debt. Fred’s original list missed one option – revenue-based finance – that's near to my heart and I’ve been encouraging entrepreneurs and angels to consider, and Fred graciously let me offer my insights here.
 
Disclaimer: I am founder of Lighter Capital and have a self interest in educating and promoting the use of this new type of financing called revenue-based finance.  I’m also a serial technology entrepreneur and believe this type of financing has real advantages to traditional debt and traditional real advantages over equity for the entrepreneur.

A revenue-based finance (RBF) investment provides capital to a business by “selling” an ongoing percentage of a company’s future revenues to the investor.  For simplicity, you can think of it as a revenue share type of arrangement. Investor gives capital to company in exchange for a small percentage of gross revenues. RBF lives as a hybrid of bank debt and venture capital. This kind of financing has been around for a while in non-tech industries such as mining, film production and drug development, but it’s recently been gaining traction in the world of growth finance and early-stage technology funding.
 
I want to explain how an RBF structure is different than traditional funding sources, detail what situations could be better suited for an RBF structure (for entrepreneur and investors alike), and offer a word of warning about the businesses that aren’t a good fit for the structure.
 
First, let me explain how a revenue-based loan works:

Instead of a typical bank loan which requires a business to pay a fixed interest payment, a revenue-based loan receives a percentage of revenues over a specified amount of time, allowing "interest" payments to fluctuate when a growing company has inconsistent cash-flows or lumpy or seasonal revenues. In a world where business costs such as software and infrastructure are increasingly becoming “as-a-service” and adjust with the ebbs and flows of a business needs, RBF payments automatically ramp up and down along with a business. It’s the inherent variability of RBF that makes the structure so appealing so appealing.  Imagine if your business loan payment reduced to zero if your business revenue dropped to zero for an unanticipated quarter, and then automatically kicked backed on when your revenue returned. Another way of saying this is RBF turns loan repayment from a fixed expense to a variable expense.

So, when does it make sense to raise revenue-based funding?
Revenue-based loans are, by nature, most appropriate for companies already generating revenues but without hard assets typically required to get bank loans. It’s especially applicable for companies that have lumpy, seasonal, or hard to predict revenues.

 
For entrepreneurs, revenue-based loans are attractive to founders who are allergic to dilution and loss of control.  The structure of RBF is often non-dilutive to founders and does not require a board seat. The financing is obtained without having to agree to a valuation, which leaves management in control of the company and typically requires no personal guarantees from management.

RBF means you can grow without swinging for the fences

For investors, funding using an RBF structure provides an opportunity to get a return on their investment without needing an exit. While this is clearly an advantage for investors, it also means company founders shouldn’t get as much pressure from investors to “swing for the fences” and the projected return due to the investor can be lower as the entrepreneur repays the investor more quickly.

As Fred has mentioned before, big exits are rare for startups. Some ideas have the potential to be home runs, but others are better suited to operate as smaller, standalone businesses. For the companies in the latter category, raising money from VCs who expect the big exits can misalign goals. A revenue-based loan has the potential to better align incentives for investors and founders in these cases. With that said, if you’re a pre-revenue, startup still figuring out your business model or considering some kind of “go big or go home” strategy, there can be realadvantages to working with the equity-based venture capital or angel investors. Similarly, certain businesses, especially brick-and-mortar and manufacturing-focused businesses may not have the margin profiles to pay monthly payments of 2-5% of revenues.
 
An RBF structure isn’t limited to specific funds – angels, VCs or banks could theoretically provide capital in this manner, but the risk/return profile of RBF doesn’t always fit the investor’s needs. Similarly, RBF may not be the best funding option for all businesses. In the right circumstances, the hybrid approach of revenue-based finance for startup funding can have advantages over traditional debt or equity, but there are admittedly situations where the more traditional options still make sense – such as restaurants or infrastructure-heavy startups.
 
If you’re considering raising money from angel investors, I’d suggest discussing this in the event that it may align your incentives better or at least help avoid some of the painful valuation negotiations. There are a few funds –Lighter Capital and Next Step in Texas, among others focused on this type of structure and I’d suggest taking a look at those options as well. There are clearly different scenarios where any number of Fred’s financing alternatives could prove more appropriate for your business, but the revenue-based loan structure can be a great option for profitable companies looking for a straightforward way to raise funding without dilution, change of control, or a personal guarantee.