8 ms·
I'll code you a competitor for much less than that person would charge, if they are even willing to sell :)
by sushshshsh 6y ago
I'll code you a competitor for much less than that person would charge, if they are even willing to sell :)
- altdatathrow 6y agothey want the traffic and recurring revenue, they don't care about the site
- sushshshsh 6y agoHow'd that work out for fox when they bought myspace?
- altdatathrow 6y agoDespite the failure, I'm guessing somewhat better than if they had hired you to make a clone?
- JacobSuperslav 6y agocomparing multimillion dollar sites with niche sites is pointless
- corobo 6y agoWell if we're going to ignore all of the variables in this manner it seems to be doing them super well, they're still in business!
- csa 6y agoI assume that this was a tongue in cheek comment, but in case it wasn’t... The site code and content itself is worth very little. The history, traffic, and back links are the value. Even if the site was copied or even improved on, it would take somewhere between 6 to 24 months to reach a comparable level of traffic assuming no black hat strategies are used.
- sushshshsh 6y agoWhy would someone pay a 4x multiple on a site that probably wont be making anything 4 years from now? (4x being a rough estimate of the buying price). That's 40 grand that could be used on traffic to the new site
- csa 6y agoHmmmm... 1. 4x ~$4600 annual revenue = $18400, a far cry from 40 grand. 2. I seriously doubt that this site will be making $0 in four years. My vote is for the over by a lot. 3. Most folks who would purchase it at a 4x annual revenue multiple would have a clear plan to increase traffic and/or monetize the traffic more efficiently than the current owner does. Speaking for myself, buying existing traffic is like printing money for me. Most people do not monetize their traffic very well at all. That said, getting white hat traffic from scratch is a slow and tedious process.