Kara Swisher

Recent Posts by Kara Swisher

Pretty Flipboard Fundraising at an Even Prettier $200 Million Valuation

Flipboard, the high-profile and highly designed social media reading app for the Apple iPad, is out raising another round of funding at an eye-popping $200 million valuation, according to numerous sources close to the situation.

The Palo Alto, CA, company declined to comment on its new funding efforts, which sources said had recently accelerated.

While that valuation might change, several sources considering the investment said it is unlikely to go down in the current frothy financing market in Silicon Valley, especially given Flipboard’s splashy profile and top-drawer pedigree.

Co-founded by longtime Silicon Valley entrepreneur Mike McCue and former Apple iPhone engineer Evan Doll in January, Flipboard launched to much attention in July.

That included $10.5 million in venture funding from Kleiner Perkins, Index Ventures and a spate of well known angel investors, such as Twitter Co-founder Jack Dorsey, Facebook Co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, the ubiquitous Ron Conway, actor Ashton Kutcher and the investment company of former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin.

At the time, it was unclear what Flipboard’s valuation was. But now, said several sources, it’s clocking in at a hefty $200 million, which is perhaps no surprise at a time of increasingly lofty investments in tech start-ups.

Suddenly, Foursquare’s $95 million valuation seems like a bargain! (Sorry, Dennis Crowley, for comparing you to the Kool-Aid pitcher dude.)

In any case, the elegant Flipboard–which McCue recently told me in an onstage interview at the South by Southwest conference in Austin had zero revenues thus far–has changed the game on the consumption of social media.

Its innovative social magazine concept is attempting to make the social networking universe more accessible, consumable and, perhaps most importantly, visually arresting via its rich app.

Essentially, Flipboard pulls information from sites such as Twitter and Facebook data streams and then reassembles it in an easy-to-navigate, personalized format in a mobile tablet touchscreen environment.

In this offering, there are pull quotes, photos, videos, status updates and even the first paragraphs of linked-out content. There is also the ability to comment and share, as if one were on Twitter or Facebook.

Flipboard has since added a number of features and will be launching its new iPhone app later this year.

Right now, the Flipboard app is free and the business plan is advertising and some possible subscription scenarios.

It will be interesting to see who will jump into this leader in a nascent market, besides its current investors. Sources said one likely target group for Flipboard could be a large traditional media company.

Until the financial dust settles, here is the video of an onstage interview by the Digital Solution’s Katherine Boehret with McCue at the All Things Digital event, D: Dive Into Mobile, in December:

(Full disclosure: ATD is part of Flipboard’s publisher beta program.)


comments so far. Add yours.

  • Anonymous

    Must be nice to have train loads of cash lying around.

    http://www.real-privacy.it.tc

  • Anonymous

    Here we go again. Massive valuations for companies that have no clear business models and zero revenues, and hope that “advertising” will save them – inevitably leading them to opposition with their users as they seek to exploit consume PII and place obnoxious inventory.

    They could have been selling Flipboard for 99¢. Even at $2.99, it could have moved major units. But when the model is advertising, then you start to get grumbling from blogs/sources that aren’t seeing any of that revenue yet are having their content monetized by this intermediary.

    Le sigh.

  • http://www.tofugu.com koichi

    +1 and a “hear hear” to that.

  • http://twitter.com/tsancio Tomas Sancio

    So the purpose of Flipboard is to rip content from Twitter and Facebook? And investors expect these companies to stay still? For example, Twitter is going after third-party clients, why would they allow another company to sell advertising on their tweets?

  • http://www.mediaburst.co.uk mediaburst

    Why is a $200 million valuation “pretty” when they have no revenues and are hoping advertising revenue will keep them afloat? Surely “crazy” would have been a better word to describe the valuation.

  • http://www.123contracting.co.uk freelance

    This sounds like a slightly overvalued company.

  • http://wideeyed.myopenid.com/ Pfff

    If they were selling the app for $2.99 like you suggest, they would still be commercialising content created on other sites (who’s business models currently rely on advertising eg. facebook, google RSS viewer, broadsheets and other news content creators).

    So how would an app purchase fee of $3 stop the (legitimate) grumble from content host’s and creators that they are not seeing any return for the content delivery, while one of Flipboard’s key features is to strip the host’s ads from the desired content?

  • Anonymous

    «f they were selling the app for $2.99 like you suggest, they would still be commercialising content created on other sites.»

    Nope. They’d be selling a fancy RSS reader, and not altering the source content in any way (including the ads from the source). It’s the difference between selling an email client and giving one away for free but modifying the email messages to insert ads.

Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »

I think going public today is almost like a Bataan death march. I think Wall Street — this will insult many people — but I think in many ways it bears a resemblance to organized crime. It is legal today what they do, but what they do is manifestly unfair.

— Roger McNamee of Elevation Partners, in conversation with Bloomberg Television’s Margaret Brennan