The Time Function Of Profits; Or Why Craigslist Is Doing A Fine Job Maximizing Revenue

from the for-every-action... dept

A few weeks back there was some ridiculous buzz over the fact that Craigslist's CEO apparently flummoxed some Wall Street folks by claiming that the company had no interest in maximizing revenue -- setting off a big debate among folks, including a reporter who went on to call Craig Newmark a "lone nut" who was "threatening the livelyhood of thousands of working men and women." The reasoning was that by failing to "maximize profits" by putting ads on the site, Craigslist was undercutting the classifieds business of lots of newspapers and putting reporters (like himself) out of business. This is bizarre for two reasons. First, the idea that Craigslist is costing newspapers any money is easily disproved. However, even worse, the very premise that the lack of Craigslist maximizing revenue hurts the industry is counterintuitive. If Craigslist were making even more money, wouldn't that suggest that newspapers were making even less? If by not taking ads on their site, Craigslist is leaving money on the table, then shouldn't that be an opportunity for the newspapers to grab it?

The interesting thing, though, is that this story refuses to die -- but with a very odd bent. It originally happened a week and a half ago, yet people keep submitting different versions of it, with the latest being someone anonymous who sent in yet another version, again claiming that Craigslist is not "maximizing revenue." And while even Craigslist's CEO may claim that very statement himself -- we'd like to suggest that both the CEO and those bemoaning the lack of "capitalist instinct" are completely wrong. They're wrong because they're ignoring the "time" aspect hidden in the question about maximizing revenue. When people talk about maximizing revenue, they all too often forget to recognize the time axis -- assuming that there's some finite point in time at which revenue is "maximized" rather than doing so over an extended period of time. Craigslist is tremendously successful by almost any measure. The company is wildly popular, bringing in a ton of traffic with little effort or budget. It does bring in a ton of revenue as well, much more than is needed to support its employees and technology back-end. And, a big part of the reason they're able to do so is because they don't bombard their users with what they don't want.

So, yes, the company could "maximize revenue" in the extremely short-term by dumping a bunch of ads on the site, but it would probably piss off a lot of users, shrink their audience, shrink their value, shrink their reputation... and eventually shrink their revenue. In other words, the short-term effect would be to kill the long-term viability. It should be obvious to anyone that it doesn't make any sense to maximize short-term revenue at the expense of long-term viability, but apparently some bitter Wall Street types and confused journalists haven't quite figured that out yet. Craigslist absolutely is maximizing revenue. They're just doing so in a way that ensures they'll be maximizing it for more than just a quarter or two -- and that doesn't seem so "nutty" at all. And, of course, that's probably a big part of the reason why the company appears to have no interest in outside financing or going public. Wall Street's opinion has no impact on the company at all -- and if Craigslist can better "maximize its revenue" by ignoring the short-term thinking of those bankers, then they're better off for it.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    misanthropic humanist, 19 Dec 2006 @ 2:04am

    Re:

    "They do look good, but they don't wear it as comfortably as the natural beauties AND they hate the natural beauties because it comes so easy for them."

    And then there's the likes of SCO and Disney - a thousand hours of plastic surgery, three sex change ops and 8 hours in the bathroom with an industrial sized drum of hair remover and they still quite obviously men in drag.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.