How much is online-media baron Demand Media really worth?

With online media company Demand Media likely to price its IPO within a matter of days, I thought it was a good time to analyze how the company is likely to be valued in the public markets. I have to admit, when I first looked at Demand Media’s S-1 financials, my first thought was, “Uh oh, another company that thinks it’s still 1998”, a time when IPOs, like Boo.com, the Globe.com and eToys, rose to astronomical valuations based not on financial fundamentals but on the seemingly infinite promise of internet-driven growth.

As I dug deeper, though, my thinking changed -– radically. I can now envision a scenario wherein Demand Media, whose properties include eHow, LiveStrong.com, and Cracked.com, is worth $1.4 – $1.7 billion. Not bad when you consider that the equity of the New York Times Company is currently valued at $1.2 billion. Before I’m accused of being stuck in 1998, let me explain how I arrived at that conclusion.

Step 1: Determine Your Comparables

I used Internet Brands, which recently agreed to be acquired by a private equity firm for approximately $640 million, as a comparable for this analysis. It is usually better to look at multiple comparables when valuing a company, but in this case additional comparables might actually muddy the waters. Internet Brands is unique in that it is a public company (with all of the associated financial disclosures) and it also has agreed to be sold in a private transaction that both sides agreed was fair, which in my mind minimizes the effect of market hype. Internet Brands and Demand Media are also very … well … comparable. They share very similar models – both create unique content online and monetize that content largely via online advertising. Both have also pursued acquisitions for growth, acquiring online properties and rolling those properties onto their platforms to maximize profitability. In that light, it’s hard to find a better comparable.

Step 2: Determine Valuation Multiples Based on Internet Brands

Internet Brands had around $100 million in revenue and $20 million in EBITDA in both 2008 and 2009. It appears that company management has done a commendable job in cutting expenses in 2010 and should finish the year with around $26 million in EBITDA with some growth in revenue. Overall, though, the company appears to be in a low growth cycle (more on that later). The 2010 projected financials imply roughly a 6x revenue and 25x EBITDA multiple.

Step 3: Apply Valuation Multiples to Demand Media Financials

The hardest part of determining the value of Demand Media is sorting through the company’s accounting practices. Because Demand has acquired so many companies and their associated content, it reports negative gross margins, EBITDA and net income on a GAAP basis, despite showing positive operating cash flow. To help analysts come up with the “right” answer, though, the company provides a non-GAAP measure that it calls OIBDA (operating income before depreciation and amortization).

While this may seem like a 1998-inspired make believe number, when you look closely at the reconciliation between it and GAAP Operating Income, they are actually just backing non-cash items out of their operating income, which makes it a pretty close proxy to EBITDA and therefore a valuable metric. To derive a valuation for Demand Media, I applied the multiples I calculated for Internet Brands. I assumed for this purpose that OIBDA was equivalent to EBITDA. The Revenue and OIBDA/EBITDA multiples imply a valuation of $1.4 – $1.5 billion. (The operating cash flow multiple implied a lower valuation, but I discarded it as an outlier.)


Step 4: Adjust for Growth

Based on this analysis, you might conclude that a valuation in that range is fair, but this simplistic analysis fails to account for relative growth rates. Demand Media is growing at a pace of 25 – 50% depending on which financial metric you choose to use (revenue, operating cash flow or OIBDA). Internet Brands grew at a 10% – 30% rate using the same metrics (and most of that was due to cost-cutting). Clearly Demand Media deserves some sort of premium for its higher growth rate, assuming you believe it is sustainable. I ran a simple “what if” scenario to see what the company would be worth with a 10% and a 20% valuation premium based on its higher rate of growth. (These are likely conservative if you believe Demand Media’s growth story.) When you apply these premiums, Demand Media’s valuation increases to $1.6 – $1.7 billion.

Conclusion: It Really Comes Down To Growth

As with many IPOs, the most interesting question when deciding the “real” value of Demand Media is whether or not you believe the company’s growth story. The company has two primary lines of business: a domain registrar business and a content creation business. Demand had $114 million and $198 million of respective revenue in those two lines of business in 2009. The domain registrar business, which includes the practice of “domaining,” or owning and monetizing domains with intrinsic value, is highly competitive and, in my opinion, unlikely to grow rapidly. If that was Demand’s only line of business, then I think growth rates akin to Internet Brands would be the target. However, a bulk of the company’s growth is likely to come from the content creation business. Demand Media has developed a content creation process that allows it to rapidly and cost effectively develop articles on topics that are likely to drive traffic from search and, for its branded content sites like Cracked and LiveStrong, from social media. It even sells components of this process as a service to major publishers, such as USA Today (travel). So the real question in evaluating its growth story comes down to whether or not you believe two things about its content creation business:

1. That there’s room to run — Demand Media targets evergreen and breaking topics with targeted articles that it produces “on demand”. The question is, how much coverage does the company already have? If you believe there is a limit on the number of new stories it can create because it has covered most of the valuable topics, then you should not buy into the company’s growth story. However, I personally believe that Demand Media has only scratched the surface of available topics. The search and social space is huge, and new topics are being searched for and shared every day. As long as the company’s systems are capable of identifying these topics in real-time, it should be able to sustain growth.

2. That the economics work — This is the billion dollar question. Demand Media pays an up-front cost to create a story targeting a specific topic. So what is the average payback today, and what will it be in the future? The big difference between the company’s reported OIBDA and GAAP EBITDA is amortization of assets that the company developed or acquired in previous periods. The question in my mind is, how much of its amortization is related to content creation? Based on the fact that the company is generating good operating cash flow, it appears the content it has created or acquired in the past is providing a nice return. So let’s assume the model has worked historically. Then the question is, will this continue? If too many companies attempt to replicate Demand Media’s model, the fear is that there will be a “race to the bottom”, and the return on each article produced will be significantly diminished. Demand Media has two primary barriers to entry that can help minimize, but not eliminate, this risk. First, the company owns domains that are popular in search and social media and therefore it has an advantage in distribution. Second, the company’s content creation process is well developed and probably more efficient than a new entrant’s process would be. However, neither of these factors completely eliminates the risk, so I believe this is the primary risk to Demand Media’s growth story.

So what does all this mean for the company’s valuation? If you believe the company will achieve growth around that of Internet Brands (primarily because you are concerned that there is a significant risk that the economics of the model won’t hold over the long-term), then the company is likely worth around $1.4 billion. Of course, if you believe the economic model will completely unravel, then the company is worth substantially less.

However, if you believe Demand Media has created a new media model that will help it sustain more rapid growth rates, the company is likely worth north of $1.7 billion. My belief is that reality is somewhere in the middle. Only time will really provide the answer. However, when you see a newcomer like Demand Media likely to command a valuation 15 – 50% higher than the current $1.2 billion market cap of the New York Times Company (which also has approximately $1.9 billion of long-term debt, so its total enterprise value is over $3.0 billion), it is probably worth taking a moment to ask yourself what you think of this new media model.

Stephen Walker is chief operating officer of Perfect Market, a company that helps online publishers monetize on their content. He previously worked at Idealab helping technology startups and was most recently managing director of the new ventures group at Idealab, where he sourced, screened and led new product and business concepts.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W5KZED7CCKLOBXZY45MHG3W774 LikeySpikey

    > Demand Media targets evergreen and breaking topics with targeted articles that it produces “on demand”.This is patently untrue, and it suggests the author neither understands what goes on behind the Demand curtain nor what the foundation of their business model actually is. In fact, Demand Media targets long-tail topics with targeted articles. Very little of the titles fed to content creators for Demand are evergreen. Most of them are hashed over dreck from days long past. A writer is far more likely to find pieces to write about Windows 98 or (shudder) MS DOS than you are to find pieces about Foursquare or Gowalla.You've also completely ignored the Achilles heel of the Demand business model — the parasitic reliance on one single customer for a plurality of their revenue. When GOOG changes their algos, poof, there goes all the growth in Demand's content business. It's a ticking time bomb in their business model, and the insiders know it, hence their rush for the exits now.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MC3QNNN35IJP7HWO7B3ZDA4I2I LK

    Would it be an SEC violation if I said that I am a contractor for DM and I would not pay one red cent for DM stock? Mr. Walker, if you choose to believe your own hype and buy lots of DM stock, I wish you the best of luck. I see what goes on behind the scenes from several vantage points. Between the internal redundancy/inefficiency and DM's enslavement to Google Adsense and the Google search algorithm, I will pass on the stock. In the meanwhile, I am more than happy to take their money as long as they want my services.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5E5SM6LEDUA453APUO2AFK2LY4 Scott

    Dear Mr. Walker,

    As the Chief Financial Officer of Internet Brands, several people have brought this article to my attention. Your EBITDA figures for 2008-2010 are simply wrong (by almost half each year). The correct Adjusted EBITDA (which backs out stock-based compensation) figures are $35.3 million for 2008, $40.1 million for 2009, and $47.5 million (analysts consensus estimate) for 2010. EBITDA (including stock-based compensation) figures are $32.8 million for 2008, $36.8 million of 2009, and $42.0 million for 2010. Please see INET's public filings for confirmation of figures. Thanks.

  • walker4bc

    Perhaps I did a poor job explaining what I meant, but when you say that “Demand Media targets long-tail topics with targeted articles” that is my understanding as well (and what I meant to describe). A topic such as MS DOS, if it is still getting search traffic is, by definition, evergreen by the way. So I think we are saying the same thing. As to your second point about the Google risk, you are absolutely correct. That is a significant risk to the business and should not be ignored by potential investors. Internet Brands has that risk as well, but to a smaller extent.

  • THYF243

    The problem with Demand Media is that they have basically devalued journalism – with payments that can range as low as $5.00 an article. What this means overall is that they attracting and utlizing a very low level of journalistic talent – and if anything that will be their downfall. Sooner or later, people are going to realize that the articles which generate from “content farms” is pretty shakey at best, generally ignoring the principals of good journalism ( or any journalism for that matter) and so it is of limited value. I think Demand rose quickly because they filled a temporary gap in internent content. But as the world of digital reporting shakes out and goes forward, it is predictable that content farms like Demand will go down and not up in value. The minute they are forced to pay “real” journalists what they are worth, their profit model will implode.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W5KZED7CCKLOBXZY45MHG3W774 LikeySpikey

    Stephen, I apologize. I was a bit harsh, and I misread what you wrote. Evergreen does indeed imply that the content retains value in the long term. I think the following sentence about “breaking topics” threw me. I was thinking you wrote “green field” and not evergreen, so I misinterpreted the language.The question about the Google-related risk for Demand Media is not an idle one. It's substantive. There have been a few attempts at analyzing it in the blogosphere. How do you price such a risk into the share price of Demand Media and their IPO? Your guess is as good as mine, but it can't be ignored.The fact is that eHow pollutes Google's highly ranked positions with mostly useless dreck. The theory among Demand's freelance content creators (they don't call them journalists THYF243) is that the content is purposefully substandard to make the advertisements more appealing. This theory holds some water. Eventually Google's users are going to demand that the algorithms be improved to filter out the low quality tripe like Demand produces. It's not a question of if but when.

  • http://www.facebook.com/hadrien.raffalli Hadrien Raffalli

    One thing about the Google dependance: Demand represent a big chunk of their revenue for some BU (especially for YouTube as DM is the largest single video uploader on the website) you can be sure they will play nicely with them.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W5KZED7CCKLOBXZY45MHG3W774 LikeySpikey

    Why can you be sure that Google will play nice with Demand? Just because it's revenue? Who says it can't be replaced with other revenue? There is some credibility to that line of reasoning, but the relationship between GOOG and DMD is unbalanced. Google represents a far more significant portion of Demand's revenues than Demand represents of Google's. It's not even close, from a percentage standpoint. Google can survive (and even flourish) without Demand, but can the same be said in reverse.

  • walker4bc

    Scott, I have tried to reply to your comment previously, but for some reason my replies are not getting posted. I'm going to give it one more try.

    Based on your feedback, I rechecked my numbers and you are correct – I should have used Adjusted EBITDA for Internet Brands, which would have made the comparison with OIBDA more comparable. Based on that, I went back and reran my numbers. The valuation of Demand based on revenue multiples obviously doesn't change (it stays at around $1.4 to $1.7 billion). However, the valuation based on Adjusted EBITDA/OIBDA decreases to about $0.8 billion with no growth premium and right around $1.0 billion with a 20% growth premium. A much higher valuation based on revenue than based on cash flow implies that either Demand's business model is not as lucrative as IB's or that there is room for cash flow expansion over time for Demand. So once again, it points back to whether or not you believe in Demand's business model and growth story. If you do, a valuation based on revenues might make sense. If you don't, then you should be valuing Demand based on current cash flow (or discounting it further if you see significant risk to the model).

  • http://paidcontent.org/2010/11/16/419-the-morning-lowdown-11-16-10/ The Morning Lowdown 11.16.10 — paidContent

    [...] »  With Demand Media preparing to price its IPO in what many expect to be a matter of days, just how much is the company worth? How does somewhere between $1.4- and $1.7 billion sound? [Venturebeat] [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus