Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GoDaddy Files For $100 Million IPO

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.

Businesses 110

mpicpp (3454017) writes with news that GoDaddy has filed to make an initial public offering "This is the second time GoDaddy has tried to go public. It went this route back in 2006, but then backed out when it didn't get the pricing it wanted." The SEC Filing indicates that they are not in the greatest financial condition. Quoting CNN: "GoDaddy hasn't made a profit since 2009. The company lost $279 million in 2012. It bled another $200 million last year. This year doesn't look much better, with another $51 million lost in the first quarter." Founder Bob Parsons, currently executive chairman, will be stepping down but remaining on the board of directors.

cancel ×

110 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

sounds dire (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 months ago | (#47201721)

An IPO that, even if successful, would cover only 6 months of their burn rate?

Re:sounds dire (5, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 months ago | (#47201745)

I went to godaddy.com to see what the heck they do anyway, but I just got a spam page saying godaddy.com was up for sale and did I like to buy it?

Re:sounds dire (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201919)

I assure you, it's a real site. You may want to check for malware. Anyways, they're a bad registrar and they supported SOPA.

https://medium.com/cyber-security/how-i-lost-my-50-000-twitter-username-24eb09e026dd

Re:sounds dire (2, Informative)

kelarius (947816) | about 2 months ago | (#47201953)

I assure you, it's a real site. You may want to check for malware.

WOOOOOSH

WOOOOSH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202129)

Wooosh.

like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 months ago | (#47201935)

but... but... Dannica Patrick's TITS!
ok, granted, those are a pretty heavily leveraged commodity, too...

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (4, Interesting)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47202135)

Their sleazy advertising is what caused me to actually stop recommending them to clients. I used to recommend them to clients for cheap hosting. But after they started to run ads that looked more like Hooters commercials (or ads for a strip club) than ads for a reputable hosting company, I dropped them faster than a hot potato. I'm not sure what kind of dumbass CEO thought he would attract more businesses and charities looking to set up websites by running Superbowl ads featuring half-naked women boozing it up at frat parties, but he definitely misjudged his audience.

Even their homepage ended up being a fucking embarrassment. I've seen porn sites that were more modest.

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 2 months ago | (#47203431)

The initial ads were run the year after the Janet Jackson incident and I thought were quite funny. The problem is that they didn't have the sense to stop when the joke ran it's course.

There choice in representatives did not impress me either. Dannica Patrick was given the best cars and the best pit crews and seemed to consistently underperform.
Sort of a racing version of Carly FIorina.

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47206781)

I don't like it when people look down on "rednecks", so I won't, but I'm guessing the demographic that shops frequently and Lowe's and Bass Pro, and who only demand from beer the property of "cold", aren't buying domains.

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (4, Informative)

kurkosdr (2378710) | about 2 months ago | (#47203661)

GoDaddy: A cybersquatter masquerading as a registrar. If you forgot to pay the bill, they 'll take down your site and will fill up your domain with ads. And god forbid you actually break their TOS. They 'll take your domain and put ads, you won't be able to take it back, and they wom't even tell you which parts of the TOS you supposedly broke. There was a site "nodaddy" detailing those things.

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (1)

qubezz (520511) | about 2 months ago | (#47207259)

And these scumbags even register and hold for ransom domain names put into their domain search tool. That's right - search to see if a domain is available using the Godaddy site, and it will be registered by Godady themselves or "partners", and sold off to the highest bidder, or suddenly have a $500 asking price. http://www.billhartzer.com/pag... [billhartzer.com]

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (1)

hawk (1151) | about 2 months ago | (#47208465)

Why do you think I have dochawk.org, rather than dochawk.com?

I checked for dochawk.com. Available. Went to register the next day, and gone. Scratched my head.

Then I checked dochawk.net. Waffled a day, and it was gone.

So I just registered dochawk.org.

And then the bit elsewhere where they double-billed and held data hostge . . .

hawk

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 2 months ago | (#47207855)

So what is a better registrar? Seriously.

I haven't had any domain names yet, but the current owner of one will transfer it to me. Basically, I need very little in terms of services.. I'm not intending on running a web site there, just some mailboxes (and hopefully a way to send all other email to that domain in another bucket).

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (1)

hawk (1151) | about 2 months ago | (#47208447)

Don't forget double-billing your account each month, which triggers your credit card company to auto-cancel the fraudulent, err, second charge, and using *that* to cancel you for non-payment, while continuing to charge you each month, and demanding either a year's service contract or $100 to recover your backup . . .

not that they pulled that on me . . .

hawk

RE: I've seen porn sites that were more modest. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47205365)

RE: I've seen porn sites that were more modest.

I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Do you provide links?

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 months ago | (#47206397)

Isn't it odd to see Puritanism resurface? We're supposed to be so open-minded and accepting...and yet people are OUTRAGED that sex sells. We just need to go hunt some witches next.

Re:like those are hard to see on teh intarwebs (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 2 months ago | (#47207827)

I can't believe I'm kind of defending them... but if it sells cars and hamburgers and everything else, why don't you think it would sell domain registration services?

Re:sounds dire (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47201893)

An IPO that, even if successful, would cover only 6 months of their burn rate?

It's not enough; but they don't really bring much to the table. Their products and services are all in heavily commodified areas (ooh, a domain registrar!) and they...don't exactly trade on a premium reputation...

Honestly, 100 million seems like a pretty generous valuation for a commodity dealer, with comparatively minimal differentiation or brand loyalty, probably not many assets to sell off, and a more or less drop-in replacement by any of their numerous competitors.

Re:sounds dire (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 months ago | (#47204187)

The sad thing is, they used to be decent. Good Service at affordable pricing for domains. They tried to expand into other areas that others were better at, and they basically sucked at it. They stopped being what made them successful in the first place. This is why they are bleeding money fast.

And the people that started the downward curve were paid stupid huge bonuses, and now are suffering from long term shortsightedness.

Re:sounds dire (1)

plopez (54068) | about 2 months ago | (#47202565)

If it pops it is just more evidence of another tech bubble.

Re:sounds dire (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 months ago | (#47203265)

GoDaddy failing would not be evidence of a tech bubble, only a horribly-run company.

There's plenty of other inexpensive web hosts out there that are doing just fine.

Re:sounds dire (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202861)

They always say you should buy low and sell high, but I think you'd have to be high to buy GoDaddy.

hosting is a rough business... (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 2 months ago | (#47201723)

I don't know if I'd feel comfortable buying them at this point.

Re:hosting is a rough business... (1)

kelarius (947816) | about 2 months ago | (#47201979)

If it wasn't such an obvious move you could short them

Re:hosting is a rough business... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202635)

Short an IPO? Most retail brokers aren't going to have shares available for you to borrow.

You moronic fucking faggot.

Re:hosting is a rough business... (2)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47202777)

Whoa there cowboy, maybe you'll be less testy if you hoover another rail of that Colombian mood enhancer off your desk. Gotta keep your blood levels even, you know.

Re:hosting is a rough business... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203301)

You sir will be quoted for that line.... "Whoa there cowboy, maybe you'll be less testy if you hoover another rail of that Colombian mood enhancer off your desk. Gotta keep your blood levels even, you know." - Philip the "Colombian Mood Doctor"

Re:hosting is a rough business... (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 2 months ago | (#47203803)

Regulations forbid shorting stock for the first 30 days. There are some expectations for market makers and a loophole for holders of physical stock that hedge funds have abused in the past. (I think that particular scandal has been cleared up.)

I'm feeling rapey (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201725)

Time for rape!
Time for rape!
Time for a bit of raaaaaaaaaaape!
Rape's okay!
Rape's okay!
Rape's the best today!

Re: I'm feeling rapey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204013)

We shall name you "Jake the Raper"!

Another bubble (5, Insightful)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 2 months ago | (#47201743)

This is going to make top Go Daddy execs millionaires, and every other stockholder gets screwed after the execs flip and the stock tumbles down in the months following said IPO.

Protip: NEVER enter an IPO, no matter how awesome you think the company is. Wait and see how the stock performs over an extended period.

Re:Another bubble (4, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47201759)

I have to agree with you on both points. Although it's more likely the venture capitalists who are trying to get out of the sinking boat at this point.

Re:Another bubble (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 2 months ago | (#47204135)

I don't think so – or at least in the short run. Reading the prospectus it looks like all of the funds are going towards the company – no investor is cashing out. You might see some 144a sales occurring down the road but IIRC current holders will have to wait at least 6 months to do so and only for a small percentage of the free float out there. (If they want to float more they would have another offering.)

Re:Another bubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201807)

I got news for you: the entire stock market is in a bubble. Everybody is trying to find an sound investment of where to put their wealth. It's all bullshit, and they know it! The goal is to pretend it's not. But once it starts heading downward, look out! It will be dumped back into real-estate and precious metals again. Money chasing money. And it's the 99% that's paying for it all!

Re:Another bubble (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about 2 months ago | (#47201951)

"will be" dumped back into real estate? Dude, that's been happening for years... Berkshire Hathaway (you know, Warren Buffett, the 4th richest guy on the planet) created an entire division JUST for getting in on single family houses. http://www.berkshirehathawayhs... [berkshirehathawayhs.com]

I'm quite certain that, if the risk were more easily manageable at scale, he'd make true on his desire to buy up 100,000+ single family homes: http://www.cnbc.com/id/4653842... [cnbc.com]

Re:Another bubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202595)

Yup, and you can always rent them back.

Re:Another bubble (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 2 months ago | (#47205865)

I am confused. I peaked at your link and it seems that they are just a real estate agency? Are they actually investing in any real estate? (example – buying stock is making a bet that the market will go up, buying a stock brokerage firm is making a bet that people will increase trading on the stock market.)

Re:Another bubble (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201961)

Nah... For example, it's a good to enter an IPO for a company which produces generational technology on a cycle. I talked my father into entering nvidia's IPO when I was 20. This was right after they had spent a couple of years clawing up to the top of the pile to lay the smack on 3dfx voodoo technology with the Riva TNT2. 3dfx was pretty clearly stagnated. Matrox was trapped by their 2d brilliance, and ATI was only just beginning to break their habit of producing garbage. If you followed the industry closely, it was plain to see that nvidia was solidly positioned for long term success. A few months later, nvidia landed the xbox, and the rest is history.

Unfortunately, my uncle was a clueless Merrill Lynch investment adviser, and he talked my dad into dropping the nvidia stock after a year of very little growth. Promptly thereafter, the stock doubled and split...doubled and split...and then I stopped paying attention because it hurt too bad.

Re:Another bubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204977)

ALL IPOs are rigged scams.

The winners chose themselves during the set-up.

Everyone else is a sucker. No exceptions.

Re:Another bubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47205783)

I really disagree on that last part. Energy companies with proven reserves, capital investments, and functioning operations at the time of IPO do well

Not profitable (5, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 months ago | (#47201757)

The SEC Filing indicates that they are not in the greatest financial condition.

Shocking. They sell an aggressively priced commodity product and spend a ton on stupid sexist advertising to people who aren't their customers. Their customer service sucks and their website (last I checked) is a hot mess. While I haven't read their prospectus I don't really see them ever being more than modestly profitable at best. They seem to be taking an Amazon business model - growing now and worrying about profits down the road. But unlike Amazon the economic barriers to competition are quite a bit lower.

Re:Not profitable (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201783)

I agree except that you left out one minor point. They do not actually offer any product other than serving web pages on an emasculated platform.

They do have one thing going for them. If they go belly up then the number of "websites" being served by MS server software will plummet precipitously. I suspect some folks in Redmond are looking at this and doing some back of the envelope calculations to figure out how much it is worth in advertising to be able to say they serve more "websites" than apache.

Re:Not profitable (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47201915)

It doesn't help that Amazon (while their margins are pitiful) has a pretty good reputation(and, since they sell stuff that everybody and your grandparents buy, rather than semi-specialized tech services, good reputation probably helps every purchase a bit) and an excellent reputation for efficiency.

It would be interesting to see what happens if they did try to turn the screws a bit and generate some real profit; but it's hard to argue that they are anything but good at what they do. GoDaddy? Cheap; but also pretty shit, and tolerated more or less only because they are cheap.

Re:Not profitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201993)

Although Amazon has a ridiculous P/E of 513 [google.com] at least they make some money and are not bleeding red ink line Go Daddy.

Amazon's P/E ratio (2)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 months ago | (#47203527)

Although Amazon has a ridiculous P/E of 513 [google.com] at least they make some money and are not bleeding red ink line Go Daddy.

Amazon's P/E doesn't mean much because they are heavily reinvesting in the company with stuff like Kindle etc. They could be highly profitable tomorrow if they wanted but they appear to be thinking long term. If you want a better idea of the value of Amazon's stock look at their Revenue vs Market Cap multiple which is approximately 2X. Most fairly valued companies have a revenue multiple between 1X and 2X so Amazon is not really outrageously priced most likely. I doubt GoDaddy could flip a switch and be profitable tomorrow.

Re:Not profitable (3, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | about 2 months ago | (#47202075)

Their customer service sucks and their website (last I checked) is a hot mess.

Slashdot moderation needs an Understatement rating. GoDaddy is to domain registrars what Comcast is to the cable industry.

Re:Not profitable (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 months ago | (#47202153)

Not really. In most areas that Comcast serves, they're basically a monopoly and charge the prices that one would expect of a monopoly. GoDaddy on the other hand isn't a monopoly, but instead sells a commodity product at rock bottom prices. Probably too low to generate a profit. The only reason most people go with them is because of their low prices and aggressive marketing which usually means that people who don't know much about hosting services except that they need hosting services come upon Go Daddy as one of the options and just choose the cheapest one, as they have no other criteria for discerning the difference between providers.

Re:Not profitable (3, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 months ago | (#47202579)

And they use it for a few months before realizing it is terrible and dumping it. Been there, done that.

With GoDaddy, my static content was hosted on the same server as a bunch of @&^#@&$ WordPress and PHPBB instances, and every time somebody searched on those sites, it tied up a slot on the server for an extended period of time. Run enough of them in parallel, and suddenly you have 15+ second latency between when the connection is established and when the server begins serving data.

I pointed out the problem, providing detailed time stamps for dozens of such insane periods of poor performance over the course of one or two days. They said they couldn't find anything wrong. Then, I asked them to move me to a different server that had mostly static content and no scripts, but they said no, and I said, "Bye."

Of course, to be brutally honest, I was considering leaving before I even finished pushing the content *to* GoDaddy's servers. That hellish experience was caused entirely by GoDaddy's utterly incompetent system administration practices. Instead of setting up one server for shell access and a separate server to serve the actual content, as far as I can tell, they used a single server for both tasks. To prevent users from abusing CPU resources, they set a time limit on processes. That sort of policy makes sense on a web server, but on a shell server, it makes uploading your web tree almost impossible. I couldn't use rsync because it wouldn't begin sending data before the timeout, and I couldn't use tar because it can't be resumed. I couldn't use scp because there were single files that took longer to upload over my slow DSL connection than the (IIRC 30 second) timeout. I can't remember how I ended up solving the problem, but I think it involved using rsync on a single file at a time. (No, I will not use FTP....)

But even that wasn't enough hell for GoDaddy. No, they also decided to prevent people from abusing the server by connecting to it too many times in a short period of time, so whenever I uploaded short files, I would exceed that threshold and it would refuse the connection. And as long as I continued to try to connect, it would never succeed. So to get my files uploaded to the server, I had to write an unholy script that alternated between multiple source IP addresses, copying files one at a time using rsync over ssh.

Unfortunately, this level of incompetence seems to be typical of GoDaddy from all indications. You'd have to be nuts to buy stock in this company. Their entire business model depends on a steady stream of suckers, and there are enough sites out there with similar prices and better ratings, so that stream is drying up. Unless they can hire some competent customer support people and competent IT people, they have nowhere to go from here but down the drain.

Re:Not profitable (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 2 months ago | (#47203367)

I sense a meme...

  GoDaddy is to domain registrars what RyanAir is to the low-cost airline industry.

Re:Not profitable (1)

theskipper (461997) | about 2 months ago | (#47203459)

Unfortunately a lot of their competition is pulling a Gnome3 and messing up their sites. Moniker is imploding as we speak, and Namecheap added enough Javascript-for-Javascript's-sake to give Godaddy a wet dream. Incremental development was supposed to generate highly-usable sites because common sense was supposed to be injected by the consumer of the site along the way. But it seems like the exact opposite has happened. "Hot messes" are everywhere.

I honestly think the employment pool for web developers has been deluged by hipsters over the last few years. Where have all the down-to-earth pros gone?

How (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201765)

How the fuck do you blow $200+ million a year being a registrar? Where does the money go? It can't possibly cost that much unless they are doing something very, very wrong. Where is the cash going?

SOPA support?

Not hard to blow a lot of cash (5, Interesting)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 months ago | (#47201861)

How the fuck do you blow $200+ million a year being a registrar?

By buying pointless Super Bowl ads and selling your product for less than it actually costs to provide. It's not hard to lose a lot of money really fast if you sell a commodity product people want for less than it actually costs to provide it. I had a teacher once point out how easy it is to generate sales. Just sell a $2 bill for $1. You'll have all the revenue you can handle but you'll be out of business faster than you can say "Chapter 7 bankruptcy".

Where does the money go?

Go dig up the prospectus and it will tell you. I can't be bothered but my guess would be some combination of advertising, infrastructure and management compensation. Possibly debt service too if they went that route.

Re:Not hard to blow a lot of cash (1)

twistedcubic (577194) | about 2 months ago | (#47201907)

By buying pointless Super Bowl ads and selling your product for less than it actually costs to provide.

Their rates for renewals are pretty high compared to the competition, so unless all registrars are unprofitable, I would think otherwise. 200 million sounds like executive pay run amok.

Re:Not hard to blow a lot of cash (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 months ago | (#47202599)

I suspect the GP meant their bottom-of-the-barrel hosting service, not their domain renewals.

Check the prospectus (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 months ago | (#47202707)

Their rates for renewals are pretty high compared to the competition, so unless all registrars are unprofitable, I would think otherwise. 200 million sounds like executive pay run amok.

Unlikely but you can check the prospectus to find out. That sort of thing is required to be detailed in the prospectus for any IPO. I'm sure executive pay is a piece of it but it's unlikely to be the majority.

Re:Not hard to blow a lot of cash (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 2 months ago | (#47204201)

They are not "blow[ing] $200+ million a year being a registrar?"

They lost (revenue – expenses) 130m in 2013.

Of that, about 100m is amortizing goodwill, a nonrecurring noncash expense. This depreciation only has a minor effect on the cash returned to the shareholders and that effect is a good one because it lowers the corporate taxes they pay.

Not saying it is meaningless. Just you can't count it towards the cash "burn rate" of a company.

Re:How (1, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 2 months ago | (#47201863)

How the fuck do you blow $200+ million a year being a registrar?

$20M CEO.
$15M CFO.
$15M CIO. ...

Re:How (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203593)

from their filing: Base salary for top 5 CxO combined:$2m. Options are another $10m. So, it looks like operational expenses are killing them.

Re:How (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204307)

From their S1(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1609711/000119312514230425/d728713ds1.htm):

Name Title Salary
Blake J. Irving CEO $934,615
Scott W. Wagner CFO $441,346
Philip H. Biener EVP $308,077
James M. Carroll EVP $350,000
Elissa E. Murphy CTO $255,231

Their salaries are not out of line for a company that had nearly $1.4 billion in revenue last year.

This is another example of the typical of the poor moderation here. That bold-face lie was moderated to a +3.

More text below here to get rid of Slashdot's buggy filter that has been broken for over a decade! This is not a garbage post. Please stop spouting nonsese like "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters." Just because I added a link does not mean that the post contains "junk" characters. My god this filter is ridiculous. Just look at how much text I had to add to work-around this decade. I heard Rob Malda say in 2011 that it was a "necessary decision," but you could tell from his body language that he knew damn well that was a lie.

Fuck the moderators (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 2 months ago | (#47204379)

According to the paperwork they filed for their IPO under the threat of perjury, their CEO made $934,615 in salary last year. Who are we to believe, this asshole liar spouting nonsense just because he is a darling of the moderators who voted his lie to a +3? Just watch. I bet they'll bury me for posting the truth. The Republican moderators here have such obvious biases. They think every CEO should make tens of millions of dollars and are will to lie to protect that stupid belief. Fuck the Republican control of this site and fuck the Republicans for creating the Beta and for trying to shove it down our throats.

More like the moderators fucked you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204883)

Your post with the correct salary information was hammered down four points below the bold-face lie. This Thanshin clown is really trying to disrupt this site with his garbage. The truth is no longer respected here.

Check-out Thanshin's posting history (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204967)

http://slashdot.org/~Thanshin

What a complete load of CONservative nonsense. I see now why the moderators give his posts so many points. Like the one above, they're all lies, but they are the type of lies the moderators get off on. For those CONservatives, fucking over people is a sexual thing for them. That is why sexually repressed xians are all Republicans. They love to lie to promote their fucked-up view of the word. Not only does Thanshin and his kind lie, but they lie in a ridiculous manner. In this case, the Republican narrative is that Irving makes twenty times what he actually does. They're also accusing GoDaddy of filing fradulent paperwork for their S1. There is no end to their dishonesty. They have completely ruined and perverted this country.

Re: How (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201873)

Superbowl ads.

Re:How (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 months ago | (#47201877)

Not just a registrar, but hosting services. Still hard to imagine being $200 million in the red. Although they are one of the lower tier providers, so I can see how trying to push for the absolute lowest prices have pushed them into the point of being completely unprofitable. When they are charging less than half of what good web hosts are charging, they've either found some efficiencies that others haven't, or they're selling a product at below cost.

How (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202103)

It costs a lot to have half naked girls dancing in your ads. And also shooting endangered species costs a lot too.

Not their core competency (5, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 months ago | (#47201767)

GoDaddy should stick to their core competency of strippers, pole dancing and parties(*) rather than this internet thing.

* Well thats the impression I get from their ads.

Re:Not their core competency (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47201785)

I have the hunch that this impression is pretty accurate... I dunno what they're actually doing, but they should dump that internet branch and instead concentrate on what they actually CAN do.

Whatever that may be.

Re:Not their core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202457)

Whatever that may be
 
Apparently it's shoveling $100 bills into a furnace. I'm sure there's a market for that somewhere.

Re:Not their core competency (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47203937)

Apparently it's shoveling $100 bills into a furnace. I'm sure there's a market for that somewhere.

Government contractor.

Re:Not their core competency (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47208057)

Godaddy is now our government?

Shooting Elephants (1)

sjwest (948274) | about 2 months ago | (#47202523)

If the only place i could get 'x' was from godaddy, i would not use 'x'.

Any investor who think television advertising = a business without competition clearly is stupid,

Re: Not their core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204129)

What about their business name? It seems it was shouted by a stripper getting shish ka-Bobed, Bob being the CEO? go daddy, go. She was sexually abused is suspect.

The summary really says it all (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47201773)

Founder Bob Parsons, currently executive chairman, will be stepping down but remaining on the board of directors.

Well, there's your problem. Until Parsons is well and truly out of the business, I can't imagine there's going to be any serious turnaround.

Re:The summary really says it all (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47201793)

I think the only turnaround we'll see in that company is along the roll axis.

I.e. going belly-up.

Re:The summary really says it all (2)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 months ago | (#47202087)

I think you're probably right, and I'm not going to shed a tear when it happens. I might raise a toast, though.

Isn't that SMILING BOB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201805)

THe guy that pushes those little dick pills?

Suggestion for a profitable GoDaddy (2)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 months ago | (#47201827)

They should fire all their marketing executives and build a simple website, and try online marketing instead. They can employ tools like, you knoe, Search Engine Optimisation, Website building tools etc. etc.

Whenever I look at the ugly girls dancing in the GoDaddy ads I can see where they keep losing more and more millions.

Re:Suggestion for a profitable GoDaddy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202429)

Whenever I look at the ugly girls dancing in the GoDaddy ads I can see where they keep losing more and more millions.

Sorry, not everyone can look as good as your mom :)

Re:Suggestion for a profitable GoDaddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204923)

Please, we don't want GoDaddy to be profitable. We want them to go away. Bankruptcy sounds like a good method to achieve that.

Go-Daddy Bottom Feeder (2)

upuv (1201447) | about 2 months ago | (#47201891)

This company has been a lowbrow bottom feeder since the beginning.

At first glance the pricing looks OK. But soon you realize you are fenced in. You find out your domain is held hostage by lack of features. Features that are ransomed off.

Buying Go-Daddy is purely a speculative exercise that is not backed by history or sane projections.

Re:Go-Daddy Bottom Feeder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203097)

On top of that, you have their technical incompetence. Either nobody there understands IPv6 or DNSSEC, or the few who do are fire walled away from those who communicate with customers. I had used GoDaddy for years, but after trying to get them to add a DS record and being given every lame excuse in the world, I switched to GANDI. A minute or so after the transfer was done, I got my DS record added.

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202013)

I'd like to think this is continuing backlash from their SOPA support.

But more likely it's just that they suck at business (too low pricing and too much advertising to the wrong audience).

To be fair... Uber's "valuation" is at $17 billion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202101)

$100M actually seams like a tame/sane ask in this market (mind you, I haven't even bothered to look at the prospectus).

Oh no! (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 months ago | (#47202205)

Surely once they are publicly traded, their days of being ethical and not evil will be at an end.

Since 2009? You don't say! (4, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 months ago | (#47202277)

Gee, I wonder what could have effected their profitablity since that year.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]

potentially profitable (0)

confused one (671304) | about 2 months ago | (#47202807)

the stock has potential to be profitable. Wait for the IPO excitement to wane and the stock to crash. Then, and the timing is critical here, buy a big chunk when the price is really low. When the inevitable occurs, and the new management team comes on board, the stock will begin to rise and ... Profit!

GoDaddy. (1)

kiphat (809902) | about 2 months ago | (#47202833)

I'll buy THAT for a dollar!

Re:GoDaddy. (1)

Mondor (704672) | about 2 months ago | (#47204595)

At first I thought to out-bid you. But then the common sense prevailed, so I pass.

Never use them except when below cost (1)

Que_Ball (44131) | about 2 months ago | (#47203009)

Personally I avoid using Godaddy unless there is one of those sales where they are selling domain registration or transfers at below cost.

I have registered a fair number of domains with them at the $1 to $5 price points you can sometimes get and when a decent coupon for transfer comes up from someone better like Namecheap I transfer them away.  Godaddy looses money on the deal.  I might transfer those domains back into godaddy on another below cost transfer deal but I just transfer it back out again if I find another deal or if the renewal is approaching.  I have never paid them the normal cost of renewal.  Every time I have done any business with them it's below the approximately $7.85 cost they are paying to the central registry.

So if you advocate a boycott of Godaddy that's fine.  But if you want to hurt them even more then take advantage of their below cost coupons when you can and actually cost the company money but remember to transfer those domains away again when you can.

wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203287)

i thought godaddy was looking for a buyer, not planning an ipo?

Re:wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204613)

They couldn't find a single rich idiot. Apparently, they need quite a few less well-fed investors.

Re:wtf? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 months ago | (#47204713)

i thought godaddy was looking for a buyer, not planning an ipo?

It comes down to the same thing, except that the public is the buyer. It all depends on whether they are diluting the current share pool, or the current shareholders are trying to sell.

SOPA (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 months ago | (#47203437)

When it came out that they were supporting SOPA I pulled my domains and moved them to Namecheap. One of the best things I ever did.

As part of the process they put a lock on a couple of my domains for some reason. They claimed it was because I changed some account information, which I didn't.

When that happened I complained to the AG in the state they are incorporated in. When that hit the fan some VP called me personally to expedite the transfer. So basically you can put some leverage on them through the AG.

Re:SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203545)

Slashdot: where Snowden is less important than faux moral outrage over some dumb TV commercial.

Re:SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47208097)

soylentnews.org

Don't forget SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203553)

I think the big blow of $279 came from the great support that GoDaddy made to SOPA, which ended up meaning its death. I took my last blocked domain from them after a long struggle to retrieve it from the MyPrivacy lock.
http://beta.slashdot.org/story/162304

Don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203683)

GoDaddy were also pro-SOPA. I wouldn't go near them if I could help it.

The enemy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204239)

Go daddy is the enemy. They have violated rights and did a lot of censorship of the net and freedom. Many hacker collectives including Anonymous have struck them.

So stop trying to make Danica Patrick look hot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204399)

She's a ug-mo, and not that great of a race car driver.

There, I probably just saved you $100M.

I have an idea (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 months ago | (#47204401)

Maaaaaaaaybe they should change their corporate image from "trashy and unprofessional sexist pigs and perverts" to something that, oh I don't know, maybe business might find attractive. You know, businesses...the people that buy things from them. They're not selling Mountain Dew and tacos, they're selling professional IT services!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>