Talk:Groupon/Archives/2015

Gnome trademarks

"Help the GNOME Foundation defend the GNOME trademark against Groupon!" --AVRS (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• {{cite web|url=http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTc1MjI|title=GNOME Stakeholders Take Issue With Groupon Over their Gnome|date=30 июл 2014|lang=en|work=[[Phoronix]]|accessdate=11 ноя 2014}} --AVRS (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Solved

• https://www.groupon.com/blog/cities/gnome-update
• https://www.gnome.org/news/2014/11/groupon-has-agreed-to-change-its-product-name/

--AVRS (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Competitors

Perhaps more details about why Living Social and other daily deal websites are competitors to Groupon. Especially Livingsocial, which is currently viewed as Groupon closest competitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togepi010 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV and COI

I have compiled a series of small changes (updating far outdated information) and large changes (adding entire categories/products) for this page that are long overdue. Many of the most recent updates to this page are from 2012, which is eons ago for a technology company, so I believe these changes will be helpful and thoroughly uncontroversial as they will all be well sourced. I'll start with a few to begin with instead of just dumping everything at once in the hopes that approach fosters a better conversation and community approval.

The reason I want to introduce these changes here first is because I have a potential conflict of interest with Groupon. I am an employee of the company looking to update and improve the far outdated content of this article. All of my suggested changes will be sourced with public information and I ask for input and seek consensus on them. Please don't hesitate to reach me at my talk page if you have any direct questions for me.

First, I want to tackle five statements that do not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and are in most cases four years old. I petition they be removed/updated as nearly all are not WP:NPOV and, in the case of Rocky Agrawal citations, offer personal opinion from a reporter that disclosed he had shorted Groupon's stock at the time of making the statements, which I'm sure you agree makes those comments WP:COI . The selections are listed below, with alternative text if the community does not agree they should be removed.

1. OPENING: However, a report from Forrester Research in October 2011 suggested that the Groupon business model was a "disaster" and that the firm had become an example of "how fast an Internet darling can fall."[11]

• 1 EDIT. This sort of editorial opinion from one study does not, in my opinion, belong in an introduction to a company. If the community does not support removal, the the following should be added, "At the end of December 2014, Groupon reached $7.6 billion in trailing-twelve months gross billings.

2. BUSINESS MODEL: Many merchants have believed that their Groupon deals would help them build a loyal customer base which shops directly with the merchant, without Groupon in the middle. However, in many cases a Groupon deal merely attracts one-time bargain hunters who are often put off by the full retail price (which would be at least double the price of a coupon that is discounted by at least 50%) and do not return until they encounter another Groupon deal that suits them.

• 2 EDIT. This is not sourced and violates WP:V and WP:NOT#ESSAY policies. Not only that, but a January 2015 ForeSee study on Groupon customers showed that in fact 84% say they are likely to return to the merchant again. I am not currently petitioning to add that fact, but first want to make sure #2 has a consensus for removal.

3. BUSINESS MODEL: In a 2011 TechCrunch analysis of Groupon, writer Rakesh Agrawal likened its business model to loansharking. As well as being a bad deal for most merchants, he argued, it imperiled the company's long-term prospects. "Groupon is essentially holding a portfolio of loans backed by the receivables of small businesses," he wrote. "If a business goes under, consumers will come back to Groupon for their money back. Unless Groupon is actually doing credit assessments on businesses that it chooses to feature, this is a big risk for Groupon." Only a merchant on the verge of bankruptcy could reasonably expect to come out ahead from a Groupon deal. "If you're lucky, the upfront cash will be enough to help you stay afloat. If not, well, you were already going out of business. It may be your best option."[44]

• 3 EDIT. Rakesh Agrawal's comments should be removed under WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies because he published his POV while simultaneously shorting Groupon's stock. If the community does not agree and wants to keep his commentary in the article, I petition to add the following to this paragraph: Contrarty to Agrawal's statements, more than 80% of deal campaigns on Groupon are profitable immediately, and Groupon had $1.1 billion in cash and cash equivalents with no long term debt as of the full year 2014.

4. BUSINESS MODEL: When the company reported in the second quarter of 2012 that its revenues had declined along with customer growth and the amount of money existing customers spent on the site, Slate tech journalist Farhad Manjoo said Agrawal had been vindicated.[45] "I told you so", Agrawal tweeted.[46]

• 4 EDIT. The self-proclaimed vindication of an opinion on the company by a reporter via a tweet is not WP:NPOV. It approaches WP:NOT#ESSAY as well as WP:NOTPROMOTION. While the comment on 2Q12 earnings is correct, I believe there are strong grounds to delete the rest of the vindication comment. If the community disagrees, then I petition to add the following at the end of this paragraph: Agrawal's prediction, however, did not ring true as a more recent snapshot of the company shows consolidated revenue growing 24% year-over-year in 2014. This is in conjunction with active customers reaching an all-time high of 53.9 million, active deals reaching ~370,000 globally and more than 950,000 merchants having been featured on Groupon as of Q4 2014.

5. INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING FILING: Some analysts claim that Groupon operates "like" a Ponzi scheme, according to interpretation of Initial public offering (IPO) documentation, because it has publicly disclosed that it is losing approximately US$100 million per quarter, has a net negative balance of $230 million, and is using later investors' money to pay off earlier investors.[93]

• 5 EDIT. This statement is in present tense and is four years old - it should be updated with the following if the community agrees: This assessment was proven to be incorrect, as Groupon earned nearly $3.2 billion in consolidated revenue in 2014 and had $1.1 billion in cash and cash equivalents at the end of 2014.

Mcgrawt (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mcgrawt (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC) The community has had a little over a month to potentially comment on these supported and sourced edits, I'll move forward with their inclusion. Please post any concerns, I will continue to make my suggested edits available here on the talk page before making article changes.

IPO Clarifications

There are two entries within the IPO section that should be edited to make them correct or improve the organization of the article. I've detailed those changes below and will welcome a week of review by the community before making the changes. I've also made several updates to outdated information (mainly changing present tense to past tense) that are fact-based and non controversial in nature. As I mentioned in previous entries, I am offering these edits here first for discussion because I have a potential conflict of interest with Groupon. I am an employee of the company looking to update and improve the far outdated content of this article. All of my suggested changes will be sourced with public information and I ask for input and seek consensus on them. Please don't hesitate to reach me at my talk page if you have any direct questions for me.

1. Analysts also criticized Groupon's decision to pay out over $940 million of the $1.12 billion in venture capital Groupon had raised before the IPO - over 84% of its venture capital raised - as cash payouts to its 3 founders and early backers, rather than into the money-losing company. Co-founder Eric Lefkofsky alone received over $300 million in early 2011, just weeks before the company filed its IPO paperwork.[93] The large cash payout also made Groupon technically insolvent when it filed for its IPO.[94]

• 1 EDIT. The payment referenced in this entry was in January and the IPO paperwork was filed in June. Obviously, these events are months apart, not three weeks. I suggest the following edit: Analysts also criticized Groupon's decision to pay out over $940 million of the $1.12 billion in venture capital Groupon had raised before the IPO - over 84% of its venture capital raised - as cash payouts to its 3 founders and early backers, rather than into the company. Co-founder Eric Lefkofsky alone received over $300 million in early 2011.[93] The large cash payout also made Groupon technically insolvent when it filed for its IPO.[94]

2. On Wednesday, July 11, 2012, just eight months after the company went public, Groupon's stock hit its lowest level since IPO at $7.72 and closed at $7.77.[98] On Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Groupon's stock price dropped 27% and fell as low as $5.49.[99] On Tuesday, September 3, 2012, Groupon's stock price closed at another all time low at $4.15 dropping almost 80% below Groupon's IPO price ($20).[100]

• 2 EDIT. This entry is redundant with other entries on Groupon's stock price and is discussed already in the financials section, where a low price is mentioned. These sentences are unimportant when compared to those other entries, and they also have nothing to do with the actual IPO. I suggest that they be removed from this section.

Mcgrawt (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)