MLG raises $11.3m in additional funding - Page 2
Forum Index > SC2 General |
PHILtheTANK
United States1834 Posts
| ||
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:49 crms wrote: *paging business experts* So.. with seamingly all of their revenue coming from VC, is this good? I know many companies start up with VC and eventually get a sustainable model so they can stand on their feet, the VC's get a nice ROI and everyone walks into the sunset. However, MLG has been around 10+ years (correct?) and it seems like they still can't generate enough internal revenue (is this the correct term?) to be sustainable. Eventually VC dries up, right? What is so different from the dreaded 'sponsorship model' and the 'VC model'? It seems about the same to a laymen like me. I think some of the big risks MLG has taken lately like a high priced PPV is perhaps due to itchy VC's wanting to see some type of return or proof that MLG can be profitable? What kind of longevity does MLG have if all of their funding is coming from VCs? The fact that they 'sold' another 11.3 (want 13) million in VC a good sign? Good because investors still care about MLG and think it's worth while? Or a bad sign, that MLG still can't be profitable on their own and still need to reach out to VCs? Thanks in advance if any expert can answer my queries. <3 If they were doing so well that they didn't want VC anymore (because they didn't want to lose the partial ownership) then that would definitely be substantially better. But, given that they're not making money on their own yet, this is very good news. It means they have the money to last a while longer. It also means that these VC experts that invested in them believe that they will end up profitable enough to make it worth the money (and they've presumably gotten to see all their books and everything, so that's a pretty good sign for those of us who don't know enough to have our own opinion). | ||
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
Good for them. Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV. | ||
battyone
United States180 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote: How exactly did they accumulate this money? Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV. They offered shares of MLG or options to purchase shares at a later date, while the company is not publically traded they are able to offer ownership in exchange for money. It's all private/venture capital investment. This is not a statement of revenue, but it is interesting to note they're in the 5-25million/year catagory. *EDIT -- Basically this is not a statement of revnue, but a declaration that they sold ownership/options to private investors. | ||
Sufinsil
United States760 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:38 carloselcoco wrote: What is AMBI LLC? Were they the investors? AMBI Limited Liability Corporation is just MLG. | ||
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote: How exactly did they accumulate this money? Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV. PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol | ||
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:55 battyone wrote: They offered shares of MLG or options to purchase shares at a later date, while the company is not publically traded they are able to offer ownership in exchange for money. It's all private/venture capital investment. This is not a statement of revenue, but it is interesting to note they're in the 5-25million/year catagory. Thank you, that's what i suspected. | ||
GeorgeyBeats
United Kingdom338 Posts
| ||
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:56 Mohdoo wrote: PPV being a huge success showed that MLG as an organization has what it takes to become a successful business. Sundance is the first one to be able to bring this much growth to e-sports, and people are noticing. But of course people on Reddit will say he's just filling his pockets lolol The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. | ||
Mrvoodoochild1
United States1439 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:54 JOJOsc2news wrote: Raised money for MLG and their eSports products. Good for them. Not sure about the link everyone sees to PPV. Sundance said on LO3 that he needed to show investors that Esports could be profitable. MLG has said that their PPV model for the Arena was very successful which would lead you to believe that companies that were unsure of Esports are now on board or at the very least more interested and willing to throw money at MLG. | ||
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:49 crms wrote: *paging business experts* So.. with seamingly all of their revenue coming from VC, is this good? I know many companies start up with VC and eventually get a sustainable model so they can stand on their feet, the VC's get a nice ROI and everyone walks into the sunset. However, MLG has been around 10+ years (correct?) and it seems like they still can't generate enough internal revenue (is this the correct term?) to be sustainable. Eventually VC dries up, right? What is so different from the dreaded 'sponsorship model' and the 'VC model'? It seems about the same to a laymen like me. I think some of the big risks MLG has taken lately like a high priced PPV is perhaps due to itchy VC's wanting to see some type of return or proof that MLG can be profitable? What kind of longevity does MLG have if all of their funding is coming from VCs? The fact that they 'sold' another 11.3 (want 13) million in VC a good sign? Good because investors still care about MLG and think it's worth while? Or a bad sign, that MLG still can't be profitable on their own and still need to reach out to VCs? Thanks in advance if any expert can answer my queries. <3 I think one of the most important things to take into consideration when it comes to the possible longevity of MLG is the exponential growth they've experienced in the past year and a half or so. From online content to live events to taking better care of players monetarily, MLG has been ramping up on all fronts. From a financial perspective, the MLG of today is a very different sort of company than, say, MLG circa 2008, and a lot of potential investors are going to be smart enough to differentiate between the two in terms of forecasting success. | ||
battyone
United States180 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote: The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. As a counterpoint this encourages people to get friends over/share the expense. A lot more people out at barcrafts, or being with friends is not a bad thing. If you're paying $20 to watch a weekend, you're gonna call some buddies over, have some beers and maybe just maybe more people will get into it. There is a balance between free and PPV that can be acheived (look @ WWF/WWE or UFC for example), and I don't see the PPV model as determential. With that being said this is a bit derailing to the thread, maybe you can get someone from MLG on your show so we can discuss further ![]() | ||
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:59 JOJOsc2news wrote: The PPV model doesn't bring growth to eSports. People who weren't into the eSports scene/SC2 scene are not going to join the community over paying $20 for something they don't necessarily appreciate yet. They get involved through events that they can access for free. Events that raise their interest and passion about eSports. That's how you get growth. PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene? | ||
![]()
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
Even though I think that it ultimately is the team's job to support their players, I don't mind MLG giving them a helping hand as long as competitive gaming isn't big enough yet so that teams can attract big sponsors. | ||
Grovbolle
Denmark3805 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:53 aristarchus wrote: If they were doing so well that they didn't want VC anymore (because they didn't want to lose the partial ownership) then that would definitely be substantially better. But, given that they're not making money on their own yet, this is very good news. It means they have the money to last a while longer. It also means that these VC experts that invested in them believe that they will end up profitable enough to make it worth the money (and they've presumably gotten to see all their books and everything, so that's a pretty good sign for those of us who don't know enough to have our own opinion). As someone who have taken 1 finance class (so no expert) I have to say that this sounds like a correct response ![]() | ||
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:01 battyone wrote: As a counterpoint this encourages people to get friends over/share the expense. A lot more people out at barcrafts, or being with friends is not a bad thing. If you're paying $20 to watch a weekend, you're gonna call some buddies over, have some beers and maybe just maybe more people will get into it. There is a balance between free and PPV that can be acheived (look @ WWF/WWE or UFC for example), and I don't see the PPV model as determential. With that being said this is a bit derailing to the thread, maybe you can get someone from MLG on your show so we can discuss further ![]() Good point! I am not against MLG going for PPV but saying that PPV is the reason why people invest in eSports is simply not entirely true. Growth of eSports is also not directly linked to PPV. I think it's too early to really understand the effects of the model on the scene. I guess the fact that MLG was able to secure funding is a good sign for them. As long as PPV is not the norm, the model can work for certain companies. I agree, let's not discuss this any more detail here as it is not the point of the thread. | ||
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
| ||
leecH
Germany385 Posts
| ||
UrielSC
Canada143 Posts
| ||
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:02 Mohdoo wrote: PPV was profitable. A profiting industry that doesn't rely solely on sponsors is good for said industry. Everyone involved with e-sports at a high level, such as EG management have all said that having financial independence will do tremendous things for the scene in general. Being so reliant on sponsorship makes the scene really fickle financially. A company like MLG showing that they can keep themselves afloat shows investors that someone competent is running the gig and that they can make money for investors. How can you say that financial independence isn't empowering to the scene? It's not exactly financial independence that has been achieved here. But I agree, financial independence is always empowering. I was talking about growth in numbers (consumers). I also agree that the cash flow in the scene needs to change to a more stable and sustainable revenue system. PPV is one option, certainly not the only one. I'd say we stop discussing that here as it is not necessarily the topic of this thread. Feel free to PM me if you want to keep exchanging ideas about this. | ||
| ||