

Indeed, An Almost Entirely Bootstrapped Job Search Giant, Gets A Monster Exit - nabraham
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Indeed-An-Almost-Entirely-Bootstrapped-Job-3892538.php

======
ecaron
Bootstrapping (adj): a self-sustaining process that proceeds without external
help.

Not bootstrapping: $5M in VC.

There is no "partially bootstrapped," you either are or aren't. Can somebody
update the headline?

~~~
vonmoltke
_"They had bootstrapped the company, launched the service, and were well on
their way. They didn't need our money. But eventually we convinced them to
take it," USV's Fred Wilson writes._

Looks like the headline is based on this quote. Still doesn't make them
bootstrapped, but it does seem like the $5M was just a safety net, not a
requirement.

~~~
davidwparker
I disagree. Take GitHub for example. They just raised $100M in VC. That
doesn't take away from the fact that they bootstrapped from April 2008 until
July 2012.

Not bootstrapping is taking early Angel/VC funding in order to run the
company.

~~~
vonmoltke
True. Indeed actually does fit the definition given above, since they did not
require the VC money to start and run the company. Sometimes I post faster
than I think.

~~~
ecaron
Except Indeed got the VC infusion in 2005, and only after that did they start
becoming a recognizable player in the industry (if my personal experience in
the industry isn't enough of a source for this, see
[http://www.google.com/trends/?q=indeed.com&geo=usa&s...](http://www.google.com/trends/?q=indeed.com&geo=usa&sa=N))

~~~
vonmoltke
From Fred Wilson's blog announcing the partnership[1]:

 _To Paul and Rony’s credit, during that seven month courtship, they have
built Indeed into the leader in the job search market. Their competitors will
probably take exception to that comment, but our analysis of traffic, jobs
indexed, and name recognition indicates that Indeed is the leader in pure job
search._

They did not need the money to start and maintain the business. What their
growth rate was before and after the investment is irrelevant; they were a
sustainable business without the VC money. Sure, the infusion of money and
intangibles gained from having Union Square Ventures as an investor helped
propel their rise, and may well have been necessary to push it to a $1B
valuation by today. However, it was not necessary for the business[2].

[1] <http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2005/08/indeed.html>

[2] Based on publicly-available information

~~~
ecaron
> However, it was not necessary for the business

I don't think anyone is arguing that Indeed would still exist had the $5M not
come around. The point is that the $5M helped Indeed purchase the
traffic/partnerships necessary to make it the #1 job search site on the
internet. And without that money, they couldn't have bought their way to their
current size - and their current size is reasons 1, 2 and 3 they were
acquired.

------
jwomers
Wow, great story! That said, I really wouldn't say that getting a $5 million
round is bootstrapping..

------
hack_edu
Wow! Of all acquisitions to come out lately, this makes me most happy. Who
needs seed money when you have the best product out there.

Congrats to Indeed and their whole team.

~~~
senoff
This is true but it also means you have to be prepared to finance yourself for
quite some time. Not everyone can do that. Also, by the time these guys took
money they did it to get experience, connections and sponsorship.

------
marcamillion
Looks like a major win for Fred Wilson. It is testament to the value he brings
when a company doesn't need to raise money (and probably is not even looking)
- but takes your money anyway.

------
ivankirigin
The author doesn't know the price.

    
    
      The acquisition price wasn't announced but you can bet it was for close to, 
      if not more than, $1 billion

~~~
patio11
Ooh, let me put on my reporter hat: is there a publicly traded company
involved? Yes? Then there should be _copious_ disclosures getting made here.
Let's see, bought out by Recruit, that should have made the papers today
here...

<http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20120926-00000021-jij-int>

This is a blurb about Recruit (a Japanese company) making the acquisition,
sourced to a NYT filing with the SEC. The NYT is a shareholder.

That filing should be public. Sure enough:

[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000119312512402...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000119312512402528/d415408d8k.htm)

 _On September 25, 2012, Indeed.com, a job listing aggregator, announced that
it will be acquired by Recruit Co. Ltd. In connection with the transaction,
The New York Times Company will sell all of its remaining interest in
Indeed.com and expects to record an estimated after-tax gain of approximately
$100 million in the fourth quarter of 2012._

Now let's play "Guess what percentage the NYT owned." My guess is "below 10%",
on the basis that a) this makes sense for a three-way Series A round
(Crunchbase) and b) I have the vague impression that if they owned more than
~10% that would be in their Annual Report next to the discussion of their
other joint ventures and investments where they own e.g. 17.5% of a sports
company. Indeed.com is mentioned in no annual report of the Times since 2005,
and has also failed to appear in any SEC filing except when they liquidated a
"minor portion" of their stake for $5.9 million back in 2011, so I'm assuming
they've got a substantial stake but not enough to trigger reporting
requirements.

Quick math suggests, yep, a billion bucks at the low end.

~~~
senoff
Excellent due diligence. If you just take the revenues and expenses and
project them out a bit it's not hard to see $1B in value.

------
SeoxyS
This is some really sloppy headline-writing right here. Not only is the
company not bootstrapped, but in the context of job search, it seems to imply
that Monster (the job listing website) was a party to the deal.

~~~
rexreed
Agreed - I thought that Monster was the acquirer or somehow Monster was
involved.

------
rexreed
Since when does taking $5M in VC mean bootstrapped? Well, judging from the
comments, it seems that many perceive bootstrapping only applies to the early
stages of the company. But I find that hard to stomach as someone who is also
bootstrapping a company. When you bootstrap, you use your own revenues to
finance growth. Getting investors is an alternative to that strategy. I don't
see how you can both bootstrap AND have investors.

Looking at it differently, maybe they didn't need the capital, but they took
it. You don't just accidentally get $5M from Union Square... term sheets
happen. Lawyers are involved. Cap tables are adjusted. That doesn't happen
when you bootstrap. It happens when you use other people's money to finance
growth. AKA not bootstrapping.

That being said, it seems they did this particularly intelligently and Union
Square was a fabulous choice for everyone involved.

------
WillyF
Indeed is one of my business' main revenue streams, so I was relieved to see
that they'll be kept as a wholly owned subsidiary. The rumor last night was
that LinkedIn was going to buy Indeed, and that scared the crap out of me.

------
JL2010
Having used Indeed during tough times I am happy for their success. It's a
great search engine and without it I'm certain that my job-searching
productivity would not have been as high as it was back when I was looking -
which is crucial when trying to pump out as many (good quality) applications
as you can to increase your chances of an interview.

I love their product and it's still the first site I visit when I'm curious
about what's available in different areas. Congrats to the team!

------
aaronbrethorst
The title is still misleading. Upon reading it, I was wondering why on Earth
the SF Gate was writing about the value of Twitter's web UI toolkit...

