![\"bythenumbers\"](\"http:\/\/redmonk.com\/rstephens\/files\/2016\/06\/bythenumbers.jpg\")
<\/p>\nThis edition of By the Numbers is comprised of figures that initially intrigued me but for various reasons became things I was hesitant to highlight. I was originally going to scrap the whole post until a great conversation this week about \u201cshowing your scar tissue.\u201d In the interest of practicing what we preach, I\u2019m pushing through some of my reservations and hitting publish anyway.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(Photo credit: Flickr\/morebyless<\/a> under CC-BY 2.0)<\/span><\/sup><\/sub><\/p>\n Online retailer Alibaba<\/a> boasted its largest ever \u2018Singles\u2019 Day\u2019 shopping event last week, selling RMB 120.7B in gross merchandise volume<\/a> on 11-11-16.<\/p>\n How much is that in U.S. dollars? Great question, and the answer depends on which outlet you ask. The consensus ranges between $17.7B – $17.8B, with various reputable sources showing values at $17.7B<\/a>, $17.73<\/a>, and $17.8B<\/a>. While these discrepancies are likely attributable to using different exchange rates for the conversion, it\u2019s problematic because 1) the figures become even more convoluted once outlets begin reporting growth rates using disparate absolute values over multiple years and 2) it seems worth noting when $100,000,000 becomes a rounding error.<\/p>\n Discrepancies aside, what is even more concerning are the wider questions into the validity of the gross merchandise volume figure in the first place. The SEC initiated an investigation<\/a> into Alibaba\u2019s financial reporting techniques in May that includes their GMV calculations. The investigation is still ongoing and the SEC allegedly has the cooperation of at least one \u2018high-up\u2019 whistleblower<\/a> (though the company denies<\/a> there is \u201cany factual basis\u201d to that claim.)<\/p>\n Critics of the gross merchandise volume figure state that GMV \u201cisn\u2019t defined under accounting standards and doesn\u2019t include products returns<\/a>.\u201d There are also concerns that the figure includes canceled orders or other methods that otherwise inflate the figure, and that the number doesn\u2019t accurately reflect the financial position of the company. Even Alibaba agrees that GMV \u201cdoesn\u2019t represent our true identity<\/a>\u201d and is working to downplay the number.<\/p>\n Factoring in the above caveats of USD discrepancies and the questionable value of the GMV figure itself, here\u2019s how it\u2019s grown since the event\u2019s inception in 2009. Even if the numbers themselves are dubious, I still find the trajectory interesting.<\/p>\n Giphy<\/a> raised a $72M round of capital, indicating that the company is valued at $600M<\/a>. This doubles the company\u2019s projected value from its $300M valuation during its last funding round in February<\/a>.<\/p>\n The ultimate reason this number is \u2018scar tissue\u2019 is that I feel utterly unqualified to provide worthwhile commentary on the world of venture capital. How is the company worth twice as much as it was just a few months ago when the company has yet to earn any revenue at all? I\u2019m not sure I\u2019m the right person to answer that. I\u2019m not an expert; everything from here forward is me sharing an ongoing learning process.<\/p>\n User growth seems to be the oft-sited driving force behind the valuation. Giphy\u2019s 2016 State of the GIF<\/a> claims that it serves one billion GIFs per day to over 100 million daily active users, totaling two million total hours of GIFs viewed daily.<\/p>\n A billion gifs a day served by @giphy<\/a>. That's crazy. #FS16sf<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/i8KhhVPEOp<\/a><\/p>\n — Richard Seroter (@rseroter) November 17, 2016<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n$17.8B*<\/h2>\n
![\"alibaba_singles_day\"](\"http:\/\/redmonk.com\/rstephens\/files\/2016\/11\/alibaba.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n$600M<\/h2>\n
\n