Slashdot Mirror


Groupon Is Closing Operations In 7 Countries, Laying Off 1,100

New submitter joesreviewss writes: Groupon is laying off about 10% of its workforce and is shutting down operations in seven countries. 1,100 people worldwide will be let go and the company will take a pre-tax charge of $35 million in the process. A Groupon statement reads in part: "Let’s be clear: these are tough actions to take, especially when we believe we’re stronger than ever. We’re doing all we can to make these transitions as easy as possible, but it’s not easy to lose some great members of the Groupon family. Yet just as our business has evolved from a largely hand-managed daily deal site to a true ecommerce technology platform, our operational model has to evolve. Evolution is hard, but it’s a necessary part of our journey. It’s also part of our DNA as a company and is one of the things that will help us realize our vision of creating the daily habit in local commerce."

107 comments

  1. "We're stronger than ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds like something Baghdad Bob would have said. Groupon is dying, just like *BSD. Kids, this is what happens when your business model sucks.

    1. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still wonder why this became slashdot news. It's not for nerds, it's just about some marketing company selling all kinds of junk that is no different from what you get in any random outlet.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but ON THE INTERNET. And only geeks get on that.

    3. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by LaurenCates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, look at it like this: Groupon was at the forefront of a new business model, started because the internet enabled it. It wouldn't have worked as well by any other method of communication.

      The part that nerds might be interested in is how the wind shifts as to the ways people connect and do business. Are people looking to get deals in real-time? What's the turnaround time on a web-only deal to get the best possible value? Can you get a group of random strangers (rather than a group of friends) to all hop on a deal at once? Can you look at the data to see where this strategy works best, and where it works worst? Can you develop an alternate business model for sparsely-populated areas to get good deals the way people can in cities?

      There are always data to look at where money is involved. Always.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    4. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      it's just about some marketing company selling all kinds of junk that is no different from what you get in any random outlet.

      That's not obvious for everyone. And thanks to you, and your insightful modded post, more people are aware of the true nature of that news.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's just about some marketing company selling all kinds of junk

      So... it's like Google?

    6. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It mustn't have worked very well anyway because this article was the first time I did hear about their existence. The world and net is filled with mediocrity.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    7. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Groupon is a tech startup. Don't be a faggot.

    8. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by snookiex · · Score: 1

      The actual news here is that GroupOn needed more than 10 persons to work.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    9. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's like the owners of Slashdot?

    10. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are stronger than ever.... at the C-level. This will allow them to have more pay and bigger golden parachutes when the whole company collapses.

    11. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by MarkvW · · Score: 2

      Groupon needed WAY more than 10 people to work. You can't forget the salespeople. Groupon was all about getting businesses to sign on the bottom line . Without salespeople to sell the snake oil, it cannot succeed.

    12. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I saw their web site and realized that it's just another snake oil site, I have seen enough to recognize the smell from a long distance away.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    13. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The idea was to get people to come to your business, and then come back. The reality is people use the coupon and then go on to the next coupon and never look back.

      Small businesses try groupon once, lose money, and the end.

    14. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I would bet you are in the minority. I am not a coupon shopper and even I heard of them. Most of my coworkers and friends use it often.

      Maybe it is a class thing? These are coupons that we are talking about (and coupons that you have to buy to use.) My friends and I (well not me anymore) make around 40,000 or less - which is livable wage in Texas, but does not leave a lot of disposable income.

    15. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      How is it snake oil? It does not pretend to be anything other than what it is. I have purchased a few groupons. As long as you are willing to plan ahead, you can save a lot of money using them - especially when it comes to restaurants, bowling, and car washes.

    16. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The part that nerds might be interested in is how the wind shifts as to the ways people connect and do business.

      Interesting to the nerds who weren't around during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s. Those of us who were around back then have seen this all before.

      Are people looking to get deals in real-time? What's the turnaround time on a web-only deal to get the best possible value? Can you get a group of random strangers (rather than a group of friends) to all hop on a deal at once? Can you look at the data to see where this strategy works best, and where it works worst?

      Whether you believe in Groupon or not, someone had to try it to establish once and for all whether or not the idea works. It was an interesting experiment on adding liquidity to the customer-business relationship. And I'll admit despite initially being dismissively skeptical, I've actually started frequenting some businesses after being introduced to them via Groupon (hey, just because I don't believe in them doesn't mean I'm going to pass up a coupon for 50% off of something I was going to buy anyway). I still don't think their business model is sustainable, but I do admit there is something to it - some pent-up demand that maybe could be tapped with a different model. Maybe a low-overhead site which allows businesses and groups of customers to negotiate a group price directly.

    17. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by zyzko · · Score: 1

      The snake oil part is where Groupon salesperson is selling the idea to the restaurant, bowling alley or carwash that they will get you as a valuable returning customer by offering you a good deal this one time.

    18. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      It is not snake oil at all, as far as the customer goes. But Groupon's customer isn't the customer of the business. Groupon's customer is the business itself. Their salespeople must persuade the customer-business to (a) give Groupon money; and (b) give their customers discount coupons (at cost to themselves). That can be a very hard sell. That is why Groupon's salespeople are so extremely essential to its survival.

    19. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by pseudorand · · Score: 1

      Because jobs at companies with heavy tech footprints (I assume at least some of those 1,100 layoffs will be of IT workers) is always interesting to us nerds.

      I just turned down a job offer at a publicly-traded tech "startup" that doesn't pay dividends and who's profitability fluctuates widely from quarter to quarter. Including the restricted stock portion of the compensation package, it would have been a big raise -- assuming both that the stock didn't tank too much and I stayed employed long enough for it to vest. But those risks vs my current stable (as far as I know) position just didn't add up for me. And news like this reminds me exactly why I was too nervous to take the job.

      The CEO's statement, "we’re stronger than ever", is probably correct. AFTER laying of a bunch of people, they very well may be in a position to make some consistent profits and eventually pay a dividend. But how many of those 1,100 took the job over better alternatives because they had dollar signs in their eyes and hoped the stock they were getting would make them rich.

      This is news for nerds because we need remember to limit how much we let companies pawn off their potentially worthless stock on us in lue of real compensation.

    20. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be willing to wager that most nerds on slashdot were alive during the dot-com bubble, but didn't really understand it as it happened, because they were children.

    21. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      By that measure every company is a heavy tech footprint company today.

      I don't see them as very special or leading in any perspective.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    22. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Every so often the company makes the news because some business made a really stupid offer that cost them a lot of money. It's kind of like those pricing errors on Amazon except it's intentional and they have to honour the offer.

    23. Re:"We're stronger than ever" by pseudorand · · Score: 1

      By that measure every company is a heavy tech footprint company today.

      Which is why it's still pretty good to be in IT. The same can be said for accountants and lawyers -- every company basically has to have some.

      I'm also assuming that, being primarily a website, Groupon has at least a slightly higher than average percent of tech workers. And they're a startup at least in the sense that they've never paid a dividend. Since there are so many web-basted startups that employ us nerds, news about Groupon and similar is relevant on slashdot.

      .

  2. Should've taken Google's $6B offer by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Sure, they'd have lost their autonomy, but they'd have been a multi-unicorn and cashed out instead of losing money rapidly as people figured out that Groupon isn't very useful and was more or less a fad.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not so much that Groupon isn't useful, what they've always failed to do is convert the coupon users into repeat customers which frequently causes their clients to operate at a loss (making only the heavily-discounted deal and never cashing in on full-price sales).

    2. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well that is to say that their business model sucks.

      also, groupons business model was never about the actual customers. it was about selling to the companies that provided the stuff. with really, really heavy sales tactics and no regard to quality or if whoever provided the service could deliver. they would reimburse some of the cut price themselves too, to some, thus the high operating costs...

      but main cost was paying to sales people who would make deals with barbers etc that would swamp the barbers with more clients than they could handle. like instead of selling 20 coupons they would sell 400. flooding the business with low profit clients who were angry for not being able to get an appointment. lose lose for everyone except people who managed to sold stock in groupon.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One restaurant I know, they use groupon to get people in their restaurant. They don't make a profit on groupon users, and groupon users don't come back. However the more people are in their restaurant, the more people want to come into the restaurant when they walk by and look how busy it is.

    4. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by tlambert · · Score: 2

      SPAM has a conversion rate of 0.21%
      Search placement has a conversion rate of 0.22%
      Search advertising has a conversion rate of 0.04%

      GroupOn has a conversion rate down around that of search advertising; you're better off sending SPAM, hideous as that thought is...

    5. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Sure, they'd have lost their autonomy, but they'd have been a multi-unicorn and cashed out instead of losing money rapidly as people figured out that Groupon isn't very useful and was more or less a fad.

      Google's buyout offer never would have gone through. Once Google did some due diligence they would have backed out of the deal.

    6. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by N1AK · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that Groupon isn't useful, what they've always failed to do is convert the coupon users into repeat customers which frequently causes their clients to operate at a loss

      What Groupon does is sell heavily discounted coupons, something that attracts the kind of customers who are least likely to become repeat customers; so for that purpose it is exactly that "Groupon isn't useful". Pretty much the only use for Groupon seems to be ueful for is to churn & burn customers on artificially discounted products (likely a short-sighted use) or to cover costs when you have high fixed costs, low unit cost and low demand (for example during low season) but even those uses are often dubious.

    7. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      It's not so much that Groupon isn't useful, what they've always failed to do is convert the coupon users into repeat customers which frequently causes their clients to operate at a loss (making only the heavily-discounted deal and never cashing in on full-price sales).
      Flag as Inappropriate

      Groupon can be quite useful to customers, but they aren't useful to vendors, who don't see their loss-leader offers turn into regular customers. And unless they're useful to both, it can't survive in the long run.

    8. Re: Should've taken Google's $6B offer by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yeah so they're language skills aren't the best.

      I love irony.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re: Should've taken Google's $6B offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalization isn't unique to English.

    10. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The way I see it they had an awesome idea and ended up killing their own business by being too greedy. The barber example is perfect. Why not have the same barber sell 20 coupons every month for 2 years instead of selling 400 coupons in a single month, and not be able to fulfill them. The barber would be more able to actually meet the demand, and would be a repeat customer of Groupon, and would probably result in a few more repeat customers for the barber. They pushed businesses to sell more coupons than they could possibly deal with, which resulted in both Groupon and the business looking bad. The majority of stuff I see on Groupon now stuff like online courses that don't really have much in the way of increased costs for the extra business.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Groupon's business model involved giving horizon-level reports of 'deals' for consumers, who then helicopter in to the business offering the deal, get it, and swoop out, often never to return. Any idiot would figure this out quickly. It's the whole point of their business plan, from the POV of the consumer.

    12. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is the problem with greed, some people don't know when enough is enough...

      Lets say the founders had only 10% share of the company (after investors) when Google made that offer.

      That works out to $600 million each.

      But no, we're going to reject that because we're holding out for the billions and billions...

      If I could cash out my business for $600 million (or heck, $60 million), I'd retire tomorrow and make spending time with my family my new "job".

      I'd get a reasonable house out in the country, raise my kids, and enjoy life while I can.

      Lord, what happens to people that cause them to turn that down?

    13. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by DrXym · · Score: 1
      All that repeat customer bullshit was simply a lie to convince a small business to provide the same service on 1/4 of the the revenue. They also fucked over businesses in some cases by selling more vouchers than the business could ever possibly fulfil. All this was great for Groupon of course but terrible for the businesses.

      People who chase deals are by definition cheapskates. Once a business undermines its own value in the eyes of a customer they'll never pay full price again. In fact they'll never even come in again unless the place runs another groupon and in the meantime they'll be off somewhere else.

    14. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You used that word "reasonable". Most of those trying to build new-tech companies don't understand that word. Forced death-marches, forced cross-country relocations (move or lose your job), timelines that no one - even their competition - says you can meet. That's not reasonable. But it's all about the few founders and their attempt to break into the billionaire's club, employees and customers be damned...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    15. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      like instead of selling 20 coupons they would sell 400. flooding the business with low profit clients who were angry for not being able to get an appointment.

      This would be the fault of the barber for offering to many coupons. A lot of deals where limited to 20 or so.
      You can also say it is the fault of the consumer for not checking the business before buying a groupon for that business. Groupon really is the middle man here.

    16. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by Solandri · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that after Groupon spurned Google's $6 billion offer, Google put together their own discount program. And after a few years they shut it down. So even Google couldn't make it work.

    17. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that Groupon isn't useful, what they've always failed to do is convert the coupon users into repeat customers which frequently causes their clients to operate at a loss (making only the heavily-discounted deal and never cashing in on full-price sales).

      Groupon gets plenty of repeat customers. What they've failed to do is get repeat suppliers because coupon users are causing a loss for the suppliers because they aren't returning. Businesses have finally realised that Groupon isn't a loss leader, it's just a loss and have pulled up sticks. Its less expensive for them to not offer anything on Groupon.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    18. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is a multi-unicorn?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Should've taken Google's $6B offer by billstewart · · Score: 1

      It's a unicorn with multiple horns, obviously. Or it's a startup that hit multi-billion-dollar valuation, with or without any particularly good reason.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  3. Which countries you ask? by Liinux · · Score: 1

    "You likely saw that we recently exited Greece and Turkey. We are also ceasing operations in Morocco, Panama, The Philippines, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, Thailand and Uruguay."

    1. Re:Which countries you ask? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I for one, am very disappointed that my country isn't on the list.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. Bingo ! by eulernet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I detected a Bullshit Bingo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Seriously, their business is to rip off small businesses.
    Their service can only be used once, because even dumb businesses realize instantly that it doesn't attract regular customers.

    "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

    1. Re:Bingo ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... can't get fooled again."

      FTFY

    2. Re:Bingo ! by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Well at least they can only fool a company once... Shame on both parties for even that.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    3. Re:Bingo ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, their business is to rip off small businesses.

      I agree. If you're "stronger than ever" you don't just fire 10% of your workforce and close up operations in seven countries. Unless those seven countries are investigating you for shady business practices.

    4. Re:Bingo ! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Seriously, their business is to rip off small businesses.

      As opposed to what? You can't sell if no one's buying, and they can't buy if they don't have income. Wages have been in decline for decades now, so a company that doesn't rip off someone has little chance of success because your product, no matter how good, isn't more important than food. And small businesses typically have desperation, some remaining cash reserves to take, but not enough to put up a fight in court over misleading marketing, making them the ideal victims.

      Even Google ultimately amounts to a Red Queen's Race: you pay them to keep even with your competitors, who do the same. But as the total buying power of consumers continues to decline, so will the income from online advertising, so Google's business model is just as doomed as any other. Vultures acting in increasingly brazen bad faith will gorge themselves on the carcassess for a while, and then die in turn. As will the rest of us, since how many here can actually live off the land with no outside help, even in the form of defending said land from other desperate people?

      It's rather ironic: markets got so efficient they optimized away the spare income that was their engine. And now every further increase in efficiency only makes the situation worse, because one person's expenditure is another's income, so every cutting of costs further contracts economy in an uncontrollable tailspin that's approaching the point of no return: breakdown of basic life support systems and the resulting riots and revolutions. So I guess Marx got the last laugh after all.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Bingo ! by eulernet · · Score: 1

      I think you are too pessimistic.

      I don't really disagree with you, since it's obvious that money goes to people who already have money, and I see Apple making piles of cash, and keeping it to itself.
      At a given moment, the whole system will collapse, but is it really a bad thing ?

      I see the advertising model as a way to create a fake good reputation.
      It's easier to invent a good self-image and ignore what's wrong, and that's where Apple, Google and Facebook excel.

      Hey, you are starting to rub off on me !

    6. Re:Bingo ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toilet paper startup - only ever used once.

  5. Google got off lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at their website, their financial numbers say 135,000 active deal in North America, their website lists only about 9100.

    It lists about 36k of discount goods, that's the new business where they try to compete with Overstock and Costco. Do a search for their warehouses, and see if this is a $1 billion revenue business as claimed shipping those goods.

    http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-E2NTR/756215013x0x809105/CAFFC80B-7D05-4C47-9B5B-2AA969163735/Groupon_4Q14_Earnings_Release.pdf

    I know my views of Groupon, I view it like I viewed Wifi hotspot company GOWEX.

    Now they're sacking 1100 people and yet claim to have $1.1 billion dollars in cash/cash equivalents and $253.4 million in gross profits, and $3 billion+ in revenue??

    And meanwhile they're getting venture capital investments in India?? Why would they be doing that if they are sitting on so much cash?

    Its all very very very odd.

    1. Re:Google got off lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they're sacking 1100 people and yet claim to have $1.1 billion dollars in cash/cash equivalents and $253.4 million in gross profits, and $3 billion+ in revenue??

      And meanwhile they're getting venture capital investments in India?? Why would they be doing that if they are sitting on so much cash?

      Its all very very very odd.

      Investors want increased profitability which leads short-sighted management reducing staff headcount. I have seen this many times over my career, most notably since I moved from consulting to employee. These days employers should not be trusted beyond the twice-a-month paycheque.

  6. Groupon "family" by anti-pop-frustration · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but it’s not easy to lose some great members of the Groupon family

    Detestable corporate jargon. Your employer is not your family.

    1. Re:Groupon "family" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah: "Sorry, son, we just can't afford to keep you in the family. Goodbye and good luck. Thankfully we still have two other children in our family."

    2. Re:Groupon "family" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Groupon family is part of our DNA. Don't you get it?!

    3. Re:Groupon "family" by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

      but it’s not easy to lose some great members of the Groupon family

      Translation: I got mine. So long, sucker.

    4. Re:Groupon "family" by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Satellite/remote/foreign offices are always referred to as family. It's been part of the parlance of our times for decades (I believe the Dude said that).

      Yeah, it's a bastardization of the word, but it is being properly used. I would say using "family" in this manner is more like getting married. Groupon basically divorced the office's in the countries/territory listed (and they probably owe a bit of alimony as part of the deal, certainly in Puerto Rico I would think).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  7. Yet another company that does not need to exist by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just how did a simplistic business like GroupOn ever come to have thousands of employees?

    Our dealings with them were unpleasant, but at least short. GroupOn wanted us to offer insane discounts, i.e., for us to sell as a huge loss. We asked ourselves: what kind of customer is that going to attract? The answer is clear: extreme bargain seekers, who will never come back and pay our normal prices. No thanks, go away.

    They are just another crappy coupon business, only "on a computer". Whoopie.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just how did a simplistic business like GroupOn ever come to have thousands of employees?

      I guess that's because they have poor customer retention, so they need to keep hustling, otherwise they would implode.

    2. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by Kardos · · Score: 1

      > Just how did a simplistic business like GroupOn ever come to have thousands of employees?

      For the same reason multi-level marketing companies persist, despite being a terrible deal. They keep finding businesses who buy into their marketing and take a big loss for a vague promise of increased future profits.

    3. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Businesses seem to have very varying success converting Groupon users to regular customers. Some try it once and fail. Others keep coming back because making a small loss on a few sales (and guaranteeing that those people actually do try your product / service) is much cheaper than most forms of advertising.

      I don't have much sympathy for companies that don't do well out of Groupon. Your attitude seems to sum it up:

      We asked ourselves: what kind of customer is that going to attract? The answer is clear: extreme bargain seekers, who will never come back and pay our normal prices. No thanks, go away.

      And if you treat people like this, no wonder they never come back. Groupon gives you potential customers who are interested in the kind of thing that you're selling, willing to try buying it from you, and on your premises where you can try to convert them into repeat customers. If you can't persuade at least some of these people to come back regularly then that says a lot more about your customer service than it does about Groupon. What other form of advertising identifies people who are interested in your product or service and gets them to try yours as cheaply?

      Your problem seems to be assuming that Groupon is a substitute for marketing, not a form of marketing. Do you also complain that people don't pay to click in banner ads or to look at your leaflets / posters?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      Google, before it became an Alphabet soup of companies, was also a simplistic, if not more simplistic business. You type a word in a input box, and Google returns a result flavored by an advert. Problem isn't if the site has a simplistic business but if it has a useful function not done better or more conveniently elsewhere. Lots of things are getting automated, so maybe this is just another example of the jobless recovery we've been hearing much lately.

    5. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      And if you treat people like this, no wonder they never come back. Groupon gives you potential customers who are interested in the kind of thing that you're selling, willing to try buying it from you, and on your premises where you can try to convert them into repeat customers. If you can't persuade at least some of these people to come back regularly then that says a lot more about your customer service than it does about Groupon.

      Wrong.

      What Groupon primarily attracts is cheapskates. People who are only interested in the lowest price and then move on. Belligerent assholes who come into your business with an coupon they know has expired and then scream at you for not honoring it. This is well documented by the many businesses who have lost money on the Groupon scam.

    6. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you can't persuade at least some of these people to come back regularly then that says a lot more about your customer service than it does about Groupon.

      Actually, it says a lot about other things, too.

      First, the business owner sets the terms of the groupon. Groupon salesdicks were known for trying to get you to set really ridiculous terms to increase coupon uptake, but if you have a spine you can say no. So the first thing the story suggests is that they lack a spine, because they complained about how groupons only attract cheapskates. But if you only give a relatively small discount which you can afford to give, and use it as advertising to get people in the door, then it can attract your actual audience.

      Second, if you can't convert visits into business then your business sucks. It might not be the customer service; it might just be a business model that simply won't work, either due to location or just being a bad idea to begin with. Or your product might suck; The only place I use coupons aside from supermarkets is restaurants, and if your restaurant isn't amazingly delicious then I won't come back. I know how to cook, and I know to use spices. This sort of thing applies to any sort of business, but that's just my example — see belly for citations.

      With that said, Groupon is still bullshit, because they are so sleazy. And you can offer your own coupons, and target them much better than Groupon will.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by crgrace · · Score: 1

      What Groupon primarily attracts is cheapskates. People who are only interested in the lowest price and then move on. Belligerent assholes who come into your business with an coupon they know has expired and then scream at you for not honoring it. This is well documented by the many businesses who have lost money on the Groupon scam.

      That may be one kind of customer but my wife and I used Groupon to have new experiences we otherwise never would have tried.

      For example, we used Groupons to get an archery lesson, to take a massage class, to stay in a Victorian mansion turned B&B, and to take guided kayak tour of a local slough.

      The businesses *might* have made money on us (I have no idea about their cost structures) but without Groupon they never would have seen us as customers because a full-price archery lesson (for example) wouldn't have attracted us as customers.

      I think service business might make money on Groupon, I don't know. It seems a few services and "experience" businesses are always on Groupon.

    8. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Considering that Groupon is crumbling and the likelihood that GP's business is not laying off/scraping a similar portion of their company than I can safely say that GP is making sound choices and your assumptions about their attitude towards attracting coupon scroungers is off. Carry on.

    9. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be one kind of customer but my wife and I used Groupon to have new experiences we otherwise never would have tried.

      Just because you have new experiences doesn't mean you are not cheapskates. If you are not a repeat customer because you are looking for the best deal for your experiences, you are that kind of customer.

      ...without Groupon they never would have seen us as customers because a full-price archery lesson (for example) wouldn't have attracted us as customers.

      The business likely broke even, no profit was made from the lesson.

      It seems a few services and "experience" businesses are always on Groupon.

      Because they are trying to drum up customers hoping they become repeats or tell others, leading to referrals. They really have no choice. Those types of business are not retail operations, they completely depend on word of mouth and goodwill.

    10. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      And did you go back to any of those?

      But if only would have went to the archery lesson because of Groupon and are never going back then you have just proved the original commenters point.

    11. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if it differs per country, but at least over here in HK, Groupon (and other similar sites) doesn't seems to force you to offer "insane discounts".

      I use them for trying new restaurants a lot, while it is true that there are lots of "90% off" etc, but many are only offering ~20% off discounts - which is enough incentive to get people to try a new place if the food sounds good, but I'd guess not enough to make them lose big money.

      Personally, I have found that the ~20% discount places usually turns out much better than the 90% off places anyway - sometimes it's because the "90% off" tends to draw a huge crowd that lead to bad service (not necessarily intentionally, but it's hard to give good service when your place is fully packed with 50 people waiting outside) and cutting corners on the food quality.

      Also, with a lower discount, the full price won't sound as outrageous to potential return customers. Plus it probably gets rid of the type of people who are literally only interested in ridiculously low prices. Personally I have became full price repeated customer of at least a dozen of the restaurants I tried at around 20% off initially. (One of which I liked so much I now go about twice a month with friends too). Whereas with the 90% discount ones, I have only went back to a couple of restaurants and one salon that really impressed me during my groupon visit, others either were a crappy experience overall, or were just okay but not good enough to justify the full price.

      In short, I think the businesses that lost big money on groupon only have themselves to blame, whether by offering a discount that is bigger than they can afford, or by not being able to handle the crowd the discount draws and provide enough incentives for people to come back.

    12. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Considering that Groupon is crumbling

      Is it? I take it that you haven't looked at their most recent financial statement...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Yet another company that does not need to exist by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      But the point is, did you ever have another archery lesson, massage class, stay in that Victorian mansion or guided kayak tour?

      If not, you have verified the uselessness of Groupon for businesses.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. As a regular Groupon consumer by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My partner and I over the past few years have regularly used Groupon as a loss leader introduction to many many many restaurants in the Melbourne Australia area. First off, with but an exceedingly rare exception, the restaurants have treated us as first class citizens. Groupons customers who report otherwise arrived with a chip on their shoulders which is unfortunate and ultimately not my problem. They're dicks and should be treated as such. Second, several businesses have converted us to regular customers. And, truthfully, some businesses are so overpriced, they've converted us to strictly loss leader customers. Businesses that fail to deliver value -- even if rent prices force them into it -- must fail. But Groupon overall provides what they strive to, and we'll continue to allow them to introduce us to new restaurants.

    1. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, because as loss leading repeated customers (of different restaurants), you are an example of the problem.

      But the problem isn't Groupon (or you). The problem is the business managers that "buy in" this loss leading scheme.

      If you are making a loss, you are making the hole where they will bury your company!

    2. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by N1AK · · Score: 1

      First off, with but an exceedingly rare exception, the restaurants have treated us as first class citizens. Groupons customers who report otherwise arrived with a chip on their shoulders which is unfortunate and ultimately not my problem.

      Because anyone whose experience doesn't match your own must have some form of problem. Self-absorbed much?

    3. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just say "boyfriend" or "girlfriend"? Partner sounds like you are in business together.

      "Businesses that fail to deliver value -- even if rent prices force them into it -- must fail"

      Not sure what rent prices have to do with delivering value, but whatever. You sound like a narcissist.

    4. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we've found a dick with a chip on his shoulder, and he doesn't like to look in the mirror.

    5. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you find a dick with shoulders?

    6. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by Gramie2 · · Score: 0

      Sometimes "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" just don't sound right. I'm over 50 and in a relationship who is also over 50. I'm not a boy, and she isn't a girl. And what if one of my parents dies and the other begins a new relationship? "Boys" and "girls" over 80?

      It reminds me of being in South Africa in the late 1980s (i.e. during the time of Apartheid), and a farmer I was visiting talked about the "girls" milking the cows in the morning. I had visions of 16-year-old milkmaids, when the reality was women over 40. In that case, "boys" and "girls" was used by whites to clearly put the black workers in their inferior place.

    7. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ahhh - you qualify to use the "old lady" title for her... ;)

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by neminem · · Score: 1

      Certain corners of deviantart?

    9. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boyfriend/girlfriend sounds right in all cases. "Partner" does not, because it is ambiguous. A partner can be a business relationship. Or you can be playing tennis. You don't need to be a "boy" or "girl" to be a boyfriend/girlfriend

    10. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Second, several businesses have converted us to regular customers.

      I think you must be an exception. If there really are so many converted customers then the merchant satisfaction levels should be quite high. The only site saying they are high is groupon's own website pointing to groupon funded studies or groupon's own data.

      By comparison a search around google will find many studies done on merchant satisfaction. The best I found was 37% of business said they would not work with them again, the worst was close to 66%. You can't dissatisfy that percentage of your market and remain in business, a fact represented in their current record low share price 90% down from where it floated, and steadily down too, the current price is not some market glitch.

    11. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The English language is ambiguous; learn to deal with it. Not everyone finds it as hard to grasp as you.

    12. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Sometimes "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" just don't sound right. I'm over 50 and in a relationship who is also over 50. I'm not a boy, and she isn't a girl. And what if one of my parents dies and the other begins a new relationship? "Boys" and "girls" over 80?

      In the UK we just the general term "shag-piece".

      As a bonus, you can also use it to address black cab drivers and nightclub bouncers.

      The information in this post is not guaranteed to be accurate.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:As a regular Groupon consumer by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Boyfriend/girlfriend sounds right in all cases. "Partner" does not, because it is ambiguous. A partner can be a business relationship. Or you can be playing tennis. You don't need to be a "boy" or "girl" to be a boyfriend/girlfriend

      No, anyone over 30 using the term boyfriend/girlfriend sounds retarded. "Partner" is perfectly acceptable, it should be obvious from the context what you mean, and you'd generally say "business partner" if that's what you meant anyway.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. "Family" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of companies calling employees "family". Family are the people you can't get rid of to save money, no matter how damn much you want to. Instead of family, what they mean to say is "people who weren't insufferable, as long as they made us money."

    1. Re:"Family" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you can quite easily get rid of family. People do it all the time. An abusive parent? Stop talking to them. Child turns 18 and isn't exactly what you wanted? Get rid of him and make sure he's homeless.

      Happens all the time.

      In fact, I've observed that the parent-child relationship is more expendable than the employee-employer relationship.

  10. what by umghhh · · Score: 1

    is groupon?
    Why is this news?

  11. Another tried and failed startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The web is full of ways to save money. People can easily search for the best prices. Eventually Groupon simply was just another tree in a forest.

  12. One more good riddance by vikingpower · · Score: 2

    QED

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  13. You can get the same effect pretty simply. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    One restaurant I know, they use groupon to get people in their restaurant. They don't make a profit on groupon users, and groupon users don't come back. However the more people are in their restaurant, the more people want to come into the restaurant when they walk by and look how busy it is.

    It's not worth sleeping with GroupOn to get that.

    You can get the same effect pretty simply. All that's necessary is that you partition the restaurant, and open the partitions, as people need more space.

    If GroupOn was willing to let you implement pool retention algorithms (reservation required for all GroupOn customers! Walk-Ins do *NOT* get to use the GroupOn coupon!), then you might have an argument for deep visibility interiours on restaurants. But the other alternative for that is: don't permit deep visibility; instead, lay out the restaurant correctly.

    1. Re:You can get the same effect pretty simply. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      If GroupOn was willing to let you implement pool retention algorithms (reservation required for all GroupOn customers! Walk-Ins do *NOT* get to use the GroupOn coupon!), then you might have an argument for deep visibility interiours on restaurants.

      They did allow that. It was a bit annoying when I bought one without reading the not-so-fine print on some bowling passes I got. But that was my fault for not reading the 3 sentence description before buying it.

  14. All hail the new economy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it wonderful!? All the old economy ideas like long-term debt and mortgages are still here, *they* never change.

    But long-term employment? Oh no no, it's a new world out there! Scramble every few years for the latest faddish "digital economy" trend!! Keep learning! Keep changing!

    Except the rich people, they can relax...

  15. It doesn't smell like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they have that cash pile, then why are they seeking venture capital in India?

    If they have 135,000 active offers in the US, why does their website show 9100?
    Why is their shopping service a $1.7 billion dollar business even before they open the main warehouse in Hebron? Their press release says that, yet the financial one says a number 1/10th that.

    Just look at the crap in their online store, and ask yourself if thats a major operation equal to 1/30th of Amazon in revenue?

    It screams out dodgy!

    Do a search "overstock warehouse", or "amazon warehouse" or "newegg warehouse" and you see pictures of giant warehouses filled with stuff with their logo.

    Do a search "groupon warehouse" and you see an *amazon* warehouse as the only thing that looks like a big warehouse in those photos!

    The only Groupon warehouse (Malaysia) in that list looks more like a tiny lockup:
    https://everydayonsales-infomartglobal.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Groupon-Warehouse-Sale-for-Online-Stock-Clearance-Malaysia-Jualan-Gudang-2015.jpeg

    This does not smell right.

    1. Re:It doesn't smell like that by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If they have that cash pile, then why are they seeking venture capital in India?

      Why do Apple sit on their cash pile instead of distributing it as dividends?

      Because they can.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the holy fucking fuck does Groupon have more than, like, ten employees?!?!?!??!?!?!??!

    1. Re:wut by gnupun · · Score: 1

      They were probably salesmen. Or did you think companies just offer their deals on groupon without any kind of sales effort?

  17. If groupon worked why would a business come back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you used groupon, attracted lots of customers you converted to regulars. So why would you now go back and re-use Groupon if they had regulars??
    By the nature of the logic, the need to re-use groupon would say you didn't have regulars.

    More to the point, if Groupons model worked why are they changing to be a Costco/Overstock clone??

    Why would a store not simply offer discounts in flyers to locals! Instead of Groupon offers to non-locals. As it is, they don't even get the discount money, half goes to Groupon! Even the locals, they likely already use the store, so all you've done is lose their regular sale, and instill the idea that a regular sale is an overpriced sale!

    Its goes against marketing, where you offer SMALL discounts to customers most likely to be REGULAR buyers, or BUY ONE GET ONE 50% OFF, where you increase the sales to them without devaluing your product.

  18. Groupon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who can get a job anywhere would think twice about taking a job where lay offs are part of their DNA.

  19. Let's hope it continues by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Groupon fucked over a lot of businesses, and then moved onto the next before their reputation caught up with them. It was a completely unsustainable model which explains why the original investors are long gone. Now their site mostly sells crummy service deals - 50% off eyebrow waxing, carpet cleaning etc. stuff where the the cost of the service is low or fixed so they can make up any bullshit figure and pretend to discount it. I'll be glad Groupon and its ilk die.

  20. Groupon isn't doomed by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    This retrenchment isn't a sign of defeat overall; mostly it's a withdrawal from some unsuccessful markets. Failure in a country could have been caused by a number of things: insufficient internet penetration and use, lack of understanding of the market, cultural resistance to couponing, or competition from a locally based alternative.

    In the early days of Groupon there were some notable cases of businesses hurting themselves. The typical problem was a new business selling so many Groupons that they were unable to provide all the goods and services they promised, or were doomed to spending a couple of months selling everything at cost to fulfill them. That problem seems to have gone away now that people have a better idea of the strengths and weaknesses of Groupon. Some Kickstart campaigns have doomed themselves in the same way, promising goods at prices that turned out to be lower than the cost of producing and shipping them, let alone development and labor costs.

    Groupon will still struggle because they are in a business that has a low cost of entry and that does not have a strong network effect. They have a number of competitors (LivingSocial and Gilt City are a couple) as well as some that have already come and gone. Buying a coupon from Groupon has no particular advantage to customers over buying a similar coupon from a competitor, so there is not an incentive for brand loyalty.

    But there is a demand for their type of service. It's a useful promotional tool to attract new customers, and for restaurants, salons, etc. to fill slack times in their schedule. (Groupons often have restrictions that prevent using them at the busiest times, and the requirement for reservations also serves as a filter to push Groupon users to less busy parts of the schedule.) I believe they will be one of the survivors.