IBJNews

Angie's List turns quarterly profit, but shares fall

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shares of Angie’s List fell sharply in after-hours trading Wednesday evening after the Indianapolis-based company disclosed fourth-quarter profit that fell short of analysts’ expectations.

Although the firm reported a rare profit of $2.8 million, or 5 cents per share, analysts polled by Thomson Reuters anticipated 13 cents. Soon after the earnings release late Wedneday afternoon, shares had tumbled $2.51—more than 14 percent.

The provider of consumer-written reviews of service companies beat analyst revenue estimates of $68.5 million, coming in at $68.8 million. That was an increase of 49 percent over revenue in the same quarter last year.

Revenue growth came mostly from service providers, whose contribution rose 57 percent from the same quarter last year to $51 million. The company also said its growing e-commerce business—a segment of service-provider revenue—generated $6 million during the quarter, an increase of 72 percent.

Membership revenue rose 29 percent, to $17.7 million.

"We are reporting a solid fourth quarter capping a year that included many significant milestones," said Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle in prepared comments. "We executed well on our strategic objectives in 2013, including making meaningful investments in our products and technology, strengthening our ability to monetize our membership through our marketplace initiatives, and delivering excellent improvements in operating leverage."

For 2013, Angie’s List lost $32.9 million, or 57 cents a share, compared with a loss of $52.9 million, or 92 cents, in 2012. Revenue in 2013 hit $245.6 million, a 58-percent increase from $155.8 million in 2012.

The company spends heavily on marketing to expand into new markets and to build out existing markets that tend to become more profitable with time. It faces growing competition from such sites as Yelp, which don't charge consumers membership fees.

Since December, three lawsuits have been filed against the company in federal court, alleging executives haven’t been forthcoming about an evolving business model that now relies mostly on advertisements from the service providers its members review.

The suits contend that officers and directors last year provided a rosy picture of the company’s prospects even as they sold some of their own shares and conducted membership-pricing experiments that suggest the company's growth prospects may be limited.

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • continually AMAZED
    How is it that a company that has NEVER turned a profit can rate other businesses ? Continually failing their stockholders and investors? Don't they have something they call "the penalty box? maybe they need to police themselves.
  • Not worth it
    Aside from its inability to make a profit, "Angie" seems to lay off or fire as many people as she hires. The only people who really seem to benefit is Angie and her helpers in the executive suite. Maybe the reason for the lack of profits is the business model just doesn't work. And, that can't be good for their reviews.
  • No Good
    Angies List has Never generated a profit, who would put their money on this loser?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT