Soaring revenue at Angie's List impresses analysts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Angie's List beat analysts’ revenue expectations in its first quarter as a public company, seeing results from a pricey marketing campaign that drove up expenses.

Revenue of $27.4 million in the fourth quarter exceeded RBC Capital Markets' projections by $2 million, or 8.5 percent, according to a report the investment firm issued Thursday. “Overall, Angie’s List delivered a solid fourth quarter out of the IPO gate,” said RBC analyst Ross Sandler.

“Angie’s List first [quarterly] results as a public company exceeded our expectations,” Stifel Nicolaus analyst Jordan Rohan wrote in another Thursday report.

Angie’s List, which provides reviews of service providers such as plumbers and electricians, hasn’t turned an annual profit since it was founded 17 years ago. On Wednesday, it reported a fourth-quarter loss of $5.9 million and a $49 million loss for the full year.

However, sales jumped 70 percent for the quarter and by 53 percent—to $90 million—for the full year.  

Analysts had not expected a profit for the fourth quarter, noting Angie’s List is on an aggressive growth plan following its IPO. Of the 186 markets it now serves, 141 of those came on board during the last four years, Stifel Nicolaus' Rohan noted.

CEO Bill Oesterle told analysts on a conference call Wednesday that the company's top five markets—which represent 25 percent of its 1 million-plus members—are New York; Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Chicago and Boston.

Gaining share has been an expensive process. The company last year increased its sales force 20 percent and spent a record $56 million on marketing, up a whopping 86 percent from 2010. Much of that went to a blitz of national television ads.

The payoff includes a 78-percent jump in the company’s membership base and higher advertising revenues.

Angie’s List "continues to sustain operating losses in the early development and market penetration stage, which are largely expected to continue,” wrote RBC’s Sandler.

During the Wednesday conference call, Chief Financial Officer Robert Millard said first-quarter revenue is likely to be $29 million to $30 million.

Although revenue is on the rise, some analysts expect the ongoing marketing expenses to increase losses in the near term, the Stifel Nicolaus report noted.

Angie’s List went public in mid-November after raising $114 million in an initial public offering. The company sold 8.8 million shares for $13 apiece, and shares quickly surged to as high as $18.75 in its trading debut.

Shares closed at $14.46 on Wednesday, before the earnings release. By 11:30 a.m. Thursday, they were trading at $16.65—up 15 percent for the day.

Other firms also have big ambitions in the business review sector, including San Francisco-based Yelp. The provider of consumer-generated reviews online plans an initial public offering to sell just over 7 million shares, priced between $12 and $14 a share.


  • Not a Long Term Bet
    Sorry, the business model for Angie makes no sense to me.
  • Unimportant
    Nobody has commented because it isn't an issue. Angie's List knows it's not going to turn a profit for a whole. It's investors/shareholders understand this, too. The reason why they're in the red is because of extreme growth that's occuring at the company and the push to grow further. Angie's List has seen healthy revenue increases quarter to quarter, and when they mature in the markets they're just pushing into, expenses will drop and profit will be reached.
  • no comment?
    I can't believe nobody has commented on IBJ's third story on AL's fourth quarter losses in the last 24 hours.

    Post a comment to this story

    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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

    2. Shouldn't this be a museum

    3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

    4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

    5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.