IBJNews

ExactTarget loss grows, but revenue hits record

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marketing software company ExactTarget Inc. took a greater loss in the fourth quarter due to higher expenses.

The Indianapolis-based company announced Thursday that it lost $13 million in the quarter ended Dec. 31 compared with a $6.1 million loss for the same period of 2011.

On a per-share basis, however, the loss dropped to 19 cents from 68 cents a year earlier because of a huge increase in common shares that hit the market after the company went public in March 2012.

Operating expenses, which include marketing, research and development, rose 48 percent in the quarter, to $65.8 million.

Revenue increased 42 percent to a record $84.2 million. For the year, revenue grew 41 percent, to $292.3 million.

"Our fourth quarter results were outstanding, putting an explanation point on a historic year for ExactTarget and further extending our market leadership," CEO Scott Dorsey said in a conference call.
  
ExactTarget late last year acquired B2B software provider Pardot and Indianapolis-based Web personalization provider iGoDigital.

For the year, ExactTarget lost $21 million, or 39 cents a share, compared with a 2011 loss of $35.4 million, or $4.05 per share.

During the fourth quarter, the company added offices in Paris and Stockholm.

The company now employs 1,673 people—most of them in Indianapolis—compared with 1,133 at the beginning of 2012.

ExactTarget shares rose 80 cents, or 3.5 percent, Friday morning, to $23.59 each.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Ja!
    Offices in Paris and Stockholm? Before this article, I only suspected this was a sham company. Now I am certain of it.
  • Spam Tastes Bad
    Spam marketing stinks, but I guess there's a place for it in the world. In the year 2011, the estimated figure for spam messages is around seven trillion. PUKE

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT