IBJNews

ExactTarget suffers smaller loss on record sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marketing e-mail marketer ExactTarget Inc. suffered a dramatically lower third-quarter loss than a year ago on record-high revenue, the company announced Thursday afternoon.

The Indianapolis-based  company lost $721,000, or 1 cent per share, compared with a net loss of $22.3 million, or $2.55 per share, in the same quarter of 2011.

Revenue rose 35 percent, to $74.7 million, up from $55.1 million in the prior-year quarter. The company has had 47 straight quarters of revenue growth.

ExactTarget said non-U.S. sales of $14 million were 80 percent higher than a year ago.  Meanwhile, recurring subscription revenue of $57.9 million rose 36 percent.

ExactTarget lifted its full-year revenue guidance to the range of $287 million to $288 million, an increase over prior guidance of $277 million to $280 million. The company expects to lose $12 million to $13 million, an improvement over previous predictions.

Shares in ExactTarget fell 2 percent, or 43 cents per share, Thursday, to $20.74.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Poorly written headline
    Is "suffer" the correct term to use when their loss was dramatically lower, down from $22 million? 35% revenue growth is industry leading in a down economy. 47 straight quarters of growth doesn't sound like suffering to me. And their market is rapidly developing. The losses they are "suffering" is due to the strategic investment in infrastructure and people during the past 3-4 years to be a leader in their rapidly developing market. Take out non-cash items (Stock Comp, Depreciation) and operations are generating profit of $16 million profit YTD (compared to a loss of $900k in the same prior period). ET is a home-town company hiring hundreds of hoosiers...apparently this home-town publication didn't take the time to shed proper light on the incredible financial results for the quarter.

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. I could be wrong, but I don't think Butler views the new dorm as mere replacements for Schwitzer and or Ross.

  2. An increase of only 5% is awesome compared to what most consumers face or used to face before passage of the ACA. Imagine if the Medicaid program had been expanded to the 400k Hoosiers that would be eligible, the savings would have been substantial to the state and other policy holders. The GOP predictions of plan death spirals, astronomical premium hikes and shortages of care are all bunk. Hopefully voters are paying attention. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare), where fully implemented, has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured and helped contained the growth in healthcare costs.

  3. So much for competition lowering costs.

  4. As I understand the proposal, Keystone would take on the debt, not the city/CRC. So the $104K would not be used to service the $3.8M bond. Keystone would do that with its share.

  5. Adam C, if anything in Carmel is "packed in like sardines", you'll have to show me where you shop for groceries. Based on 2014 population estimates, Carmel has around 85,000 people spread across about 48 square miles, which puts its density at well below 1800 persons/sq mi, which is well below Indianapolis (already a very low-density city). Noblesville is minimally less dense than Carmel as well. The initiatives over the last few years have taken what was previously a provincial crossroads with no real identity beyond lack of poverty (and the predictably above-average school system) and turned it into a place with a discernible look, feel, and a center. Seriously, if you think Carmel is crowded, couldn't you opt to live in the remaining 95% of Indiana that still has an ultra-low density development pattern? Moreover, if you see Carmel as "over-saturated" have you ever been to Chicago--or just about any city outside of Indiana?

ADVERTISEMENT