Marketo Files for IPO: Will High Growth Outweigh High Losses?

Marketo made good today on its promise to file for an initial public offering (IPO). Congratulations to them for reaching this step. It’s a major accomplishment.

The S-1 registration statement gives considerable new information about Marketo’s business. Revenue for 2012 is reported at $58.4 million, an impressive 80% growth rate vs. 2011 although not quite the doubling that the company had forecast earlier.

More significant, the company continues to have huge losses – it lost $34.4 million in 2012, or 59% of revenue. By comparison, Eloqua lost just 7% of revenue in the year before its IPO, and even Salesforce.com, the benchmark for all Software as a Service (Saas) start-ups, lost just 20% of revenue in its final year as a private company.

 A loss that big is pretty scary. Part is due to heavy spending on sales and marketing – 65% of revenue – but that’s not the whole story: Salesforce.com had also spent 65% on marketing before its IPO (although Eloqua spent just 40%).

The difference is that cost of revenue (costs of delivering service to clients, including subscription, support, professional services, and other) was 42% for Marketo, vs. 20% for Salesforce.com and 32% for Eloqua. That figure hasn’t changed in recent years, suggesting economies of scale have yet to appear. A high cost of revenue makes it hard for a company to become profitable even as it grows, since much of the new revenue is spent on the new customers. SaaS economics aren’t supposed to work that way.

Marketo’s other operating costs (research and development and general and administrative) are also high – 52% of revenue, compared with 35% for Salesforce.com and 33% for Eloqua. That percentage has also been pretty much stable for the past three years – again suggesting that expected scale economies haven’t appeared yet.

Another way to look at it is this: Marketo would earn just 6% profit even if its sales and marketing costs were zero. So its losses aren’t simply due to high investment in new customers.  The comparable figures for Eloqua and Salesforce were 39% and 45%, respecitvely.

The S-1 also reports the company had 339 employees as of December 2012. Of course, the average for the year was much lower but, ignoring that, this still yields a perfectly respectable $172,000 revenue per employee. But it also means expenses are $273,000 per employee – much higher than the $200,000 rule of thumb. I know everyone at Marketo works incredibly hard, but something is clearly out of line in their cost structure.

Perhaps stock investors will look only at Marketo’s growth rate. There is certainly an argument that the company will eventually become profitable as it spreads its fixed costs over more revenue.   On the other hand, as I argued recently in DemandGen Report,  it may not be possible for any large marketing automation firm to thrive as an independent.  If that's correct, then Marketo's growth will never happen and the investors' only hope will be a buy-out by a larger firm.  Let’s hope the stock market sees hope somewhere in all this: otherwise, Marketo stock will be much harder to sell than its software.

Yesterday's News: Marketo Plans IPO, Eloqua Eyes B2C

There were two bits of news from Marketing Automation Land yesterday: Marketo announced it has filed a draft registration statement for an initial public offering, and Eloqua CEO Joe Payne was quoted as saying his company plans to expand into business-to-consumer marketing.

The Marketo news is long-expected. CEO Phil Fernandez said last September that the company planned an IPO for first half of 2013, so they are pretty much on schedule. Of course, it’s still possible that someone would purchase the company instead, but the asking price is probably too high, and the prospect of an IPO just made it higher. No word on timing of the actual filing. Hopefully this means we soon get to see a filing statement with lots of juicy financial details…my mouth is already watering.

I have little doubt that Marketo can manage a successful IPO.  But it's less clear it can survive long-term as an independent company.  Previous marketing automation leaders including Eloqua, Unica, and Aprimo all ended up as part of larger organizations.  The fundamental reason is that marketing is ever-more-closely related to other business activities, as companies strive to provide an integrated customer experience.  Clients prefer to buy complete, integrated suites for all customer-management functions.  They good news for marketing automation vendors is that they can plug a gap that many big vendors need to fill.

This makes Eloqua's plan to pursue B2C marketers even more interesting.  Perhaps it they aren't really plans -- it was just a comment in a phone call, which I didn't hear myself.  But my immediate reaction is that Oracle already has a B2C marketing system, cleverly called Oracle Marketing and derived from its Siebel acquisition.  I've never heard an enthusiastic comment about the system, but as I recall from the last time I looked at it -- many years ago -- it was reasonably capable.  The only reason I can see for Oracle to use Eloqua as a B2C product is that Eloqua is a true SaaS offering, while Siebel was originally engineered for on-premise deployment and is still largely oriented that way.

This is pretty much consistent with a presentation last week by Oracle CEO Mark Hurd, along with Payne and Oracle EVP for Product Development Thomas Kuria. They set out a broad vision of customer experience management that included content management, social relationships, marketing, e-commerce, sales, and customer service, with Eloqua as the marketing component.
 

I wholly agree with the theory.  As I wrote recently in Why is B2B Marketing Automation Growing So Slowly?, today's marketing automation manages just one slice of the customer life cycle, and indeed just one slice of the acquisition cycle. Marketers need a broader system that itself fits into a larger puzzle. Oracle’s presentation showed they understand this quite clearly, and see exactly how Eloqua contributes to a solution. In this context, using Eloqua for B2C makes sense, since there’s no distinction between a B2B marketing cloud and B2C marketing cloud.


But the real world is more complicated than the picture suggests. B2B and B2C marketers have different requirements. Eloqua is more flexible than most B2B marketing automation systems but still can't match a good B2C system. The biggest issue is data structure: Eloqua is built around a standard model based on CRM systems.  It does let users add auxiliary tables but even those are subject to some constraints. A true B2C system can accommodate any data model. There are also issues of scalability and of specialized needs such as programs with hundreds or thousands of segments. It’s hard to imagine Eloqua competing in the top tier of B2C. It might be able to support mid-size B2C systems, but that doesn’t seem to be Oracle’s intent.

Oracle’s diagram might make  you think they have actually addressed this issue by replacing Eloqua’s own database with a “customer experience foundation” that includes data management and integration, along with automation, decisioning, collaboration, and business intelligence. That would be really great: one database to serve all the customer experience business functions, including marketing. But, alas, that’s not how Oracle does it. Each component of its customer experience cloud is a separate software application, many of which were purchased. Oracle does some data synchronization and sharing of certain functions, but that’s it.

So we're back to where we started: with an essentially separate Eloqua that is is engineered for B2B marketing automation.  Oracle has the money and engineering talent to rebuild Eloqua to meet B2C needs, but their track record for enhancing acquired products isn't good.  If Oracle wants a serious B2C cloud marketing product, it will probably need to buy something else.