Analyst firm Sterne Agee has reported that social games giant Zynga spent more money on pulling in new paying customers over the last nine months than those players paid back into the company's games.
Speaking to news website Benzinga, Sterne Agee analyst Arvind Bhatia explained that Zynga lost $150 on average for each new paying customer during the current fiscal year, as the marketing costs outweighed average customer spending.
"They've given us the sales in marketing dollars for the first nine months - $120 million," he explained. "Almost all of that is for acquiring customers."
"We also know that they had 3.4 million unique payers in the September quarter, which is up from 3 million at the end of December 2010. In other words, they added 400,000 additional payers and they spent $120 million to acquire them."
He continued, "We know that, on average, these people are spending about $150 or so. Our concern is [whether or not it's worth] spending $300 to get these customers when people are spending $150. That math won't work for very long."
Bhatia was quick to point out, "That's our math; that's not what the company says." He also noted that this shows "a slowdown in social gaming in general... I don't think it's just Zynga."
"But Zynga clearly has tried many games, and they're finding that the interest level isn't necessarily going up," he continued. "We've seen many games launch and then fade within a few weeks."
"Not immediately, but down the road this is going to catch up with them - whether it takes three quarters or four quarters is hard to say. But our projection for the next 12 to 15 months is that growth is slowing significantly. That's with us giving them a lot of credit for the possibility that they will add more payers and that [each payer] will pay more," he concluded.
When Zynga listed its IPO last month, Sterne Agee initiated coverage of the company with an "Underperform" rating, noting that Zynga's growth has slowed down rapidly in recent months.
[Update: Game industry veteran and entrepreneur Dylan Collins questioned Bhatia's conclusion in a blog post, but Bhatia stood by his analysis, telling Gamasutra, "We think looking at the marketing spend relative to the 'net' increase in paying customers provides a more effective measure of customer acquisition costs. As you know, the company does provide the number of unique payers for each quarter."]
You can slap new lipstick on the pig a billion times and eventually, the mechanics that were so addicting to so many lose their luster, especially when said mechanics rely on turning your player base into human ad-clicking macros.
They could do "Wayne Crosby Hockey." Oops, I think I just spilled an idea. But then again, they could get a head concussion and/or retire if they create it.
What's surprising here is that "on average, these people are spending about $150 or so" - who the heck is spending $150 on Zynga 'games' (and I use the term games VERY loosely here!!)????
Not only do I NOT believe this $150 average, but anyone who is spending more than $20 on social gaming needs to have their head checked!!! Come on kids, spend your money on REAL games!!
People not only spend $150, but some people spends thousands of dollars in free to play games. They are called "whales" and they drive up the averge $ spend / customer.
The $300 cost per paying user acquisition seems inaccurate. Paying users rose from 3 million to 3.4 million over 9 months, but more than 400k new paying users were acquired unless there was 0 paying user churn, which there wasn't. Say 25% of the 3 million paying users quit during the 9 months. That means that $120 million marketing budget had to bring in 1.15 million new paying users (.75 replacements + .4 increase), so that's only $104 per new paying user. Suddenly, Zynga is making $46 per paying user. Not too bad with the scales they're working with.
The $150 seems big, but this is LTV of paying users only. Most users don't pay anything. If paying users stay in game for an average of a year (the article mentions 12-15 months), they're only spending $12.50/month on average. Not great for a f2p MMO, but decent for a FB game.
Some bastards were on the fast track to make a quick buck. I hope they get burned on their way out, running from angry shareholders.
The privacy war is getting hot and companies like Google, Facebook (not yet traded) and Zynga are vying for real-estate. There is an age old principle that a great salesman can sell anything to anyone. Omniscience in targeting potential customers is a weapon that no man or AI should possess.
... not.
I think he meant titles, not games.
Not only do I NOT believe this $150 average, but anyone who is spending more than $20 on social gaming needs to have their head checked!!! Come on kids, spend your money on REAL games!!
The $150 seems big, but this is LTV of paying users only. Most users don't pay anything. If paying users stay in game for an average of a year (the article mentions 12-15 months), they're only spending $12.50/month on average. Not great for a f2p MMO, but decent for a FB game.
Some bastards were on the fast track to make a quick buck. I hope they get burned on their way out, running from angry shareholders.
The privacy war is getting hot and companies like Google, Facebook (not yet traded) and Zynga are vying for real-estate. There is an age old principle that a great salesman can sell anything to anyone. Omniscience in targeting potential customers is a weapon that no man or AI should possess.