Online alcohol delivery startup Drizly has told customers that it was hit by a data breach.
In an email to customers obtained by TechCrunch, the company said that a hacker “obtained” some customer data. The hacker took customer email addresses, date-of-birth, hashed passwords, and in some cases delivery address, the email read.
Drizly did not say when the hack occurred or how many accounts were affected, but did advise users to change their passwords. We reached out to the company for comment but didn’t immediately hear back.
The company said that no financial data was taken in the breach. But a listing on a dark web marketplace from a well-known seller of stolen data claims otherwise.
The listing was posted in February 2020. (Screenshot: TechCrunch)
The listing, which we are not linking to, claims to have “fresh hacked” [sic] Drizly accounts. The seller did not say when the breach took place, but the listing appears to have been posted on February 13. The listing also did not say how many accounts were for sale. Although no sample of data was offered, the listing claims to have valid Drizly credit cad numbers and users’ order history.
The data is for sale for $14, the listing says. TechCrunch has questions in to the seller.
Drizly has become one of the biggest online alcohol delivery services in the U.S. and Canada, raising over $68 million to date, rivaling Minibar and Delivery.com.
Send tips securely over Signal and WhatsApp to +1 646-755-8849, or email: zack.whittaker@protonmail.com
When SAP announced it was spinning out Qualtrics on Sunday, a company it bought less than two years ago for an eye-popping $8 billion, it was enough to make your head spin. At the time, then CEO Bill McDermott saw it as a way to bridge the company’s core operational with customer data, while acquiring a cloud company that could help generate recurring revenue for the ERP giant, and maybe give it a dose of innovation along the way.
But Sunday night the company announced it was spinning out the acquisition, giving its $8 billion baby independence, and essentially handing the company back to founder Ryan Smith, who will become the largest individual shareholder when this all over.
It’s not every day you see founders pull in a windfall like $8 billion, get sucked into the belly of the large corporate beast and come out the other side just 20 months later with the cash, independence and CEO as the largest individual stockholder.
While SAP will own a majority of the stock, much like Dell owns a majority of VMware, the company will operate independently and have its own board. It can acquire other firms and make decisions separately from SAP.
We spoke to a few industry analysts to find out what they think about all this, and while the reasoning behind the move involves a lot of complex pieces, it could be as simple as the deal was done under the previous CEO, and the new one was ready to move on from it.
It’s certainly unusual for a company like SAP to spend this kind of money, and then turn around so quickly and spin it off. In fact, Brent Leary, principal analyst at CRM Essentials, says that this was a move he didn’t see coming, and it could be related to that fat purchase price. “To me it could mean that SAP didn’t see the synergies of the acquisition panning out as they had envisioned and are looking to recoup some of their investment,” Leary told TechCrunch.
Holger Mueller, an analyst with Constellation Research agreed with Leary’s assessment, but doesn’t think that means the deal failed. “SAP doesn’t lose anything in regards to their […] data and experience vision, as they still retain [controlling interest in Qualtrics] . It also opens the opportunity for Qualtrics to partner with other ERP vendors [and broaden its overall market],” he said.
Jeanne Bliss, founder and president at CustomerBLISS, a company that helps clients deliver better customer experiences sees this as a positive step forward for Qualtrics. “This spin off enables Qualtrics to focus on its core business and prove its ability to provide essential technology executives are searching for to enable speed of decision making, innovation and customization,” she said.
Show me the money
Patrick Moorhead, founder and principal analyst at Moor Insight & Strategy sees the two companies moving towards a VMware/Dell model where SAP removes the direct link between them, which could then make them more attractive to a broader range of customers than perhaps they would have been as part of the SAP family. “The big play here is all financial. With tech stocks up so high, SAP isn’t seeing the value in its stock. I am expecting a VMware kind of alignment with a strategic collaboration agreement,” he said.
Ultimately though, he says the the move reflects a cultural failure on the part of SAP. It simply couldn’t find a way to co-exist with a younger, more nimble company like Qualtrics. “I believe SAP spinning out Qualtrics is a sign that its close connection to create symbiotic value has failed. The original charter was to bring it in to modernize SAP but apparently the “not invented here” attitudes kicked in and doomed integration,” Moorhead said.
That symbiotic connection would have involved McDermott’s vision of combining operational and customer data, but Leary also suggested that since the deal happened under previous the CEO, that perhaps new CEO Christian Klein wants to start with a clean slate and this simply wasn’t his deal.
In the end, Qualtrics got all that money, gets to IPO after all, and returns to being an independent company selling to a larger potential customer base. All of the analysts we spoke to agreed the news is a win for Qualtrics itself.
Leary says the motivation for the original deal was to give SAP a company that could sell beyond its existing customer base. “It seems like that was the impetus for the acquisition, and the fact that SAP is spinning it off as an IPO 20 months after acquiring Qualtrics gives me the impression that things didn’t come together as expected,” he said.
Mueller also sees nothing but postivies Qualtrics. “It’s a win […] for Qualtrics, which can now deliver what they wanted [from the start], and it’s a win for customers as Qualtrics can run as fast as they want,” he said.
Regardless, the company moves on, and the Qualtrics IPO moves forward, and it’s almost as though Qualtrics gets a do-over with $8 billion in its pocket for its trouble.
But amidst the numbers is a question worth answering: why aren’t cloud-focused Rackspace and e-commerce-powering BigCommerce worth more?
Using a basic share count and the top end of their initial ranges, Rackspace is targeting a roughly $4.8 billion valuation, and BigCommerce a $1.3 billion price tag. Given that Rackspace had $652.7 million in Q1 2020 revenue and BigCommerce reaped $33.2 million in the same period, we have a puzzle on our hands.
Let me explain. At its IPO price, Rackspace is worth around 2x its current revenue run rate. For a company we associate with the cloud, that feels cheap at first glance. And BigCommerce is targeting a valuation of around a little under 10x its current annual run rate, which feels light compared to its competitor Shopify’s current price/sales ratio of of 66.4x (per YCharts data).
We did some maths to hammer away at what’s going on in each case. The mystery boils down to somewhat mundane margin and growth considerations. Let’s dive into the data, figure out what’s going on and ask ourselves if these companies aren’t heading for a second, higher IPO price range before they formally price and begin trading.
Margins and growth
Let’s unpack Rackspace’s IPO pricing first and BigCommerce’s own set of numbers second.
Rackspace
While Rackspace has a public cloud component, its core business is service-driven, so it isn’t a major cloud platform that competes with Microsoft’s Azure, Google’s GCP or Amazon’s AWS. This isn’t a diss, mind, but a point of categorization.
GoPro is now in the merch game with a new line of gear that prominently feature GoPro’s logo. From bags to hats, this gear is priced attractively and has the standard affair of features. But in the end, it’s about the GoPro brand. GoPro, even while struggling to remain relevant as sales drop, cultivated a rich brand identity and this merchandize embodies the GoPro lifestyle.
The line is called “Lifestyle Gear”, and it’s a nice sampling of outdoor gear featuring GoPro’s logo. Right now, there are nine products in the line but it’s easy to see room for expansion.
Outdoor gear is a massive market, and the products launched to by GoPro seem up to par with quality material and features. There are waterproof backpacks, durable duffles, and compact cases for the compact cameras. If done correctly, soft goods often sell with healthy margins, which could be a good win for GoPro.
GoPro has struggled the last few years after storming onto the scene. The stock has been under $10 a share since 2017 though it’s trending upward this year. Over the last few years, the company revamped its product offering several times, and most recently, started branching off into different products including flashlights and now soft goods. Right now, in the second half of 2020, the company sells four cameras, but two are carryovers from 2019.
Disrupt 2020 doesn’t arrive until September, but the countdown clock to early-bird savings winds to a halt in just four days. Grab this opportunity to attend one of the best tech conferences for all-things startup, cross this task off your to-do list and save up to $300. Simply buy your pass before the offer expires on July 31 at 11:59 p.m. PT.
What can you expect from attending Disrupt 2020? Opportunity and lots of it. It starts with five days of non-stop programming focused on — and delivered by — the people determined to shape the future of technology. This event draws thousands of entrepreneurs, founders, investors, developers and other players across the startup ecosystem and around the world looking to connect, collaborate, invest and drive their businesses forward.
You’ll hear leading voices from the tech, business and investment worlds share their insight and experience from the Main Stage. Folks like pioneering CRISPR researcher Jennifer Doudna, Zoom founder Eric Yuan and Sequoia Capital’s Roelof Botha. That’s just a taste of what’s on tap, and along with the agenda we’re announcing more speakers every week.
Take part in dozens of workshops and smaller breakout sessions that offer in-depth, knowledge-building experiences. Check out the Extra Crunch Stage for information every early-stage startup founder needs to know, like how to pivot in the face of a crisis and how to build a sales team. Engage in interactive Q&As and come away with actionable tips and tricks from experts in marketing, business development and investing.
Our virtual Disrupt platform lets you explore Digital Startup Alley where you’ll find hundreds of early-stage startups showcasing their tech products, platforms and services. Connect with the founders, ask questions, check out their pitch decks and use CrunchMatch, our AI-powered networking platform to schedule 1:1 video meetings.
Digital Startup Alley is also home to the TC Top Picks — a group of outstanding startups representing a range of technologies. They earned this coveted designation in our highly selective pre-conference competition. We’ll announce which companies made the grade this year soon, but take a look at last year’s TC Top Picks.
And of course, you’ll want to watch the cadre of the world’s best startups compete in the Startup Battlefield pitch competition. All of them will receive global investor and media exposure, but only one will win the $100,000, serious bragging rights and the Disrupt Cup. More than 900 companies have competed over the year including Vurb, Trello, Mint, Dropbox, Yammer and Tripit to name just a few.
Looking for ways to keep your business moving forward? Exhibiting in Startup Alley at Disrupt 2020 can be one of the smartest investments you’ll ever make. But don’t take our word for it. Instead, register to attend our Ask Me Anything Session (Startup Alley Edition) scheduled for July 30 at 4 p.m. ET/ 1 p.m. PT.
Open to startup founders across the globe, this event is your chance to hear from your peers who showed their stuff in the Alley. They’ve been there, done that — and got a whole lot more than a t-shirt (not that there’s anything wrong with swag). You’ve got questions — they’ve got answers.
This Ask Me Anything session will be live streamed from the TechCrunch LinkedIn page. We will begin with a brief overview of Disrupt and Startup Alley followed by a panel discussion moderated by the Startup Alley team. Panelists include veteran exhibitors Felicia Jackson, inventor and founder of CPRWrap, Khrys Hatch, Capital Program Manager at Launch Tennessee and Luke Heron, Founder and CEO of Testcard — who, as a TC Top Picks select in 2019, got to exhibit in the Startup Alley.
The panelists will share their experiences, the value and opportunities they found in Startup Alley, and how they’re doing one year later. They’ll also offer advice on maximizing your Startup Alley experience and take questions from the virtual audience (that means you).
Our Director of Events, Emma Comeau, will join the AMA session towards the end and give some insight into what the Disrupt community can expect at this year’s conference. She’ll provide some clarity. You’ll get to ask her a few questions.
There are many painful ways for a startup to fail — including founders who ultimately throw in the towel and turn off the lights.
But assuming a founder intends to keeps moving forward, there are a few pitfalls that Garry Tan has seen during his career as a founder, Y Combinator partner and, lately, co-founder of venture firm Initialized Capital.
During a fun chat during last week’s TechCrunch Early Stage, he ran us through these avoidable mistakes; for those who couldn’t virtually attend, we’re sharing them with you here.
1. Chasing the wrong problem
This sounds insane, right? How can you be blamed for wanting to solve a problem?
Tan says people choose the wrong problem for a wide variety of reasons: Founders sometimes choose a problem that isn’t problematic for enough people, he said, citing the example of a hypothetical 25-year-old San Francisco-based engineer who may be out of touch with the rest of the country. When founders target the wrong problem, it typically means that the market will be too small for a venture-like return.
After feedback from the investor and founder communities, Y Combinator is making a change to how it does Demo Days in a remote world. The accelerator announced today that it will keep its two-day Demo Day virtual, but instead of offering pre-recorded pitches on-demand, the entire program will be streamed live.
In an e-mail, Y Combinator said the feedback was that “founders enjoyed the bonding experience involved in prepping for a live demo day and investors like seeing the founder pitch their businesses personally.”
The thirty-first Demo Day will be live over Zoom, splitting the batch between two days. Each company will have one minute to present, with a single-slide summary, description and team bio available on the website for attendees to peruse. If you can’t attend, recordings will be published at the end of the week.
The accelerator told TechCrunch that presentations will kick off at 9 a.m. PST and end at noon, with breaks scheduled throughout the day. Similar to past Demo Days, investors will be able to indicate interest in investing and share contact information with founders through YC Demo Day software.
Startups that deferred Demo Day in years past will present at the upcoming Demo Day. Deferring to present on Demo Day is fairly common and happens when founders are not yet ready to present their startup to the VC and tech press community. In a remote world, some startups may opt for this route until things turn back to normal (if that ever happens, of course).
For founders participating in remote accelerators, a question remains: Is the new format worth the equity? Y Combinator says that the most recent cohort is the first batch to participate in an entirely remote program, run entirely through the COVID-19 lockdown.
Founders recently shared with me the ups and downs of this accelerator season. One founder, Michael Vega-Sanz, recommends that first-time founders attend a physical accelerator instead of a virtual one for the energy it brings.
“If you’re a competitive person, like we were, you’ll see other companies kicking butt, getting praised in front of everybody,” he said. “I know this sounds a bit narcissistic, but we were like, ‘Damn, we really need to pick our game up.’ ” Peer competition might sound insignificant, but founders, much like investors, thrive on FOMO and rivalries.
Y Combinator going live feels like an attempt at bringing excitement and earnestness to the pitch experience. Techstars did a live, virtual demo day earlier in the pandemic, even bringing on Ice-T to congratulate the founders participating through a Cameo.
Chief executives from four of the world’s most powerful companies will defend the vast empires they’ve built in testimony before Congress on Wednesday.
In a hearing held by the House’s Antitrust Subcommittee, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg will all face questions about how their business practices propelled them into the market-dominant giants they are today. Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook make up four of top six most valuable public companies in existence and are widely regarded as reshaping the consumer world, both within the tech industry and beyond.
The event will begin at 12 PM ET and may run all day, given the breadth of relevant topics and the four very different, deeply influential tech companies that we’ll be hearing from. Here’s what to expect from the big day.
There have been quite a few Congressional hearings examining tech companies in recent years, but usually those companies send their lead counsel — not their CEOs.
When a tech CEO appears before Congress it’s a sign that whatever they’re testifying about poses a real enough threat to their business that it’s better to place nice with lawmakers rather than blowing them off.
While Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg have all testified before Congress before — Pichai in 2018, Zuckerberg in 2018 and 2019 and Tim Cook way back in 2013 — this will be the first time Jeff Bezos has agreed to come before Congress. Given the amount of concerns lawmakers have expressed over Amazon in recent years, that’s a big deal.
Who’s running the show?
The hearing is being coordinated by the House Judiciary’s Antitrust Subcommittee, a subsection of the broader House committee that focuses on antitrust issues, among other topics. Because it’s in the House, the subcommittee is controlled by Democrats and is helmed by David Cicilline, a prominent and serious critic of big tech companies. It’s worth noting that Val Demings, who is currently being considered as Joe Biden’s running mate, is among the Democratic members.
On the Republican side, Jim Sensenbrenner is the ranking member. The outspoken Trump supporter Matt Gaetz also serves on the subcommittee and we can expect to hear a lot from him for reasons we’ll get into it a little bit.
What is this all about?
The title of the hearing is “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google .” Five previous hearings were also part of the subcommittee’s year-long antitrust investigation into digital markets, touching on issues like data privacy, innovation, the free press and competition. Expect all of those angles to come up at Wednesday’s hearing.
What the hearing is about and what will end up being the focus could be two different things, depending on how well Cicilline is able to rein things in as the subcommittee’s chair. As we mentioned previously, Florida Republican Matt Gaetz has signaled his interest in steering the four tech CEOs to the less substantive but more politically expedient topic of anti-conservative bias in tech.
Earlier this week, Gaetz made a criminal referral to the Justice Department that accused Mark Zuckerberg of lying in his 2018 testimony to Congress when he said Facebook does not have a bias against conservatives. The issue of anti-conservative bias is a favorite among Trump-friendly Republicans, and Gaetz is likely to veer away from very real concerns over anti-competitive behavior among tech companies toward unproven bias claims.
Will they really say anything useful?
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline stressed the importance that the tech CEOs are “forthcoming” on Wednesday, emphasizing the “central role these corporations play in the lives of the American people.” While it would serve these companies to appear transparent and not evasive, the testimony is likely to be a careful combination of the two.
In past appearances, tech CEOs have been criticized for being tight-lipped, offering only robotic answers and promising to “get back” to members of Congress every other question. We can expect more of this Wednesday, though the tone and efficacy of the hearing will really depending on who’s asking the questions and how well lawmakers coordinate their lines of inquiry.
Where is Twitter? Microsoft?
Last week, House Republicans led by Jim Jordan called on Twitter to appear at tech’s big antitrust hearing, claiming that the day would be “incomplete” without an appearance from Jack Dorsey. Dorsey has made appearances before Congress before, but the new request was rightfully ignored.
While often elevated to the status of peer companies like Facebook and YouTube, Twitter is a relatively small company with an outsized impact on society — and one not suspected of market-shaping practices that could box competitors out. To put it in perspective: Twitter’s market capitalization is $29 billion; Facebook’s is $667 billion.
Compared to Twitter, Microsoft is massive and a more natural fit for the hearing but the company has a much more storied history of government scrutiny. Cicilline himself said that regulatory enforcement against Microsoft two decades ago “made space for an enormous amount of additional innovation and competition.”
Depending on who you ask, U.S. regulatory efforts against Microsoft either presaged an era of regulatory overreach or failed to be little more than a slap on the wrist. Sound familiar?
How do I watch it?
We’ll be watching the hearing and reporting on it, so check back for our coverage and analysis throughout the day. If you’re keen to sit through it yourself, we’ve embedded a YouTube link below that should work when the livestream begins on Wednesday, July 29 at 12 PM ET.
Today, Priti Youssef Choksi is a partner with venture firm Norwest Venture Partners . But she previously spent five-and-a-half years at Google, where she worked on strategic partnerships, and nearly nine years at Facebook, where she began in corporate development and later focused on M&A.
Because Choksi knows firsthand how some of the biggest companies on the planet think about potential acquisition targets and how deals ultimately come together, we asked if she would share some of those insights with us during our recent founder-centric Early Stage event. The idea was to help attendees better how understand how — and why — certain acquisitions come together; her advice was so helpful that we wanted to share it more widely here.
So where to start? Choksi suggested people first understand the “build, partner, or buy” mentality of big acquirers. Indeed, while deals can look very much alike to outsiders (a deal is a deal is a deal), they are not. First, big companies will build internally if they are bolstering a strategic asset or what they need involves sensitive information or technology. A good example of something that Google would never buy, for example, is search tech, because search is the company’s crown jewel, she noted. Companies will meanwhile partner in order to fill a product or service gap or when they’re looking to stand up a new platform, she said, pointing to the early days of Google’s Android ecosystem.
As for when they finally go shopping, companies are driven by three things, said Choksi: talent, technology and traction. With talent, as you might imagine, companies may conduct an acqui-hire with the goal of filling a talent or leadership gap internally or to acquire niche skills that their current employees don’t already have, she said.
Companies meanwhile shop for technology when they need outside tech to boost their organic efforts. Choksi pointed to Luma.io by way of example. Back in 2013, the young company, which created a video-capture, stabilization and sharing app, was acquired by Instagram (which was itself already owned by Facebook); a week after it closed the Luma deal, Facebook launched video on Instagram largely based on Luma’s platform.
