Swoopo Quietly Files for Bankruptcy(technologizer.com)
technologizer.com
Swoopo Quietly Files for Bankruptcy
http://technologizer.com/2011/03/25/swoopo-quietly-files-for-bankruptcy/
59 comments
How many times did they do that? Everybody who "loses" at Swoopo gets a crash course in the scam, and never falls for it again.
Every time I looked at the site (although this was last year, maybe it tanked) the item bids were very high, making the cost of a £500 laptop £2500 profit for them.
In retrospect it's easy to say that if they had spent 15 minutes in the library learning about lead gen and lifetime customer value they probably could have saved a few years of their lives. But it wasn't clear it wasn't going to work ahead of time. Seems like they made the mistake of starting out by asking themselves what it would take to build a great business, instead of asking themselves what it would take to test their assumptions.
[deleted]
30 million in revenue in 2008.
I guess I don't understand the "scam" label. I haven't completely analyzed Swoopo's marketing, but I think the majority of people that play realize they are trying to get something big for something little. And it's a game. If they don't win, sometimes they come back. Sometimes they don't. It's not everyones cup of tea to put money on a game they think they can win. Just like its not everyones cup of tea to put their money and time on a startup thinking they can make a decent income.
I also don't get why people collect Precious Moments. Or play Cityville/Farmville. Or play most of the games on Xbox/Playstation. They pay good money and time for these distractions. And they come out with "nothing". But they have fun.
There's a lot of people who spend a crap load of time on StackExchange sites. And there's game mechanics roping them into collecting badges and points. But they enjoy it. Do the people answering get much out of it? Virtual points? :) Some virtual pats on the back for an answer well done?
But people enjoy it. Just because I wouldn't spend my money on Cityville or all my time commenting all day on some site, doesn't make them scams.
I also don't get why people collect Precious Moments. Or play Cityville/Farmville. Or play most of the games on Xbox/Playstation. They pay good money and time for these distractions. And they come out with "nothing". But they have fun.
There's a lot of people who spend a crap load of time on StackExchange sites. And there's game mechanics roping them into collecting badges and points. But they enjoy it. Do the people answering get much out of it? Virtual points? :) Some virtual pats on the back for an answer well done?
But people enjoy it. Just because I wouldn't spend my money on Cityville or all my time commenting all day on some site, doesn't make them scams.
Sites that try very hard to make their product appear as auctions, but are in reality gambling qualify as scam in my book.
Now I enjoy gambling as much as the next guy, but I want to know that I am gambling and what my chances/odds are and I want that information to be in plain sight.
I'm not sure I understand your point: what prevented you from watching the numerous auctions they had going at any one time to see how it worked? What also prevented you from revisiting the hundreds of closed auctions they made available for review to see what final selling prices were? Or reading their help/FAQ's, all provided in the open? Seems like this was all in plain site. Also you use the term "gambling" - can you cite where the law explicitly states this auction model is gambling or even why the mechanics of it make it "gambling?"
The point is truth in advertising. If a bottle says that it's 100% fruit juice, it had better be 100% fruit juice. Sure, I could look at the ingredients, but should companies be allowed to outright lie to sell their products?
It seems that the "gambling" claim is well supported. (see Wikipedia -- e.g. from MSN Money: "Chris Bauman [[director of Swoopo in the US]] told one blogger: 'Winning takes two things: money and patience. Every person has a strategy.' Indeed, he undoubtedly does. The problem is that, as with the gambling systems peddled by countless books, none of those strategies will actually work. Just remember that no matter how many times you bid, your chance of winning does not increase.")
It seems that the "gambling" claim is well supported. (see Wikipedia -- e.g. from MSN Money: "Chris Bauman [[director of Swoopo in the US]] told one blogger: 'Winning takes two things: money and patience. Every person has a strategy.' Indeed, he undoubtedly does. The problem is that, as with the gambling systems peddled by countless books, none of those strategies will actually work. Just remember that no matter how many times you bid, your chance of winning does not increase.")
How was swoopo "outright lying" about their product? Did you ever actually visit or use Swoopo? They explained the rules clearly on the site and with a dozen or more auctions running on the front page of the site, I think this qualifies as showing how it works right on the front of the bottle.
I think you're also misunderstanding what qualifies as gambling, at least in the U.S. (international law I'm not as familiar with) Look no further than bigdeal.com, a site that operates exactly like Swoopo and is based in the U.S. It is venture backed with a few million dollars. I suspect before making that investment there was some due diligence in this auction mechanism and it was found to be legal. People in this thread are throwing around "gambling" and "scam" but I'd still challenge anyone to cite any portion of the law which specifically makes a penny auction "gambling."
Do people lose money if they don't win, yes. Does that piss people off? Of course. But that still doesn't mean it's gambling or a scam.
If it's not for you, don't play it. Simple as that.
I think you're also misunderstanding what qualifies as gambling, at least in the U.S. (international law I'm not as familiar with) Look no further than bigdeal.com, a site that operates exactly like Swoopo and is based in the U.S. It is venture backed with a few million dollars. I suspect before making that investment there was some due diligence in this auction mechanism and it was found to be legal. People in this thread are throwing around "gambling" and "scam" but I'd still challenge anyone to cite any portion of the law which specifically makes a penny auction "gambling."
Do people lose money if they don't win, yes. Does that piss people off? Of course. But that still doesn't mean it's gambling or a scam.
If it's not for you, don't play it. Simple as that.
"Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods." - Wikipedia
Sounds like an apt description of Swoopo if, according to the MSN Money quote above, any "strategy" is equally ineffective. Recall that "the law" and what governments choose to enforce of it are not the final say on word definitions ...
Sounds like an apt description of Swoopo if, according to the MSN Money quote above, any "strategy" is equally ineffective. Recall that "the law" and what governments choose to enforce of it are not the final say on word definitions ...
Despite Swoopo's self-description as an "auction" site, it is in fact a gambling site. Moreover, when you're at a casino you typically know your odds; with Swoopo, you don't.
I'm happy with the argument that gambling is okay, but Swoopo should have called a spade a spade, been regulated as a gambling site, and published the odds.
I'm happy with the argument that gambling is okay, but Swoopo should have called a spade a spade, been regulated as a gambling site, and published the odds.
I don't buy that argument. If that were true, then the lottery and every casino would be out of business right now too.
Casinos won't go bankrupt because they are a monopoly protected by the state ( although the state(s) does not have allegiance any one them and is increasingly in the process of granting many more licenses to shore up deficits, Casinos still have a very, very high barrier to entry ). See my comment downthread. And yes, they are equally predatory. And lotteries, well, yeah ... owned by the state, not going anywhere because there is zero competition.
Plenty of countries where gambling isn't state control have very healthy gambling industries.
The business model depends on a certain level of involvement. Below that level of involvement, the "bidders" (or gamblers if you like) can actually "win" auctions at ridiculously low prices. If their user base savvied up and realized they were just throwing money away, like the people you knew, and not enough new suckers were coming in to replace them, they could eventually drop below that critical mass.
Their traffic decreased DRAMATICALLY when competitor, http://bigdeal.com showed up on the scene. That and the sudden uptick in clones is what probably caused their failure.
This traffic comparison seems to somewhat support that http://goo.gl/FdQi3 Swoopo started tanking when bigdeal started rising, but bigdeal hasn't been anywhere near as well trafficked as swoopo was in its prime.
I find it irrational that people got more worked up about Swoopo than they do about gambling/lottery business models. Unlike with gambling you are able to purchase a product before an auction ends and use all the credits you had used on it. It's a pretty transparent model provided you think it through. It's recreational consuming that leverages a host of psychological principles really well - love it or hate it.
I find it irrational that people got more worked up about Swoopo than they do about gambling/lottery business models. Unlike with gambling you are able to purchase a product before an auction ends and use all the credits you had used on it. It's a pretty transparent model provided you think it through. It's recreational consuming that leverages a host of psychological principles really well - love it or hate it.
It's basically gambling carefully dressed up to look like ebay bidding. You gamble your money on a chance to get a fancy thing for 10 dollars, knowing that if you loose you loose your 10 dollars.
Actually last I heard those sites were very profitable but, you never know with gambling sites. They tend to misstate, hide profits.
Actually last I heard those sites were very profitable but, you never know with gambling sites. They tend to misstate, hide profits.
Yeah but if you wiin, then you wiin the item.
How is it that people can spell and punctuate everything else correctly but can't remember the difference between lose and loose? (I see this all the time, and it's even becoming frequent on HN. I just don't get it).
Keep spelling lose that way, my friend, and eventually you will get your just deserts. (hope at least SOMEBODY gets the joke)
How is it that people can spell and punctuate everything else correctly but can't remember the difference between lose and loose? (I see this all the time, and it's even becoming frequent on HN. I just don't get it).
Keep spelling lose that way, my friend, and eventually you will get your just deserts. (hope at least SOMEBODY gets the joke)
Hopefully you can go broke underestimating the stupidity of the public.
Yes. The first time I saw swoopo I couldn't figure out how it wasn't illegal.
Why would it be? Is it because you believe there are no strategies to penny auction bidding? Just for comparison's sake, is there a strategy to roulette in casinos or to lotteries run by private corporations on behalf of the government?
Actually those ate perfect analogies. And they are illegal most places in the US as well? I thought lotteries needed special exemptions, and gambling is outright not allowed.
"That's £20 they made at £0 cost to themselves."
No, they sell the product for less than market value. That loss must be recouped. But I am surprised that they are filing for bankruptcy as well. The model appears sound.
No, they sell the product for less than market value. That loss must be recouped. But I am surprised that they are filing for bankruptcy as well. The model appears sound.
Competition in a free market is not a pretty sight. That's why gaming commissions never stepped in -- they knew what Casinos have long known; without state protection of gambling, the number of venues would quickly proliferate into the thousands and push profits to zero.
I'm also pretty sure that there is still a lot of legal liability in the air. August Capital will most certainly face some exposure; on my female facebook test account I've seen advertisements of Swoopo class action.
I'm also pretty sure that there is still a lot of legal liability in the air. August Capital will most certainly face some exposure; on my female facebook test account I've seen advertisements of Swoopo class action.
without state protection of gambling, the number of venues would quickly proliferate into the thousands and push profits to zero.
Why is that a bad outcome?
What you're saying, if I understand it correctly, is that regulation helps keep scammy crap like gambling and Swoopo around. All I can say to that is that I'm against regulation precisely for this reason (among others).
Why is that a bad outcome?
What you're saying, if I understand it correctly, is that regulation helps keep scammy crap like gambling and Swoopo around. All I can say to that is that I'm against regulation precisely for this reason (among others).
I'm quite happy that Swoopo is failing. Did you get the impression that I wasn't? I'd love for gambling to be legalized.
Sorry that I misunderstood you. I agree, now that I have more context.
[It was "Competition in a free market is not a pretty sight" that made me disagree. It is a very pretty sight indeed when scammers fail, and that's something that free markets are conducive to. (I define free market to mean a situation where the government intervenes only to protect individual rights (i.e., they only stop force and fraud). Unfortunately, we don't yet have any free markets in America today, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.)]
[It was "Competition in a free market is not a pretty sight" that made me disagree. It is a very pretty sight indeed when scammers fail, and that's something that free markets are conducive to. (I define free market to mean a situation where the government intervenes only to protect individual rights (i.e., they only stop force and fraud). Unfortunately, we don't yet have any free markets in America today, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.)]
Yeah let me rephrase that:
But fear not for Swoopo! They'll undoubtedly sell their soon-to-be patented "technology" to the likes of Intellectual Ventures, who'll use it to extort other would be scammers, completing the circle of evil!
When the business is scamming customers,
competition in a free market is not a pretty sight.
But fear not for Swoopo! They'll undoubtedly sell their soon-to-be patented "technology" to the likes of Intellectual Ventures, who'll use it to extort other would be scammers, completing the circle of evil!
Why would any business want anything to buy their IP? There is no profit in their idea or IP.
>HOW on earth did they lose money...
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
To be fair, penny auctions sites are neither gambling sites nor scams (unless proven otherwise).
They are merely a variation of the Dollar auction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
They are not a gambling site because gambling implies that you depend on chance to win. Penny auction sites don't. If you put in one bid and that bid happens to be the last bid, you win. It isn't as if you put in a bid and hope to get randomly selected to win.
They are not a scam as they do tell you what they are doing and people who go in for it know that they pay per bid.
The only time they become a scam is when the site operator gets involved in the bidding. For example, if the site operator finds that the price is too low and put in a bid themselves to force the next closest bidder to up the ante.
Basically, penny auction sites sets people against each other and pick up the spoils. This is the only reason I hope they will all be gone.
They are merely a variation of the Dollar auction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
They are not a gambling site because gambling implies that you depend on chance to win. Penny auction sites don't. If you put in one bid and that bid happens to be the last bid, you win. It isn't as if you put in a bid and hope to get randomly selected to win.
They are not a scam as they do tell you what they are doing and people who go in for it know that they pay per bid.
The only time they become a scam is when the site operator gets involved in the bidding. For example, if the site operator finds that the price is too low and put in a bid themselves to force the next closest bidder to up the ante.
Basically, penny auction sites sets people against each other and pick up the spoils. This is the only reason I hope they will all be gone.
Swoopo was a brilliant concept and it's the kind of thing I wish I had thought of... that is, in the alternate universe where I have no sense of ethics and don't mind ripping people off.
The psychology behind why the site works is identical to why some people fall big for Nigerian 419 scams... "If I don't spend a little more money, I'll lose it all!". Suddenly it makes sense to pay $100 more than retail for a PS3 or TV because if you don't you'll be out $250 in bidding fees and not have the item.
The psychology behind why the site works is identical to why some people fall big for Nigerian 419 scams... "If I don't spend a little more money, I'll lose it all!". Suddenly it makes sense to pay $100 more than retail for a PS3 or TV because if you don't you'll be out $250 in bidding fees and not have the item.
Sunk cost fallacy.
The funny thing about sunk cost is that everyone seems to know about it, but nobody seems to actually act on the concept. You see lots of folks with MBAs doing it when it comes to trading, and they've all sat in the econ class and nodded when that topic came up.
Hey man, I'm doing it right now ... got a startup i've spent 10 months on that I'm still hoping I can make successful. Even though I could probably quit and pickup one of these 150k jobs everyone seems to be getting ;)
I have a personal philosophy of not doing business with any organization or person unless I understand how they will make money. I take this exercise particularly seriously when at first glance it seems I'll be coming out way ahead.
This works remarkably well for filtering out hucksters, scammers, and shady businesses.
This works remarkably well for filtering out hucksters, scammers, and shady businesses.
What's your personal philosophy on charities?
Replace "make money" with "achieve what may credibly be thought to be their goals". A charitable organization may have the goal of reducing poverty or disease somewhere rather than making money; fair enough. (Of course in some cases you might elect not to believe that that really is their goal.) But I don't think anyone ever thought that Swoopo was a philanthropic endeavour.
Consult Givewell, hopefully.
My biggest issue with the site was every time I visited the site or saw an ad, it was all "too good to be true" and I was revolted by the idea of getting into something that so clearly seemed to be promising me a free lunch, or a nearly free lunch.
Funny to see them go. I was headhunted for them a few years ago & decided to play along just because I found their business model 'interesting'. Even though technically interesting (lots of realtime action), it had 'scam' written all over it. Sometimes only time will tell the difference between pure evil and pure genius.
Didn't their auctions appear to make money hand over fist? Were they rigged? Did they start doing poorly, recently? If you just multiplied the price of their bids by the number of bids, it would seem they were doing very well. What was really going on?
It was a great idea though. And they did state the rules clearly, so it was your fault if you still played the game. And as Spolsky said, as users lost money, they just dropped off.
Great idea, no. Epic scam!? Yes.
Ethical? Maybe not. Smart? Definitely yes.
How does "as users lost money, they just dropped off." followed by "filed for bankruptcy", mean "Smart? Definitely yes."?
I guess they did make money for a while, so it's wasn't terrible, but having a business model that makes your customers leave? I'll pass on calling that 'Smart'.
I guess they did make money for a while, so it's wasn't terrible, but having a business model that makes your customers leave? I'll pass on calling that 'Smart'.
You are thinking in terms of the corporation, or the investors. However, it's a fair guess that some "smart" people personally did very well from this model.
(If you think about it, a practical definition of "scam" is something that is profitable but doesn't generate repeat customers.)
(If you think about it, a practical definition of "scam" is something that is profitable but doesn't generate repeat customers.)
In hindsight, it is easy to see and understand how their business model didn't work out. But when they launched, it seemed to be a nice idea.
Even in casinos, the odds are stacked heavily against the player. Still, people do keep playing. Swoopo was similar. I guess it's hard to get new users when every blog calls you a scam.
Even in casinos, the odds are stacked heavily against the player. Still, people do keep playing. Swoopo was similar. I guess it's hard to get new users when every blog calls you a scam.
Why is there so much hate for this company? So you don't agree with their business model and you label all the users as dupes. Maybe people like to gamble and really did find this shopping model entertaining? Either way, talk of making this illegal turns my stomach. If Swoopo wants to sell this service and there are customers willing to participate, who are you to interfere?
Good riddance.
As someone who actually won something from Swoopo (a firebreathing laptop worth ~ $1000), I eventually saw the light and quit while I was ahead. All told, I 'invested' ~ $400 into Swoopo (spent $250 during the auction for my laptop and $200 in other failed bids). Not too sad to see them go. Saving fools like me from themselves. :)
There are quite a few sites based on this model. Hopefully they'll shut down too. I don't know if this is legal or not (probably legal, otherwise they wouldn't have lasted 2 years) but definitely not ethical.
> has named a liquidator to start divesting its assets.
So you could say that they've Died In A Fire Sale. That's pretty close to what many people seem to have been wishing they would do...
So you could say that they've Died In A Fire Sale. That's pretty close to what many people seem to have been wishing they would do...
u people are full of sh*t. everything is a scam, casino is a scam, poker sites are scams, ebay is a scam. get a f. life.
How does this make sense? The business model is to make money hand over fist on "stupid" consumers who are willing to pay for nothing the hope of winning something for below retail value.
HOW on earth did they lose money and how on earth is it unsurprising? My mind is blown that they're filing for bankruptcy.
Anecdotally I know 2 people who signed up to Swoopo, paid £10 for bids but then won nothing. That's £20 they made at £0 cost to themselves.