• Home
  • News
  • Fortune 500
  • Tech
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Lifestyle
  • Rankings
  • Multimedia

Will Facebook buy Secret?

By
Dan Primack
Dan Primack
Down Arrow Button Icon
By
Dan Primack
Dan Primack
Down Arrow Button Icon
April 7, 2014, 9:11 PM ET

FORTUNE — Secret, a mobile app that lets users share messages anonymously with their phone contacts,  isn’t the sort of company that should be getting acquired right now. Its product has only been in the app store for a few months, and is still getting clobbered in the download rankings by (slightly) older rival Whisper. It has absolutely no revenue and fewer than a dozen employees.

But I still think that Mark Zuckerberg may make Secret an offer it can’t refuse.

The first rumblings of Facebook’s (FB) acquisition interest in Secret came last week, with widespread talk that a $100 million offer was on the table. Mike Isaac of Re/Code quickly shot that down, saying instead that the two companies had met to explore how they could “work together.” A source close to Facebook seconded that explanation, telling me today that there have been no acquisition-related talks between the two companies.

Maybe I’m not thinking creatively enough, but what exactly is Facebook hoping to learn outside of things that could help it better price an acquisition? Secret isn’t going to reveal any of its special sauce, and Facebook already understands social network effects better than anyone (not to mention how to monetize its related data). I agree with Isaac that the $100 million “offer” was bunk, but not because Silicon Valley gossips are barking up the wrong tree. I just think that if Facebook does choose to make a bid, the actual number will be much, much higher.

For starters, Facebook has real reason to want Secret. Zuckerberg already is on record as wanting to focus on mobile apps, and for saying that “we don’t need to keep on only doing real identity things.” In fact, he even went a step further, referring to constant real identity usage as a “burden.” Secret clearly falls into that wheelhouse. Moreover, Zuckerberg lives and works within Silicon Valley, where Secret so far has gained much more traction than with the world at-large. Some might argue against buying into such geographic zeitgeistism, but those within Silicon Valley could simply view it as a large growth opportunity.

Moreover, lack of revenue has not proven to be a barrier to Facebook’s prior acquisitions. Instagram wasn’t making any money when it was acquired for $1 billion. Oculus VR garnered around $2 billion without having ever shipped product. And then there’s WhatsApp, which still hasn’t begun recognizing revenue for most of its 450 million users.

All of that said, I agree with Isaac that the $100 million “offer” was bunk. Namely because the number was much too low.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Secret should be worth more than $100 million, if you’re going by any sort of traditional valuation modeling. I’m simply saying that a deal won’t get done at that price, for three primary reasons:

  1. 1. Secret hasn’t been living under a rock, and knows what Facebook has been paying for high-profile acquisitions.
  2. 2. Secret is being told by all sorts of people that it could be the next Twitter, and may (at least sort of ) believe them.
  3. 3. Facebook likely believes Google (GOOG) also has some interest in Secret — beyond the fact that Google Ventures is one of the startup’s primary investors, alongside Kleiner Perkins — and even the threat of competition drives up prices.

So if Facebook is going to make an offer, it will be for the sort of number that blows Secret’s socks off. And it probably will be conveyed after a long walk with Zuckerberg, who will explain how Facebook lets its large acquisitions do their own thing. And how Facebook could really help Secret become a better service by leveraging all of that personal data it’s collecting (even though users don’t notice it). And then a deal will be done at an outwardly-shocking price, without any time for leaks. Not even on Secret.

Sign up for Dan Primack’s daily email newsletter on deals and deal-makers: GetTermSheet.com

About the Author
By Dan Primack
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon

Latest in

CryptoBinance
Binance has been proudly nomadic for years. A new announcement suggests it’s finally chosen a headquarters
By Ben WeissDecember 7, 2025
3 hours ago
Big TechStreaming
Trump warns Netflix-Warner deal may pose antitrust ‘problem’
By Hadriana Lowenkron, Se Young Lee and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
Big TechOpenAI
OpenAI goes from stock market savior to burden as AI risks mount
By Ryan Vlastelica and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
InvestingStock
What bubble? Asset managers in risk-on mode stick with stocks
By Julien Ponthus, Natalia Kniazhevich, Abhishek Vishnoi and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
EconomyTariffs and trade
Macron warns EU may hit China with tariffs over trade surplus
By James Regan and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago
EconomyTariffs and trade
U.S. trade chief says China has complied with terms of trade deals
By Hadriana Lowenkron and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
7 hours ago

Most Popular

placeholder alt text
Real Estate
The 'Great Housing Reset' is coming: Income growth will outpace home-price growth in 2026, Redfin forecasts
By Nino PaoliDecember 6, 2025
2 days ago
placeholder alt text
AI
Nvidia CEO says data centers take about 3 years to construct in the U.S., while in China 'they can build a hospital in a weekend'
By Nino PaoliDecember 6, 2025
2 days ago
placeholder alt text
Economy
The most likely solution to the U.S. debt crisis is severe austerity triggered by a fiscal calamity, former White House economic adviser says
By Jason MaDecember 6, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
Economy
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says Europe has a 'real problem’
By Katherine Chiglinsky and BloombergDecember 6, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
Big Tech
Mark Zuckerberg rebranded Facebook for the metaverse. Four years and $70 billion in losses later, he’s moving on
By Eva RoytburgDecember 5, 2025
3 days ago
placeholder alt text
Politics
Supreme Court to reconsider a 90-year-old unanimous ruling that limits presidential power on removing heads of independent agencies
By Mark Sherman and The Associated PressDecember 7, 2025
15 hours ago
Rankings
  • 100 Best Companies
  • Fortune 500
  • Global 500
  • Fortune 500 Europe
  • Most Powerful Women
  • Future 50
  • World’s Most Admired Companies
  • See All Rankings
Sections
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Success
  • Tech
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Environment
  • Fortune Crypto
  • Health
  • Retail
  • Lifestyle
  • Politics
  • Newsletters
  • Magazine
  • Features
  • Commentary
  • Mpw
  • CEO Initiative
  • Conferences
  • Personal Finance
  • Education
Customer Support
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Customer Service Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
  • Single Issues For Purchase
  • International Print
Commercial Services
  • Advertising
  • Fortune Brand Studio
  • Fortune Analytics
  • Fortune Conferences
  • Business Development
About Us
  • About Us
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Press Center
  • Work At Fortune
  • Diversity And Inclusion
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Site Map

© 2025 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.