All good points Mark. I would be shocked if Digg attracted a $200M sale price. Having said that, who is to say what 'Digg' the brand is really worth? Furthermore, will the buyer of Digg be buying Digg because it makes X dollars in annual revenue, and/or will the buyer buy Digg because of the attention, community and brand awareness it has captured? When Yahoo bought Flickr, did they pour over their balance sheet and basically say to Butterfield, 'Flickr's making X dollars after 12'ish months in operation, so we'll give you Y multiple of current earnings'? Or were less tangible and quantifiable things like brand, human capital, market attention etc. also significant factors in the valuation? BusinessWeek's article is the journalistic equivalent of a National Enquirer piece, for sure. But I do feel that some people are missing the boat when they think it's all about the balance sheet when it comes to acquiring these 'web 2.0' type businesses/sites. In some cases, the acquiring company is in a much better position to monetize an existing web business than the founders. The acquiring company may be able to leverage an existing network of sites and/or advertisers, and thus it becomes a 'value added' play for them and their existing revenue base. Kevin Rose hasn't made anything close to $60M and Digg isn't worth anything close to $200M until some large corp. comes along and writes that on a cheque. But do not discount the value of a brand. Especially as attention in the online marketplace gets even more difficult to aggregate as the space continues to mature and saturate. Ultimately, if you're not building a brand in the marketplace, you've got nothing.