Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A FARMING SUPPORT group has issued its sympathies to the families of the young children who died in separate farm accidents recently, and says the pressures of low income are seeing more farmers being given the added responsibility for childcare.
A five-year-old boy was killed in an accident on a farm in Co Offaly last week, and a three-year-old boy was fatally injured in an accident in Cork. The HSA is investigating both incidents.
The Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers’ Association (ICSA) says that farmers are increasingly taking on the responsibility of looking after their children during the busy summer months of farming as well as running their farms because low income is pushing their spouses into off-farm employment.
“Statistics show that farming is one of the most dangerous occupations in terms of accidents and fatalities,” said the ICSA’s John Flynn.
“Young children particularly should be kept away from dangers like machinery and livestock. However, we can’t lose sight of the fact that the farm is a home as well as a workplace.”
Macra na Feirme National President, Kieran O’Dowd, said that farms are particularly busy places at this time of year, making it “essential that everyone on the farm are aware of the dangers and take precautions.”
“Macra aims to instill a respect for farm safety right from the start of a young farmers career through initiatives and competitions which provide a practical insight,” he added.
The agri sector records the highest number of workplace fatalities in Ireland. To date this year, 17 people have died in farm accidents – up from 16 across the whole of 2013. Last year, four children were killed in farm-related accidents.
The HSA’s ‘Code of practice on preventing accidents to children and young persons in agriculture’ issues recommendations for improving farm safety, including guidelines on safe areas for play, safe supervision and training, and the operation of farm machinery.
IFA President Eddie Downey said that while farming is a high-risk occupation, accidents can be reduced by taking extra time and care over farm tasks:
Being tired, distracted and stressed is often a reality on busy farms and every effort must be made to avoid shortcuts. At the peak of this busy summer season on farms, safety must come first.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“This is why Snapchat fully deserves a €16 billion valuation” And yet the article doesn’t explain why Snapchat deserves a €16 billion valuation. Sure, I understand its potential revenue raising abilities. I understand its appeal to advertisers. I understand that it hosts a lot of personal information which would be invaluable to potential investors and advertisers. But why, exactly, is it €16 billion? Why not €15 billion? Or €1000 trillion? How did they arrive at a figure of €16 billion?
I think the headline means, “Snapchat has recently been valued at $16bn. Here’s why it’s so popular/unique”.
Yeah, but we know why it’s so popular and unique. We see articles about it every second day. If, at this stage, you don’t know about Snapchat’s popularity and uniqueness then the likelihood is you just don’t care, in which case you wouldn’t be reading this anyway. We have still to see how exactly the 16 billion figure was calculated, which I what the headline alludes to.
What I was saying above is that Snapchat has three major features that could be massive money spinners for them, and how it’s effectively become a multimedia platform as well, they’re the most quantifiable ones unless you’re privy to their future plans then fire away.
As for how a company is valued, that takes into a number of factors into consideration which would include money raised (so far, it’s raised $648m in 6 different funding rounds), current popularity, the potential for growth in both revenue and users, (which links to the last one but anyway), the value of the industry (instant messaging would be the obvious one, but it’s now become a media entity and has video on its side so that’s two, three if you include Snapchat Stories and its potential for widespread event), assets (both digital and physical), is it public or private, and so on.
Determining the exact reasons why it settled on $19/€16 billion to the point of a formula isn’t possible since you don’t know what factors they’re prioritising ahead of others. Also, when you’re dealing with a private company as unlike Facebook, Apple, Twitter or any other public company, they’ve no obligation to share details about their plans or forecasts to anyone.
In Snapchat’s case, it’s potential in three areas as I mentioned above: events, multimedia (it trying to become a Netflix-style entity for articles, music and TV), and payments/ecommerce as they’re the ones that have a massive influence on this valuation. Also the core psychological element of Snapchat of limitation (which is oddly overlooked and was the main reason I wrote this in the first place) is such a massive factor and that seeps into all of its features. If Snapchat was just about self-destructing photos/videos on its own, then it would have been overshadowed by Facebook Poke back in 2012 or accepted Facebook’s $3 offer back in 2013.
The discussions I’ve seen on the subject (on Twitter and other sites) only mention Discover as if that was the sole reasons behind such a high valuation. The main point above is that it’s rarely one factor that leads to that, (especially when it’s well-known), and it’s weird how other features are forgotten about just because they’re not as new or shiny as the latest thing (or the tired ‘sexting’ angle that’s peddled out regularly).
Give it 3 yrs and youll see all such companies worth a fraction of todays value, times they are a changin
I get all that. The fact still remains that the headline suggests that the accompanying article will explain exactly how the figure of 16 billion was reached. I was curious to know how they got that figure. And yet, I’m still none the wiser. Should it have a large valuation? Obviously the answer is yes, and you have explained that both in the article and your comment. But we’re still no closer to understanding the 16 billion valuation. Sorry, but I’m a stickler for this kind of thing. If you know how, then say it and let the headline reflect it. If you don’t, then don’t mislead the reader into thinking you do, only to leave the reader empty handed.
If everyone on snap chat had a super sweet party = 16 x the amount of willie photos ever sent = 16billion
On Sesame Street their number of the day is 16 x 1billion. Tomorrow it will be $43 Billion
I’d say the long term bet is when an analyst bets a pension fund on this.
I’d be nervous.
It could only ever be a trade sale to Google or the like …. Its a very limited product. If a pension fund manager bought snapchat, they should be sacked.
Nothing on this Earth deserves to be valued at €16 billion
So what’s your idea of a max cap value so Andy?
You haven’t seen my willy.
If I owned it I would sell now
Fapchat
It deserves about a 16 CENT valuation. It’s ridiculous, and hopefully a fad that will die quickly. If the world is lucky, some evil company will pay 16B, then go out of business when people realise how stupid Snapchat is.
Never seen such anger directed at a mobile phone application before! Got dumped via Snapchat did you? :-)
have your say