Yes—with an important qualification. Pinterest’s 2019 IPO supports the idea that deliberate growth can outperform a “move fast and break things” strategy when it preserves product trust, culture and a credible path to profitability. The company priced its shares below its last private valuation, yet entered the market with more than 250 million monthly active users and rapidly rising revenue. Its slower approach also carried real costs: critics believed Pinterest surrendered opportunities to faster competitors.
Why Pinterest was called an “undercorn”
In its 2019 IPO filing process, Pinterest was reported to be considering a price of $15–$17 per share. At the midpoint, that implied a valuation of about $10.64 billion—nearly $2 billion below the company’s $12.3 billion valuation after its 2017 private financing. TechCrunch described this unusual setup as an “undercorn,” a play on the term “unicorn” for a private technology company valued at more than $1 billion.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Little Book of Chanel | $9.96 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Distant Echoes, Book 1 | $9.89 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
The Foxfire Book | $39.99 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The lower proposed valuation was about expectations and pricing, not evidence that Pinterest’s business had collapsed. The company had raised about $1.47 billion in equity funding before going public, with investors including Bessemer Venture Partners, FirstMark Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, Fidelity Investments and Valiant Capital Partners.
Recommended Free Tools
| Measure | Figure | What it indicates |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 private valuation | $12.3 billion | Value assigned in the last private round |
| Proposed 2019 IPO range | $15–$17 per share | Lower public-market expectations than the private round |
| Midpoint implied valuation | $10.64 billion | Why the “undercorn” label was used |
| Pre-IPO equity raised | $1.47 billion | Capital accumulated before the listing |
That pricing gave public investors room for upside if Pinterest executed, rather than requiring them to accept the most optimistic private-market assumptions on the first trading day.
#1 Best Overall
The company already had substantial operating scale
Pinterest was not a small or unproven network at the IPO. Contemporary 2019 coverage reported more than 250 million monthly active users, approximately 175 billion pins and 3 billion boards.
| Fiscal year | Reported revenue |
|---|---|
| 2016 | $299 million |
| 2017 | $473 million |
| 2018 | $756 million |
Those figures, reported by TechCrunch in 2019, show a business that was compounding revenue quickly even though it remained unprofitable. Losses were shrinking, and Pinterest presented a clearer route toward profitability than some high-growth peers. Revenue was still modest relative to the $12.3 billion private valuation, which explains why public investors could reasonably debate the price.
What “going slow” meant at Pinterest
Going slow did not mean neglecting growth. It meant choosing a healthier rate and refusing tactics that might inflate short-term user numbers at the expense of the product.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Quality growth instead of buying users at any cost
Chief executive Ben Silbermann resisted large user-acquisition spending and favored what he called “quality growth.” A New York Times profile quoted his view that “There’s a natural rate at which you can scale a company that’s healthy.” The approach emphasized users who found Pinterest useful and continued returning, rather than treating every paid installation as proof of durable demand.
A culture built around intentional decisions
Reporting described a collaborative culture, including an internal emphasis on “knitting”—working together rather than rewarding individual empire-building. Goodwater Capital co-founder Eric Kim summarized the appeal: Being nice and having core values and making decisions with intent is to their overall benefit.
A product designed to avoid the worst social-network incentives
Pinterest invested in a useful, relatively safe visual-discovery product and tried to limit trolls and hate speech. That restraint could slow engagement tactics compared with services optimized for maximum time and reaction, but it also protected trust and reduced exposure to toxic-content problems that afflicted larger social networks.
Rank #2
- Format: Book
- Instrument: Piano
- Category: Piano Collection
- Contributors: By George Peter Tingley
- Pub Date: 2/1996
How this differed from “move fast and break things”
Facebook’s SEC-filed S-1 made the contrasting philosophy explicit: Move fast and break things.
In that context, speed meant shipping more, learning faster and accepting that some experiments would fail. Pinterest’s model put more weight on preventing avoidable damage before scaling.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
| Operating question | Pinterest’s deliberate model | Break-things model |
|---|---|---|
| User acquisition | Favor organic, durable “quality growth” | Spend aggressively to maximize scale |
| Product decisions | Protect usefulness, safety and trust | Run fast experiments and tolerate failures |
| Culture | Collaboration, values and intentional choices | Speed and rapid iteration as primary virtues |
| Primary risk | Missing opportunities while moving cautiously | Accumulating quality, safety or regulatory problems |
Neither philosophy guarantees success. The comparison matters because Pinterest reached public markets with enough scale to show that restraint had not prevented meaningful growth.
The opportunity cost of moving carefully
Critics argued that Pinterest’s caution went too far. The New York Times reported concerns that it delayed hiring and sales expansion and allowed competitors to move faster. One investor warned: If they don’t keep up, they very quickly become prehistoric.
Former engineer Tracy Chou captured the tension: I want to believe that more thoughtful, slower growth is better,
while acknowledging that aggressive growth often wins in the near term.
Those criticisms identify the central limitation of the thesis. A slower company can lose distribution, talent or advertiser relationships permanently. Deliberation is valuable only when the business still improves its product and compounds demand fast enough to remain relevant.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why the IPO looked like a win in 2019
TIME later wrote that, with the exception of Pinterest, 2019 consumer-technology IPOs had been disappointing. That comparison does not prove that slow growth is always superior. It does show that Pinterest’s combination of realistic pricing, large reach, rising revenue and a less fragile product model compared favorably with several hypergrowth peers.
Pinterest also demonstrated that it could accelerate when the fundamentals were ready. In the period covered by the New York Times profile, users grew 27% year over year, international users represented more than half of the base, and the company improved ad measurement, added ad formats and hired more salespeople. The lesson was not permanent caution; it was sequencing—build trust and product quality first, then expand monetization and sales capacity.
Rank #3
What startup founders and investors can learn
Price the IPO for the business that exists
Pinterest’s proposed range acknowledged that a private-round valuation may not survive unchanged in public markets. Founders should model a range of outcomes and leave room for public investors, rather than treating the last private price as an entitlement.
Measure revenue quality, not just user counts
More than 250 million users mattered because Pinterest was also converting a growing audience into revenue. Investors should examine retention, monetization, contribution margins and the cost of acquiring each durable user—not only headline growth.
Treat trust as an economic asset
A safer, more useful product can support retention, advertiser confidence and lower crisis costs. Culture is not a substitute for execution, but it can make execution more reliable as a company scales.
Make deliberate growth measurable
“Go slow” is useful only if management defines what it is protecting and when it will invest. Clear milestones—international adoption, ad-measurement quality, sales coverage and improving losses—turn a philosophy into an operating plan.
Bottom line
Pinterest’s 2019 IPO is a credible case for going slow and not breaking things, because disciplined pricing and deliberate product choices produced a sizable, growing business while other consumer-tech IPOs struggled. It is not proof that slow growth alone creates value. The durable lesson is narrower: protect trust and unit economics, accept a realistic valuation, and accelerate once the product and market can support it.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
