From Threema to Vimeo: What two recent ownership changes tell us

by Purpose Foundation

 

Hardly a week goes by without another headline about a company changing hands.

Most recently: Threema, the Swiss messenger app known for its strong stance on privacy. Its ownership has shifted from Afinium to Comitis Capital, with the stated goal of more growth and international expansion while continuing to prioritise data protection. But how secure is data security really when it's possibly seen as an asset that can be bought and sold?

Both Afinum and Comitis Capital are private equity investors. Their business model is to acquire companies and sell their shares at a later point in order to make profits. In simple terms: companies are treated as assets, ownership can change in line with return expectations. Even simpler: money equals power.

This is what’s become widely known as shareholder value logic.

And this logic has consequences. When maximising returns is the primary goal, a company’s mission can become secondary. If the future owners of Threema decide that collecting user data – or selling the company again – would be more profitable, what would stop them? Usually: not much. But what actually happens to the company only becomes clear after the ownership change.

Another recent example that caught our attention: Vimeo, acquired by Bending Spoons, which had also bought outdoor app Komoot. That takeover caused a stir last year when around three quarters of Komoot’s employees were laid off shortly after. Now, Vimeo also reported major job cuts.

Around the world, more and more people are questioning these conventional assumptions about corporate ownership: Who ultimately holds decision-making power in companies? Who benefits from their profits? These questions matter, also when it comes to digital infrastructure such as messenger services that handle the data of millions of people.

And this is also why a growing number of entrepreneurs explore and adopt alternative ownership structures. One of them is called steward-ownership that ensures that mission and purpose – like data security – always comes first, and companies remain independent in the long run.

Ever heard of the messenger Signal? Signal chose this alternative concept of steward-ownership to embed its purpose-orientation in its DNA: by legally separating profit rights from voting rights. Meaning that profits are a means to an end, not an end in themselves, and control over the company remains in the hands of the people connected to its mission. And so you don’t have to wait and see what happens when new investors enter the stage. The mission is not up for grabs.

This isn’t about claiming there’s one right solution. But moments like these are a reminder: corporate ownership is not a technical detail. It shapes who holds power and it has a profound impact on a company’s future.

Because ownership matters.