The poster claimed the growth was being driven by gaming. This quarter showed a 30% revenue increase over the previous year. If the gaming industry were to be r

The poster claimed the growth was being driven by gaming. This quarter showed a 30% revenue increase over the previous year. If the gaming industry were to be responsible for the entire growth, they would only need to have spent 1.2 billion more than they had the previous year in Q4. If facebook were to see a 30% increase this year overall, they would only need to spend about $6 billion more this year (or about 25% of their profits). Given that Supercell spends about 50% of their profits on marketing overall (which amounts to $500 million) this is plausible. Especially since you can further reduce the total cost by noting that physcab only stated that most of the growth was being fueled by gaming. http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/27/why-king-and-supercell-spent-nearly-500m-marketing-their-games-and-how-you-can-spend-way-less/ http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/27/why-king-and-supercell-spe... EDIT: However, after reflecting on this, this seems entirely backwards. I believe that physcab was claiming that it was games displaying mobile ads. Thus Facebook is paying the gaming industry, not the other way around.