5 ms·

For the non-believers of Snapchat, here is where I think its value lies: For the past 50 years brand strategy has largely been (fairly) well characterised. Con

by yomly 11y ago

For the non-believers of Snapchat, here is where I think its value lies: For the past 50 years brand strategy has largely been (fairly) well characterised. Conventional wisdom in the industry did well enough for brands like McDonald's and Coca Cola to expand across the world and capture generations of customers. This is in part due to an incremental pace of innovation in how customers have consumed media in this time period. Then came along the internet and a bringing a huge stepwise change, driving not only unprecedented levels of fragmentation/segmentation/individualisation of users but also changing how we interact with and consume media. The generation of "millennials" and "digital natives" are people who now spend more time on the internet than in front of a TV. Facebook, with their 1Bn+ daily active users who are known to spend nearly 18 hours a week on the Facebook mobile app, saw the value in Snapchat - younger users don't have a Facebook account. It's uncool, it's creepy with its privacy policies. Snapchat has extremely strong market share on viewership for a generation of users that are arguably the most impressionable/valuable. This same generation don't really watch TV. Considering individual brands would spend hundreds of millions on TV, if Snapchat can capture even a fraction of this media budget, they'll be hugely profitable. NB I chose McDonald's and Coke as brands as they are two good examples of previously invincible global brands that are now showing significant decline. They also had huge media budgets. For the purposes of my argument, I've chosen to ignore other market trends such as growing health awareness but my point still stands.

ljk 11y ago
seems like advertising will always be ingrained to our culture, no matter how fast the technology is changing
arbuge 11y ago
>> I chose McDonald's and Coke as brands as they are two good examples of previously invincible global brands that are now showing significant decline. Not sure about Coke but McDonald's is doing pretty well these days. Its stock recently hit an all-time high and is one of the best performers this year, following their success with all-day breakfast.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  Coke is doing just fine. I travel a LOT and I would say Coke is the preferred brand in probably 85% of the hotels and restaurants I visit. I still bring along a 12-pack of Mt. Dew because so many places only have Coke products and its frustrating to have to drink flat fountain coke.
  - incarnate 11y ago
    Not to mention Coke's portfolio is far broader than fizzy drinks - bottled water, juice, and energy drinks [0]. Coca-Cola Amatil in Australia has even started making beer and cider [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands [1] http://ausfoodnews.com.au/2014/01/13/coca-cola-amatil-launches-beers-and-cider-in-australia.html http://ausfoodnews.com.au/2014/01/13/coca-cola-amatil-launch...
  - askafriend 11y ago
    Soda is insanely bad for you, why do you drink so much of it that you're lugging around 12-packs with you? I'm genuinely curious, no judgement.
    - xiaoma 11y ago
      Soda's reputation is insanely bad. I still have multiple family members in their 80s and 90s who drink it regularly. I also have elderly relatives who smoke, but their health is pretty much wreaked whereas the soda drinkers seem pretty much okay given their age. Similarly the very most productive software engineer I've ever worked with practically lived off of diet coke, just as John Carmack did while doing amazing things at Id. Similarly, plenty of olympic athletes drink soda, including one who was a second degree connection of mine in high school and who later won multiple gold medals. None of this means soda is healthy, but if it were "insanely bad for you", then it simply wouldn't be possible people to consume it heavily and still be top performers or live into their 90s with decent health.
    - at-fates-hands 11y ago
dinkumthinkum 11y ago
Is there any real evidence that these kids don't watch any tv and only do snapchat and watch makeup gurus on YouTube? I know it's fun to say but I mean what about reality? ....
- nl 11y ago
  Yes. http://nypost.com/2015/02/16/millenials-ditching-their-tv-sets-at-a-record-rate/ http://nypost.com/2015/02/16/millenials-ditching-their-tv-se...
  - dinkumthinkum 11y ago
    This appears to be the wrong link or doesn't really support the claim at all. It says "usage is down for 18-34 year olds" so 18-34 year olds are not kids, not like 14 year olds. And saying it is down is very different from saying "kids don't watch TV, they use snapchat, therefore brands like Coca Cola are irrelevant." This is what I'm saying. There is this unthinking, uncritical, and unskeptical self-congratulatory sort of "ding dong the witch is dead" about anything related to "traditional media" and the reason for this is "because Internet" or something like that. But, I think it is a very naive view and is fun to say but it's not actually real. I mean, this article is an example of just weak evidence. Again, it is not about kids but its about the 18-34 demographic. But let's see, it says: "In 2011, 21.7 million young adults tuned in to their TV sets. By the end of last month, that figure had fallen to 17.8 million, according to Nielsen figures." OK, whatever that means, let's just accept the numbers as they are presented. Just elementary math tells us 17/21 is hardly nothing or "no one is watching" anymore. Now, the article cited, to support this claim, says: "In the era of smartphones and Netflix, it’s no surprise that traditional TV is losing relevance for younger viewers." Wait ... so instead of watching actual TV sets with bunny ears, they are watching things like Netflix (which I understand is much different than Snapchat) .... OK, let's peruse the content of Netflix .... OK, wait a minute, all this content on Netflix looks familiar .... Do you mean to tell me all this stuff on Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon are mostly .... from the TV? With the exception of a handful of originals, which honestly are produced in a similar way as the TV, most of this stuff coming from the evil "dead witch," the TV. I don't find a lot of "Vine Comps" on Netflix. Also, on some level it seems silly to me to point to Netflix and Amazon as evidence that these other things are dead; it's not like Amazon Originals are like "The-New-Internet-Meme.com" they are much more like "In addition HBO, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax there Amazon and Netflix" than some totally fundamental shift in the kind of content consumed ... whether it is over bunny ears or choppy wifi is sort of an implementation detail to some extent than a cultural revolution. If one wants to say "People don't watch TV anymore" and then what they really mean is "They watch ABC shows on the ABC App on the iPad instead" .... Then claims like the "The Coca Cola brand is dead because Snapchat" seem to lose their luster. I hate to "disrupt" the groupthink. :)
narrowrail 11y ago
>here is where I think its value lies: I don't think the users (whatever their age) of Snapchat find value because of the advertisers; that seems to reverse cause and effect.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  He's referring to the value to shareholders, not to users. It's already apparent to everyone that there's value for users - there's an enormous number of them spending a ton of time in the app.

by yomly 11y ago

ljk 11y ago

seems like advertising will always be ingrained to our culture, no matter how fast the technology is changing

arbuge 11y ago

>> I chose McDonald's and Coke as brands as they are two good examples of previously invincible global brands that are now showing significant decline. Not sure about Coke but McDonald's is doing pretty well these days. Its stock recently hit an all-time high and is one of the best performers this year, following their success with all-day breakfast.

at-fates-hands 11y ago
Coke is doing just fine. I travel a LOT and I would say Coke is the preferred brand in probably 85% of the hotels and restaurants I visit. I still bring along a 12-pack of Mt. Dew because so many places only have Coke products and its frustrating to have to drink flat fountain coke.
- incarnate 11y ago
  Not to mention Coke's portfolio is far broader than fizzy drinks - bottled water, juice, and energy drinks [0]. Coca-Cola Amatil in Australia has even started making beer and cider [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands [1] http://ausfoodnews.com.au/2014/01/13/coca-cola-amatil-launches-beers-and-cider-in-australia.html http://ausfoodnews.com.au/2014/01/13/coca-cola-amatil-launch...
- askafriend 11y ago
  Soda is insanely bad for you, why do you drink so much of it that you're lugging around 12-packs with you? I'm genuinely curious, no judgement.
  - xiaoma 11y ago
    Soda's reputation is insanely bad. I still have multiple family members in their 80s and 90s who drink it regularly. I also have elderly relatives who smoke, but their health is pretty much wreaked whereas the soda drinkers seem pretty much okay given their age. Similarly the very most productive software engineer I've ever worked with practically lived off of diet coke, just as John Carmack did while doing amazing things at Id. Similarly, plenty of olympic athletes drink soda, including one who was a second degree connection of mine in high school and who later won multiple gold medals. None of this means soda is healthy, but if it were "insanely bad for you", then it simply wouldn't be possible people to consume it heavily and still be top performers or live into their 90s with decent health.
  - at-fates-hands 11y ago

dinkumthinkum 11y ago

Is there any real evidence that these kids don't watch any tv and only do snapchat and watch makeup gurus on YouTube? I know it's fun to say but I mean what about reality? ....

nl 11y ago
Yes. http://nypost.com/2015/02/16/millenials-ditching-their-tv-sets-at-a-record-rate/ http://nypost.com/2015/02/16/millenials-ditching-their-tv-se...
- dinkumthinkum 11y ago
  This appears to be the wrong link or doesn't really support the claim at all. It says "usage is down for 18-34 year olds" so 18-34 year olds are not kids, not like 14 year olds. And saying it is down is very different from saying "kids don't watch TV, they use snapchat, therefore brands like Coca Cola are irrelevant." This is what I'm saying. There is this unthinking, uncritical, and unskeptical self-congratulatory sort of "ding dong the witch is dead" about anything related to "traditional media" and the reason for this is "because Internet" or something like that. But, I think it is a very naive view and is fun to say but it's not actually real. I mean, this article is an example of just weak evidence. Again, it is not about kids but its about the 18-34 demographic. But let's see, it says: "In 2011, 21.7 million young adults tuned in to their TV sets. By the end of last month, that figure had fallen to 17.8 million, according to Nielsen figures." OK, whatever that means, let's just accept the numbers as they are presented. Just elementary math tells us 17/21 is hardly nothing or "no one is watching" anymore. Now, the article cited, to support this claim, says: "In the era of smartphones and Netflix, it’s no surprise that traditional TV is losing relevance for younger viewers." Wait ... so instead of watching actual TV sets with bunny ears, they are watching things like Netflix (which I understand is much different than Snapchat) .... OK, let's peruse the content of Netflix .... OK, wait a minute, all this content on Netflix looks familiar .... Do you mean to tell me all this stuff on Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon are mostly .... from the TV? With the exception of a handful of originals, which honestly are produced in a similar way as the TV, most of this stuff coming from the evil "dead witch," the TV. I don't find a lot of "Vine Comps" on Netflix. Also, on some level it seems silly to me to point to Netflix and Amazon as evidence that these other things are dead; it's not like Amazon Originals are like "The-New-Internet-Meme.com" they are much more like "In addition HBO, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax there Amazon and Netflix" than some totally fundamental shift in the kind of content consumed ... whether it is over bunny ears or choppy wifi is sort of an implementation detail to some extent than a cultural revolution. If one wants to say "People don't watch TV anymore" and then what they really mean is "They watch ABC shows on the ABC App on the iPad instead" .... Then claims like the "The Coca Cola brand is dead because Snapchat" seem to lose their luster. I hate to "disrupt" the groupthink. :)

narrowrail 11y ago

>here is where I think its value lies: I don't think the users (whatever their age) of Snapchat find value because of the advertisers; that seems to reverse cause and effect.

w1ntermute 11y ago
He's referring to the value to shareholders, not to users. It's already apparent to everyone that there's value for users - there's an enormous number of them spending a ton of time in the app.