6 ms·

I'm sure most people would disagree but Snapchat was done the moment they released stories. I say this despite the fact that stories was what really brought st

I'm sure most people would disagree but Snapchat was done the moment they released stories. I say this despite the fact that stories was what really brought stratospheric growth to snapchat, because i'm taking into account opportunity cost. They could have focused on making their core (1-1 messaging) better but they decided to become a broadcast media company, starting with stories and then those brand videos. This has always been risky. Even at its peak when you look at what was happening on Snapchat stories, a lot of these microcelebrities on snapchat would use stories as a way to get more likes or follows on their instagram. They say stuff like "Hey i just posted a new photo on instagram, please like it!" etc. This was convenient for them because these needy behaviors go away on snapchat stories. The moment snapchat decided to become 1:many, they became a serious threat to Facebook in pretty obvious ways, so it was no brainer that Facebook jumped to do something about it. And at the same time, you can't compete with Facebook on 1:many broadcast. They should have focused on 1:1 and fought on their own turf. Sure it would have been harder to figure out the viral growth, but it was already doing well so I'm sure they could have figured out some way without jumping into Facebook's playground.

hamami 10y ago
I believe Snapchat founders also agree with you, which is why they rushed to IPO as soon as Instagram and Facebook released stories. In a few months when the lockout period expires and employees are able to sell their stocks, I expect to watch the stock tumble to never come back up..
- bigtimeidiot 10y ago
  >employees are able to sell their stocks, I expect to watch the stock tumble to never come back up You expect the employees to start dumping their stock at fire-sale prices? Otherwise, how do prices tumble in a market? The buyer and seller have to agree on price.
  - hamami 10y ago
    I think Snapchat is currently already overpriced, so I don't agree with your comments that it's fire sale prices, but only time will tell :) Note that I don't own any long or short position on the stock.
    - bigtimeidiot 10y ago
      >I think Snapchat is currently already overpriced I agree. My point is that unless those employees choose to sell their stock at below market prices (for whatever reason), then market prices won't budge. Stock prices don't fall because lots of people decide to sell; people are selling stock all day, every day, yet prices rise. It's all about that price and company prospects. I probably being overly pedantic.
      - hamami 10y ago
        I agree with you that only employees selling won't make it crash or anything, and I don't expect any big investors to sell; however unless they come up with a solid ad-monetization + continued growth strategy I expect it to follow TWTR's pattern leading up to the lockup (Jan-Apr 2014 -40%) and go even lower shortly afterwards (May 2014 -20%).
      - adventured 10y ago
        > Stock prices don't fall because lots of people decide to sell; people are selling stock all day, every day, yet prices rise. It's all about that price and company prospects. In fact stock prices frequently fall because lots of people decide to sell. You're positing a premise that only exists in theory, and will never actually occur in fact as it pertains to the stock market. If you dramatically increase the number of sellers, the stock will go down. The sellers don't just sit there, holding their ask, they lower their ask to try to get out of the stock they want to sell. That incremental process, lowers the stock, and then lowers it some more, and then keeps lowering it. More selling interest than buying is exactly what causes stocks like Twitter to plunge off a cliff. Your premise is that the wave of sellers are just all going to hold their ask prices firm (rather than competing and lowering their ask to get their shares sold). That has never happened and will never happen in actual trading.
  - yellow_postit 10y ago
    I'm sure there is all sorts of financial wisdom I'm unaware of in this space, but I would expect most employees to lock in a decent bit of real cash value at lock out while still maintaining some stake in hopes of future appreciation. If you've been trading real money for paper money for some number of years it seems that the rationale move would be to lock in some non-trivial gains.
  - acchow 10y ago
    Lol. Everyone thinks they can predict the stock market and no one else can. Like only they know about the lockout period and the hordes of shareholders buying it today at $20 have no idea a drop in a few months is near-inevitable.
    - hamami 10y ago
      Lockout period ending is not necessarily a problem with IPOs. However, a rushed IPO where fundamentals can't justify the valuation, already slowing growth story and risk of envelopment by Facebook's Instagram stories; these are some serious red flags.
niftich 10y ago
'Discover' is the name of the Snapchat feature first introduced in January 2015 [1][2] that surfaces content from media and 'Stories' formerly just referred to the landing page for the 1:n casts introduced in October 2013 [3][4]. Over time, more and more of the Discover pane has been bleeding into the Stories pane [5][6][7], to try and push that content. With that in mind, I think it's the introduction of 'Discover' that truly painted the target on their back, but Discover also played a necessary role in their quest for monetizing their users' attention, in a way that was praised by many pundits and analysts at the time as forward-thinking, while invoking comparisons to popular TV channels of the 1980s and 1990s. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/27/snapchat-launches-discover/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/27/snapchat-launches-discover... [2] https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/introducing-discover/ https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/introducing-discover/ [3] http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4791934/snapchats-next-big-thing-stories-that-dont-just-disappear http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4791934/snapchats-next-big... [4] https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/surprise/ https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/surprise/ [5] https://www.recode.net/2016/2/12/11587814/snapchat-wants-to-let-users-subscribe-to-their-favorite-discover https://www.recode.net/2016/2/12/11587814/snapchat-wants-to-... [6] https://venturebeat.com/2016/05/20/snapchat-plans-discover-channel-redesign-for-early-june/ https://venturebeat.com/2016/05/20/snapchat-plans-discover-c... [7] https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/07/snapchat-discover-previews/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/07/snapchat-discover-previews...
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  Yeah that discover feature not only set themselves up for fight but also was the most uncreative feature from snapchat that didn't even fit into how people used the app. "Pundits" like to give their interpretation on "why something is successful" only after it became successful, so most of their interpretations are nothing more than circle jerking backwards rationalization, so I never really bought into any of those meaningless praise anyway.
apozem 10y ago
I respectfully disagree with almost every part of your post. 1. Snapchat is not done. Millions of active users in advertiser-desired demographics is not done. Instagram has blunted its growth, but Snapchat is still alive and well. 2. Snapchat is a social platform, not a broadcast media company. There is a difference- they're not making their own content. 3. Snapchat was always a threat to Facebook, regardless of whether it was 1:1 or 1:many messaging. Snapchat competes for finite resources: digital ad dollars and user attention by way of socialization. This is how Facebook's business works as well, making them inherent competitors. If you're snapping a selfie to a friend then you're not seeing ads in the Facebook app. You may be right about Snapchat not being able to compete against Facebook in the long run. Facebook certainly demonstrated the power of owning the largest social network when they cloned Stories. They can copy good ideas and roll them out to billions of users instantly. Maybe Snapchat can compete with that, maybe not. 4. Exactly what Snapchat's turf consists of is an open question I don't think any of us know the answer to. You seem to think its turf is 1:1 messaging, but Spiegel thinks it's being a camera company. After seeing Spectacles, god only knows where they'll go next. Besides, why stay in one bit of "turf" when you can expand? https://stratechery.com/2016/snapchats-ladder/ https://stratechery.com/2016/snapchats-ladder/
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  > 1. Snapchat is not done I will agree with you on this one. Maybe I was too aggressive in my expression. But the point I was making was they made a mistake by deciding to fight on Facebook's turf. > 2. Snapchat is a social platform, not a broadcast media company. There is a difference- they're not making their own content. Maybe you haven't used Snapchat recently? Just check out the "discover" feature. Also you're using the term "broadcast" differently than how I'm using it. > but Spiegel thinks it's being a camera company. I respectfully want to say you're believing too much of what PR people tell you. "Camera company" doesn't suddenly make the company more compelling. It only becomes compelling when they have a solid business model to support that vision. Spectacles is nothing more than an SoCal phenomenon. Good job for pulling off that scarcity marketing but that doesn't change the fact that most people don't want to walk around wearing a douchy pair of sunglasses everyday. Overall I think you're making arguments about unimportant details. My main point was Snapchat should have focused on scaling their core experience that was truly unique. Instead they stepped into a territory where it can be replicated by anyone else. I'm not just talking about Facebook. Just look around the world and you'll see snapchat clones popping up (or soon will). Snapchat should have owned that entire global market.
kneel 10y ago
Snapchat is a much more of a personal messaging app while instagram works like a social networking app. There's a little overlap in their features but they're not used the same way. They aren't competing for users. If you want to talk to someone you use snapchat, if you want social validation use instagram.
- nv-vn 10y ago
  Yeah. Snapchat competes with apps like iMessage and WhatsApp much more than apps like Instagram.
lathiat 10y ago
This video is great preview from 8 months ago.. Instagram MURDERS Snapchat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcOQvynoWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcOQvynoWw

hamami 10y ago

I believe Snapchat founders also agree with you, which is why they rushed to IPO as soon as Instagram and Facebook released stories. In a few months when the lockout period expires and employees are able to sell their stocks, I expect to watch the stock tumble to never come back up..

bigtimeidiot 10y ago
>employees are able to sell their stocks, I expect to watch the stock tumble to never come back up You expect the employees to start dumping their stock at fire-sale prices? Otherwise, how do prices tumble in a market? The buyer and seller have to agree on price.
- hamami 10y ago
  I think Snapchat is currently already overpriced, so I don't agree with your comments that it's fire sale prices, but only time will tell :) Note that I don't own any long or short position on the stock.
  - bigtimeidiot 10y ago
    >I think Snapchat is currently already overpriced I agree. My point is that unless those employees choose to sell their stock at below market prices (for whatever reason), then market prices won't budge. Stock prices don't fall because lots of people decide to sell; people are selling stock all day, every day, yet prices rise. It's all about that price and company prospects. I probably being overly pedantic.
    - hamami 10y ago
      I agree with you that only employees selling won't make it crash or anything, and I don't expect any big investors to sell; however unless they come up with a solid ad-monetization + continued growth strategy I expect it to follow TWTR's pattern leading up to the lockup (Jan-Apr 2014 -40%) and go even lower shortly afterwards (May 2014 -20%).
    - adventured 10y ago
      > Stock prices don't fall because lots of people decide to sell; people are selling stock all day, every day, yet prices rise. It's all about that price and company prospects. In fact stock prices frequently fall because lots of people decide to sell. You're positing a premise that only exists in theory, and will never actually occur in fact as it pertains to the stock market. If you dramatically increase the number of sellers, the stock will go down. The sellers don't just sit there, holding their ask, they lower their ask to try to get out of the stock they want to sell. That incremental process, lowers the stock, and then lowers it some more, and then keeps lowering it. More selling interest than buying is exactly what causes stocks like Twitter to plunge off a cliff. Your premise is that the wave of sellers are just all going to hold their ask prices firm (rather than competing and lowering their ask to get their shares sold). That has never happened and will never happen in actual trading.
- yellow_postit 10y ago
  I'm sure there is all sorts of financial wisdom I'm unaware of in this space, but I would expect most employees to lock in a decent bit of real cash value at lock out while still maintaining some stake in hopes of future appreciation. If you've been trading real money for paper money for some number of years it seems that the rationale move would be to lock in some non-trivial gains.
- acchow 10y ago
  Lol. Everyone thinks they can predict the stock market and no one else can. Like only they know about the lockout period and the hordes of shareholders buying it today at $20 have no idea a drop in a few months is near-inevitable.
  - hamami 10y ago
    Lockout period ending is not necessarily a problem with IPOs. However, a rushed IPO where fundamentals can't justify the valuation, already slowing growth story and risk of envelopment by Facebook's Instagram stories; these are some serious red flags.

niftich 10y ago

'Discover' is the name of the Snapchat feature first introduced in January 2015 [1][2] that surfaces content from media and 'Stories' formerly just referred to the landing page for the 1:n casts introduced in October 2013 [3][4]. Over time, more and more of the Discover pane has been bleeding into the Stories pane [5][6][7], to try and push that content. With that in mind, I think it's the introduction of 'Discover' that truly painted the target on their back, but Discover also played a necessary role in their quest for monetizing their users' attention, in a way that was praised by many pundits and analysts at the time as forward-thinking, while invoking comparisons to popular TV channels of the 1980s and 1990s. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/27/snapchat-launches-discover/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/27/snapchat-launches-discover... [2] https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/introducing-discover/ https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/introducing-discover/ [3] http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4791934/snapchats-next-big-thing-stories-that-dont-just-disappear http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/3/4791934/snapchats-next-big... [4] https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/surprise/ https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/surprise/ [5] https://www.recode.net/2016/2/12/11587814/snapchat-wants-to-let-users-subscribe-to-their-favorite-discover https://www.recode.net/2016/2/12/11587814/snapchat-wants-to-... [6] https://venturebeat.com/2016/05/20/snapchat-plans-discover-channel-redesign-for-early-june/ https://venturebeat.com/2016/05/20/snapchat-plans-discover-c... [7] https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/07/snapchat-discover-previews/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/07/snapchat-discover-previews...

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
Yeah that discover feature not only set themselves up for fight but also was the most uncreative feature from snapchat that didn't even fit into how people used the app. "Pundits" like to give their interpretation on "why something is successful" only after it became successful, so most of their interpretations are nothing more than circle jerking backwards rationalization, so I never really bought into any of those meaningless praise anyway.

apozem 10y ago

I respectfully disagree with almost every part of your post. 1. Snapchat is not done. Millions of active users in advertiser-desired demographics is not done. Instagram has blunted its growth, but Snapchat is still alive and well. 2. Snapchat is a social platform, not a broadcast media company. There is a difference- they're not making their own content. 3. Snapchat was always a threat to Facebook, regardless of whether it was 1:1 or 1:many messaging. Snapchat competes for finite resources: digital ad dollars and user attention by way of socialization. This is how Facebook's business works as well, making them inherent competitors. If you're snapping a selfie to a friend then you're not seeing ads in the Facebook app. You may be right about Snapchat not being able to compete against Facebook in the long run. Facebook certainly demonstrated the power of owning the largest social network when they cloned Stories. They can copy good ideas and roll them out to billions of users instantly. Maybe Snapchat can compete with that, maybe not. 4. Exactly what Snapchat's turf consists of is an open question I don't think any of us know the answer to. You seem to think its turf is 1:1 messaging, but Spiegel thinks it's being a camera company. After seeing Spectacles, god only knows where they'll go next. Besides, why stay in one bit of "turf" when you can expand? https://stratechery.com/2016/snapchats-ladder/ https://stratechery.com/2016/snapchats-ladder/

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
> 1. Snapchat is not done I will agree with you on this one. Maybe I was too aggressive in my expression. But the point I was making was they made a mistake by deciding to fight on Facebook's turf. > 2. Snapchat is a social platform, not a broadcast media company. There is a difference- they're not making their own content. Maybe you haven't used Snapchat recently? Just check out the "discover" feature. Also you're using the term "broadcast" differently than how I'm using it. > but Spiegel thinks it's being a camera company. I respectfully want to say you're believing too much of what PR people tell you. "Camera company" doesn't suddenly make the company more compelling. It only becomes compelling when they have a solid business model to support that vision. Spectacles is nothing more than an SoCal phenomenon. Good job for pulling off that scarcity marketing but that doesn't change the fact that most people don't want to walk around wearing a douchy pair of sunglasses everyday. Overall I think you're making arguments about unimportant details. My main point was Snapchat should have focused on scaling their core experience that was truly unique. Instead they stepped into a territory where it can be replicated by anyone else. I'm not just talking about Facebook. Just look around the world and you'll see snapchat clones popping up (or soon will). Snapchat should have owned that entire global market.

kneel 10y ago

Snapchat is a much more of a personal messaging app while instagram works like a social networking app. There's a little overlap in their features but they're not used the same way. They aren't competing for users. If you want to talk to someone you use snapchat, if you want social validation use instagram.

nv-vn 10y ago
Yeah. Snapchat competes with apps like iMessage and WhatsApp much more than apps like Instagram.

lathiat 10y ago

This video is great preview from 8 months ago.. Instagram MURDERS Snapchat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcOQvynoWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcOQvynoWw