4 ms·
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.
by 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.
- bigtimeidiot 10y ago>finite resources: digital ad dollars The combined market cap of these companies for which digital advertising is the main product is staggering...and sad.
- angryasian 10y agonot a broadcast company I wouldn't be so sure of that https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/14/vice-is-the-latest-to-produce-original-shows-for-snapchat-starting-with-a-dating-series/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/14/vice-is-the-latest-to-prod...