7 ms·

Snap suffers from a fundamental paradox, one that is difficult for me to imagine an easy way to solve. They've made their bones by being a uniquely fun and soc

Snap suffers from a fundamental paradox, one that is difficult for me to imagine an easy way to solve. They've made their bones by being a uniquely fun and social way of a certain subset of the population to share their lives without parents dipping their head in and seeing what they're doing, ala Facebook. The UI is designed to generally support this; it is confusing and messy and understandable only by someone who is innately familiar with the app, or unfamiliar with the general conventions of UX. But what happens when that user base isn't big enough and you have to expand? What happens when you need to figure out how to sell ads in an environment when you have next to no demographic information to target against? You'd have to fundamentally change the business: algorithmic timelines, a more sensible UI, more chipping away at the anonymity - all of which will turn off their core users in droves.

warent 9y ago
Not sure it should even be given the lofty status of paradox. Would simply mark it up to a bad business model
- BoorishBears 9y ago
  Snapchat doesn’t feel like a company with a business model that couldn’t be very successful, but it also doesn’t feel like there was ever a fighting chance of justifying it’s IPO evaluation
noncoml 9y ago
> how to sell ads Why are we so obsessed with the ads model. Why not start charging? This is not a web app, where you have to take out your wallet and enter your CC info; all it takes is the scan of your fingerprint. I am sure people wouldn't mind paying a certain amount per year to keep using the app without creepy apps. Sure, the revenue will be capped by the amount per year a user is willing to pay, but maybe the days of the fat cows are over?
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  > I am sure people wouldn't mind paying a certain amount per year to keep using the app without creepy apps. What makes you so sure? Given that there are basically no successful social networks that charge, I'm very skeptical.
  - noncoml 9y ago
    It’s a figure of speech, but my guess is based on the amount of money people pay for game apps.
- nemothekid 9y ago
  1. Snaps core demo likely doesn’t have the discretionary income to pay for a social network. 2. Snaps main competitor would have a far lower barrier to entry - free 3. If all your friends can’t pay for Snap, you will likely move regardless if you are a paying customer. Why would I pay for a network with 80% of my friends when I can use a near clone with 100% of my friends. 4. Facebook nearly $7/user a month with an ad model. Ads are fare more lucrative than subscriptions
  - randoman 9y ago
    Snap's ARPU is about $1 per quarter. Surely the core demo can afford even a 100% markup on that? My problem with any ad model is it incentivises the maximisation of views/engagement that allow for more/stickier ad impressions which means a proliferation of viral/tabloid/divisive content like youtube/snap/facebook. Once that incentive can be minimised, the incentive to provide quality product that users then feel willing to pay for can become more important. Of course, these networks didn't attract the user numbers they have by charging up front so for any challenger to come along and try this model will be extremely difficult due to the aforementioned friction in either getting out your credit card to pay or paying up front for an app. People will gladly shell out hundreds of dollars for a new phone but won't shell out a fraction of that for a quality app on that phone.
    - azinman2 9y ago
niftich 9y ago
It's not about the size of the userbase; it's about business models. They burned cash to acquire users, but once they wanted income they too have gone the advertising route. This leads to the dilution of the core experience as you've pointed out: fudged timelines [1], denser advertising, backporting of missing social networking features, leading to networks that are largely interchangeable [2]. Snapchat can't really afford to be interchangeable with Instagram, because Facebook actually knows how to persuade advertisers to keep selling ads, while Snapchat just relies on its perceived clout among a coveted demographic, providing very few mechanisms for advertisers to gauge their ROI [3]. Sooner or later, advertisers will wisen up and pull out of Snapchat, making their business model crisis all the more acute. Snapchat is one of the best-positioned companies to actually trial different business models for their app: they have a respectable install base, their platform is still sticky and desirable enough to maintain a sizeable userbase for some time, and their preexisting userbase is aging into being able to spend some money. Defection to Instagram isn't nearly as much of a threat as many make it seem: most Snapchat users are already on Instagram as well, so as long as they continue to engage with Snapchat, all is not lost. Their map purchase was an effort to pivot the product's monetization back to hyperlocal factors, and solidify the idea that your Snapchat friends are part of your close-knit circle. Snapchat could be a better Foursquare, but it's not quite there yet. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12191435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12191435 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050410
- chuckdries 9y ago
  As a heavy snapchat user, I'm a big fan of the idea of snapchat as a better foursquare/find my friends because honestly neither application ever made enough sense to keep installed longer than a week at a time. I don't know if I'd pay for it, but if they wanted to use location to sell ads to local businesses or whatever they could probably tap an otherwise relatively untapped ad market.
- dpandya 9y ago
  What kind of other models could potentially work for Snapchat other than advertising? I don't see any candidates from the list of other companies that serve young consumers.
jehlakj 9y ago
UX in the context of their target audience is simple, elegant and concise. Young people have an easy time getting used to different gestures and their respective actions. And once you get used to it (it took me a while cause I’m a bit old), it’s super convenient.
mwcampbell 9y ago
I wonder if the confusing, messy UX you talk about (I've never used the app) is a deliberate strategy, or just bad design.
glenstein 9y ago
There seems to be a natural arc to the process we keep reading about: Get investors & users with your cool design. Burn cash. Have an IPO. Flail as you try to monetize. But, they're at least succeeding at something that Google couldn't do if their life depended on it, which is make a social thing people want to use. What I don't get is why Google doesn't just swoop in either at the early stage or at flailing-and-monetization stage, buy them and stick them in their back pocket.

warent 9y ago

Not sure it should even be given the lofty status of paradox. Would simply mark it up to a bad business model

BoorishBears 9y ago
Snapchat doesn’t feel like a company with a business model that couldn’t be very successful, but it also doesn’t feel like there was ever a fighting chance of justifying it’s IPO evaluation

noncoml 9y ago

> how to sell ads Why are we so obsessed with the ads model. Why not start charging? This is not a web app, where you have to take out your wallet and enter your CC info; all it takes is the scan of your fingerprint. I am sure people wouldn't mind paying a certain amount per year to keep using the app without creepy apps. Sure, the revenue will be capped by the amount per year a user is willing to pay, but maybe the days of the fat cows are over?

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
> I am sure people wouldn't mind paying a certain amount per year to keep using the app without creepy apps. What makes you so sure? Given that there are basically no successful social networks that charge, I'm very skeptical.
- noncoml 9y ago
  It’s a figure of speech, but my guess is based on the amount of money people pay for game apps.
nemothekid 9y ago
1. Snaps core demo likely doesn’t have the discretionary income to pay for a social network. 2. Snaps main competitor would have a far lower barrier to entry - free 3. If all your friends can’t pay for Snap, you will likely move regardless if you are a paying customer. Why would I pay for a network with 80% of my friends when I can use a near clone with 100% of my friends. 4. Facebook nearly $7/user a month with an ad model. Ads are fare more lucrative than subscriptions
- randoman 9y ago
  Snap's ARPU is about $1 per quarter. Surely the core demo can afford even a 100% markup on that? My problem with any ad model is it incentivises the maximisation of views/engagement that allow for more/stickier ad impressions which means a proliferation of viral/tabloid/divisive content like youtube/snap/facebook. Once that incentive can be minimised, the incentive to provide quality product that users then feel willing to pay for can become more important. Of course, these networks didn't attract the user numbers they have by charging up front so for any challenger to come along and try this model will be extremely difficult due to the aforementioned friction in either getting out your credit card to pay or paying up front for an app. People will gladly shell out hundreds of dollars for a new phone but won't shell out a fraction of that for a quality app on that phone.
  - azinman2 9y ago

niftich 9y ago

It's not about the size of the userbase; it's about business models. They burned cash to acquire users, but once they wanted income they too have gone the advertising route. This leads to the dilution of the core experience as you've pointed out: fudged timelines [1], denser advertising, backporting of missing social networking features, leading to networks that are largely interchangeable [2]. Snapchat can't really afford to be interchangeable with Instagram, because Facebook actually knows how to persuade advertisers to keep selling ads, while Snapchat just relies on its perceived clout among a coveted demographic, providing very few mechanisms for advertisers to gauge their ROI [3]. Sooner or later, advertisers will wisen up and pull out of Snapchat, making their business model crisis all the more acute. Snapchat is one of the best-positioned companies to actually trial different business models for their app: they have a respectable install base, their platform is still sticky and desirable enough to maintain a sizeable userbase for some time, and their preexisting userbase is aging into being able to spend some money. Defection to Instagram isn't nearly as much of a threat as many make it seem: most Snapchat users are already on Instagram as well, so as long as they continue to engage with Snapchat, all is not lost. Their map purchase was an effort to pivot the product's monetization back to hyperlocal factors, and solidify the idea that your Snapchat friends are part of your close-knit circle. Snapchat could be a better Foursquare, but it's not quite there yet. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12191435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12191435 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050410

chuckdries 9y ago
As a heavy snapchat user, I'm a big fan of the idea of snapchat as a better foursquare/find my friends because honestly neither application ever made enough sense to keep installed longer than a week at a time. I don't know if I'd pay for it, but if they wanted to use location to sell ads to local businesses or whatever they could probably tap an otherwise relatively untapped ad market.
dpandya 9y ago
What kind of other models could potentially work for Snapchat other than advertising? I don't see any candidates from the list of other companies that serve young consumers.

jehlakj 9y ago

UX in the context of their target audience is simple, elegant and concise. Young people have an easy time getting used to different gestures and their respective actions. And once you get used to it (it took me a while cause I’m a bit old), it’s super convenient.

mwcampbell 9y ago

I wonder if the confusing, messy UX you talk about (I've never used the app) is a deliberate strategy, or just bad design.

glenstein 9y ago

There seems to be a natural arc to the process we keep reading about: Get investors & users with your cool design. Burn cash. Have an IPO. Flail as you try to monetize. But, they're at least succeeding at something that Google couldn't do if their life depended on it, which is make a social thing people want to use. What I don't get is why Google doesn't just swoop in either at the early stage or at flailing-and-monetization stage, buy them and stick them in their back pocket.