7 ms·

But people are using Instagram. I don’t have numbers/data to back this, but anecdotally I see people using Instagram for viewing content, for sharing content, a

But people are using Instagram. I don’t have numbers/data to back this, but anecdotally I see people using Instagram for viewing content, for sharing content, and for chatting, over their use of FB. Even if FB is in decline, FB made a wise decision to buy IG and hedge with IG. Something about the simple UX is allowing IG to thrive, while FB has become more complicated over the years.

te_chris 7y ago
As he said though: monetisation is not as good as the core product. From a media buying perspective, IG is kind of niche. It takes loads of work to produce content for it, but it’s really hard to measure ROI because it’s mostly only good for branding, rather than more intent driven stuff. Idk, it’s an amazing product on its own, and well monetised, but comparing it to the borg, and expecting to hold it up, seems like putting a lot on its shoulders.
empath75 7y ago
If they monetize ig the way they monetize Facebook, they’ll wreck user engagement there, too.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  What's interesting to me about Instagram is that there are a ton of ads. Probably more than Facebook. But unlike Facebook, the most valuable ads run on the platform (and the ads most preferred by users) are from transactions that take place off of the platform. When Louis Vuitton wants to advertise on Instagram they don't open the Instagram Ad Manager. They call Kylie Jenner and pay her to post a photo. And not only do users not mind those ads - a lot of users seem to enjoy them. People actually seek out those types of ads. It's incredible engagement. But Instagram doesn't make a penny. And then the FTC, usually Facebook's nemesis, comes along and hands them a silver bullet to monetize Instagram without harming user engagement: Social Media Endorsement Guidelines.[1] If users are legally required to disclose when they've been paid to post something via #ad or #sponsored then Instagram could easily charge a small fee for every thousand views/comments/likes on those posts. Consider it a small tax for monetizing an otherwise free platform. They could even charge accounts a small annual "hosting" fee based on the number of followers to unlock/use the legally-required hashtags or for the ability to include hyperlinks. Is Kylie Jenner going to turn down a million dollars from Louis Vuitton because she'll get a $1,500 dollar bill from Instagram? Doubtful. She puts out content users want to consume. Instagram would get paid as the platform that brought all of those users together. Advertisers could still reach their audience and users wouldn't be, ya know, stalked. But what has Facebook done to monetize Instagram? The same thing they did with Facebook - cheap, high-volume surveillance advertising for $5/CPM. Instead of figuring out a way to monetize the advertisements that users like, Facebook decided to sprinkle their feeds with crappy/creepy t-shirt designs, drop-shipped Alibaba junk, and vitamins/CBD/essential oils that very well might kill them. If Instagram goes belly up Zuck & Sandberg have no one to blame but themselves. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
strict9 7y ago
It's 100% anecdotal but the observation has a 10-year run... I've been riding the same train line in Chicago for almost 10 years (Blue Line) and when I started I remember cringing that so many spent their free time scrolling facebook before/after work on the ride home. Now it's much less social networking--but when it is, it's definitely instagram or occasionally twitter. Can't remember the last time I saw someone scrolling the blue app on their phone. Guessing people still use it at home sometimes because they have to, or in the case of boomers, they're hooked on political memes. Losing ground so much ground on the phone is an ominous sign.
- dehrmann 7y ago
  I'm curious: what's replacing social networking during people's commutes? > occasionally twitter Can't believe I'm saying this, but it's looking like Twitter might outlive Facebook as a relevant platform.
  - strict9 7y ago
    I haven't tabulated it but if it's not those two it's usually a game or (more likely) sms, and a lot of news sites. As an aside, I honestly have little interest in snooping (it's boring) but on very crowded trains you can't always avoid it.
    - dehrmann 7y ago
      About games, ZNGA's outperformed FB in the past year.
  - mooreds 7y ago
    > Can't believe I'm saying this, but it's looking like Twitter might outlive Facebook as a relevant platform. It definitely has for me. Twitter is good for news, conference chatter and contacting folks I do not know. Facebook is great for people I know, but my friends have migrated to SMS or email, and professional contact is happening over LinkedIn. #anecdata

te_chris 7y ago

As he said though: monetisation is not as good as the core product. From a media buying perspective, IG is kind of niche. It takes loads of work to produce content for it, but it’s really hard to measure ROI because it’s mostly only good for branding, rather than more intent driven stuff. Idk, it’s an amazing product on its own, and well monetised, but comparing it to the borg, and expecting to hold it up, seems like putting a lot on its shoulders.

empath75 7y ago

If they monetize ig the way they monetize Facebook, they’ll wreck user engagement there, too.

elliekelly 7y ago
What's interesting to me about Instagram is that there are a ton of ads. Probably more than Facebook. But unlike Facebook, the most valuable ads run on the platform (and the ads most preferred by users) are from transactions that take place off of the platform. When Louis Vuitton wants to advertise on Instagram they don't open the Instagram Ad Manager. They call Kylie Jenner and pay her to post a photo. And not only do users not mind those ads - a lot of users seem to enjoy them. People actually seek out those types of ads. It's incredible engagement. But Instagram doesn't make a penny. And then the FTC, usually Facebook's nemesis, comes along and hands them a silver bullet to monetize Instagram without harming user engagement: Social Media Endorsement Guidelines.[1] If users are legally required to disclose when they've been paid to post something via #ad or #sponsored then Instagram could easily charge a small fee for every thousand views/comments/likes on those posts. Consider it a small tax for monetizing an otherwise free platform. They could even charge accounts a small annual "hosting" fee based on the number of followers to unlock/use the legally-required hashtags or for the ability to include hyperlinks. Is Kylie Jenner going to turn down a million dollars from Louis Vuitton because she'll get a $1,500 dollar bill from Instagram? Doubtful. She puts out content users want to consume. Instagram would get paid as the platform that brought all of those users together. Advertisers could still reach their audience and users wouldn't be, ya know, stalked. But what has Facebook done to monetize Instagram? The same thing they did with Facebook - cheap, high-volume surveillance advertising for $5/CPM. Instead of figuring out a way to monetize the advertisements that users like, Facebook decided to sprinkle their feeds with crappy/creepy t-shirt designs, drop-shipped Alibaba junk, and vitamins/CBD/essential oils that very well might kill them. If Instagram goes belly up Zuck & Sandberg have no one to blame but themselves. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

strict9 7y ago

It's 100% anecdotal but the observation has a 10-year run... I've been riding the same train line in Chicago for almost 10 years (Blue Line) and when I started I remember cringing that so many spent their free time scrolling facebook before/after work on the ride home. Now it's much less social networking--but when it is, it's definitely instagram or occasionally twitter. Can't remember the last time I saw someone scrolling the blue app on their phone. Guessing people still use it at home sometimes because they have to, or in the case of boomers, they're hooked on political memes. Losing ground so much ground on the phone is an ominous sign.

dehrmann 7y ago
I'm curious: what's replacing social networking during people's commutes? > occasionally twitter Can't believe I'm saying this, but it's looking like Twitter might outlive Facebook as a relevant platform.
- strict9 7y ago
  I haven't tabulated it but if it's not those two it's usually a game or (more likely) sms, and a lot of news sites. As an aside, I honestly have little interest in snooping (it's boring) but on very crowded trains you can't always avoid it.
  - dehrmann 7y ago
    About games, ZNGA's outperformed FB in the past year.
- mooreds 7y ago
  > Can't believe I'm saying this, but it's looking like Twitter might outlive Facebook as a relevant platform. It definitely has for me. Twitter is good for news, conference chatter and contacting folks I do not know. Facebook is great for people I know, but my friends have migrated to SMS or email, and professional contact is happening over LinkedIn. #anecdata