6 ms·

Ads may come to Instagram

74 points by jalanco 14y ago

404error 14y ago
They should partner with http://printstagr.am/ http://printstagr.am/ and make money off their users.
- lancefisher 14y ago
  I've used printstagr.am, and liked it. The prints are fun just like the instagram photos. It would be cool if this were built in to Instagram, and I could mail the prints as a gift.
  - 404error 14y ago
    Yup that's what I was thinking. Build in the functionality to order prints straight from the app. They could expand to postcards which I think would be awesome.
    - danudey 14y ago
      Expand it out even more. If you make a postcard or printout of my photo, give me a cut of the money (even if it's a small one). Let me use that credit towards my own postcards, or if I get a ton of it, cash it out. It would also encourage brands to put good content up, rather than just being a boring corporate mouthpiece, which is always a plus.
- chriscollins 14y ago
  ^ this. or something like this. It always bugs me that the only way anyone has figured out how to monetize anything online is by throwing up some ads on it. Its ugly, intrusive, and the users end up pretty much tuning them out anyway. Surely there has to be a better way to make money. -prints, photobooks, physical stuff like that. people into making their photos look vintagey would surely love to place their fake polaroid next to their record collection. -All instagram images are geotagged and timestamped. How about you partner with media outlets and allow them to leverage all the images being taken for specific events? "instagram @ SXSW" or whatever. -"license this image" - Lets say I run a food blog. clearly a great place to look for imagery of food is on instagram. I could affordably license the image and give money to the photographer (and instagram gets a cut.) -etc, etc, etc, These are just off the top of my head. I'm not saying these are brilliant ideas, or that they would necessarily work at all. What I am saying is that I wish that we'd explore solutions outside of "lets plaster ads all over it." It's an ineffective way of making money that's just stolen from the slowly-dying magazine industry, and is that really the industry you want to emulate?
- minikites 14y ago
  That's cool. I like PostalPix, which is similar. I agree that Instagram could definitely do something like this to make money instead of ads. The ability to produce worthwhile physical products from your service is an advantage over something like Twitter or Facebook.
jemka 14y ago
1. Facebook is a for profit company. 2. Facebook probably wants to seek a direct monetary ROI on Instagram. 3. Facebook may or may not have figured out that strategy. Either way, not revealing those details is an indication of nothing beyond standard business practice. 4. Some users don't like ads, which is evident by the popularity of ad blocking tools. 5. Some users don't mind ads, some even click on them, which is evident by the revenue ads generate. What part of this article brings anything new to the table that we haven't known for months/years?
- mayneack 14y ago
  The exact same thing that your comment brings. It's not saying those are interesting things, it's saying "why do all these 'new sources' think those are interesting ideas"
- kamjam 14y ago
  You mean it's not as simple as: 1. Buy Instagram for $1 billion 2. ??? 3. Profit! I never should have followed that business plan from those damned gnomes!
- aes256 14y ago
  > 5. Some users don't mind ads, some even click on them, which is evident by the revenue ads generate. Don't underestimate people clicking ads for the wrong reasons (e.g. they don't realize it's an ad, the ad makes misleading or incorrect claims, the user is just using the ad as a convenient shortcut to a website when searching for it on Google, etc.) I'd guesstimate this to be the majority of ad clicks and revenue.
  - asanwal 14y ago
    Sorry but this guesstimate is a bit absurd. If the majority of ad clicks were ineffective or for wrong reasons, Google's $231 billion market cap would be tough to justify.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      These are not mutually exclusive concepts, just FYI.
zissou 14y ago
I expected to see (theonion.com) at the end of this title after reading it.
juiceandjuice 14y ago
I like how they used twitter to complain about a social media application having ads.
- lucisferre 14y ago
  This proves just how far you can trust the stated intentions of free users.
kyllo 14y ago
Kind of a condescending article. Really, Instagram pulled an enormous bait-and-switch. Create a great application, give it away for free until you've built up a huge base of users, then sell the application and its user base to another company and let them figure out how to actually make money off it. Understandably users are going to be upset because they're being asked to either pay for or see ads with something that they used to get for free and ad-free. People will always be upset when you take something away, even if you gave it to them for free.
- purplelobster 14y ago
  Users don't really have any right to be upset over not being able to use services completely for free. Is this what the world has come to? Start-ups make their service free initially until they've gotten enough users, then try to monetize and then the users hop on to the next free service. And repeat. Either user expectations have to change, or start-ups will have to realize that they need to start monetize right away.
  - dasil003 14y ago
    Since seed investments continue at a breakneck pace, and since instagram sold at many multiples of any revenue stream their existing service could have provided, I don't see much chance of startups realizing they have to change. Likewise, user complaints are a tempest in a teapot. Does it matter to anyone how angry you are about the downward spiral of your favorite service? I actually think people enjoy their righteous indignation and are nowhere near being mad enough to consider not using the next cool free service.
    - kyllo 14y ago
      Startups don't have to realize that they need to start monetizing right away. Companies that buy startups need to realize that if they buy a startup that has only free users who aren't looking at ads, they might not be buying what they think they're buying. Because those millions of users have all been trained to expect to enjoy the service for free. So when you buy a company for its user base, you need to consider that free users are not worth what paying/ad-viewing users are worth, and if you try to charge or show them ads without creating more value for them in return, many of them might leave. If companies that buy startups realize this, then the startups themselves will start monetizing right away, because it will be the only way to get acquired.
quarterto 14y ago
Either: Facebook have no imagination. Or: Slate (and the internet) has the wrong end of the stick. Scenario the first. So FB dropped a cool billion on a photo-sharing social network and app with a sizeable, vehemently dedicated and pretty damn vocal userbase. Now they want to make money out of it. Fine. "So guys, Instagram monetization. Hit me." "Um." "Um." "Ads?" "Perfect!" I (and I'm sure a large majority of Instagram users) am pretty much instantly put off by ads. Especially in-app or in-feed apps. Any ad space sold on my screen is pretty much money wasted. Scenario the second. There have to be other ways to make money from Instagram that make one iota of sense given the community and demographic. Premium filters maybe? I'm just sayin'.
- ryanwhitney 14y ago
  No, it's that Business Insider writes trolly headlines. Nowhere in the interview did Facebook say nor "confirm" they were adding ads to Instagram.
  - dmix 14y ago
    Ugh, you're right. The actual quote: BI: Will you put ads in Instagram? CE: Eventually we'll figure out a way to monetize Instagram. So they're a basically just leaving the option on the table... This is modern media 101.
  - ErikAugust 14y ago
    BI are masters of click-bait. Which makes them masters of spreading untrue statements.
  - jpdoctor 14y ago
    > No, it's that Business Insider writes trolly headlines. BI was the child of Henry Blodget, barred from the securities industry for the famous POS memo. That should tell you everything you need to know.
- notmarkus 14y ago
  Did you read the article? The entire thing is about how Instagram has NOT said they're adding ads, and likely, based on the VP's response, actively trying to stay away from them.
debacle 14y ago
Headline in a year: "Instagram Owners Appalled To Learn That Users Don't Like Ads" The fact of the matter is that, as long as the VC treadmill keeps moving, there will be start-ups earlier in the cycle willing to take the place of start-ups like Instagram and Facebook (which are trying to find a way towards profitability).
JeremyMorgan 14y ago
They've never confirmed they're doing ads. But I would think something similar to in game items would work great. Aviary for instance has a great set of standard filters, and some "extras" you can buy. I have already purchased one. Would I have clicked on an ad anytime in the next year? probably not
larrydavid 14y ago
Articles that cherry pick comments from Twitter and then announce it as some sweeping generalization need to stop. The evidence for the headline is based on 4 screenshots of some random tweets. It happened recently with the MS vs Android malware 'backlash' and also when Instagram was released for Android. Just because you can cherry pick tweets from the vocal minority to form your attention grabbing headline doesn't mean it applies to the entire user base.
runT1ME 14y ago
They don't really need 'ads', just corporate accounts, right? When someone creates an account they could immediately be following a Coca Cola, BMW and Apple instagram account. They could even make it a requirement to follow a small number of brands. I for one wouldn't be too pissed if an occasional cool picture of an apple store or BMW came up in my feed...
slykat 14y ago
The title of this should be "Facebook is looking at ways to monetize its billion dollar investments, much like every other public company in world." I'm not sure how this is even worthy of an article.
CommitPull 14y ago
I always found it cool that when you can't come up with any business at all and you're totally desperate, you still can do ads. But for Instagram, sorry Adstagram?? They could do so much more. Fucking money sharks.
vlokshin 14y ago
lol @ "may"
nnash 14y ago
Hopefully they have a simple ad-free version of the app costing anywhere between $1.00-$5.00, for those of us that don't mind paying for an ad free experience.

74 points by jalanco 14y ago

404error 14y ago

They should partner with http://printstagr.am/ http://printstagr.am/ and make money off their users.

lancefisher 14y ago
I've used printstagr.am, and liked it. The prints are fun just like the instagram photos. It would be cool if this were built in to Instagram, and I could mail the prints as a gift.
- 404error 14y ago
  Yup that's what I was thinking. Build in the functionality to order prints straight from the app. They could expand to postcards which I think would be awesome.
  - danudey 14y ago
    Expand it out even more. If you make a postcard or printout of my photo, give me a cut of the money (even if it's a small one). Let me use that credit towards my own postcards, or if I get a ton of it, cash it out. It would also encourage brands to put good content up, rather than just being a boring corporate mouthpiece, which is always a plus.
chriscollins 14y ago
^ this. or something like this. It always bugs me that the only way anyone has figured out how to monetize anything online is by throwing up some ads on it. Its ugly, intrusive, and the users end up pretty much tuning them out anyway. Surely there has to be a better way to make money. -prints, photobooks, physical stuff like that. people into making their photos look vintagey would surely love to place their fake polaroid next to their record collection. -All instagram images are geotagged and timestamped. How about you partner with media outlets and allow them to leverage all the images being taken for specific events? "instagram @ SXSW" or whatever. -"license this image" - Lets say I run a food blog. clearly a great place to look for imagery of food is on instagram. I could affordably license the image and give money to the photographer (and instagram gets a cut.) -etc, etc, etc, These are just off the top of my head. I'm not saying these are brilliant ideas, or that they would necessarily work at all. What I am saying is that I wish that we'd explore solutions outside of "lets plaster ads all over it." It's an ineffective way of making money that's just stolen from the slowly-dying magazine industry, and is that really the industry you want to emulate?
minikites 14y ago
That's cool. I like PostalPix, which is similar. I agree that Instagram could definitely do something like this to make money instead of ads. The ability to produce worthwhile physical products from your service is an advantage over something like Twitter or Facebook.

jemka 14y ago

1. Facebook is a for profit company. 2. Facebook probably wants to seek a direct monetary ROI on Instagram. 3. Facebook may or may not have figured out that strategy. Either way, not revealing those details is an indication of nothing beyond standard business practice. 4. Some users don't like ads, which is evident by the popularity of ad blocking tools. 5. Some users don't mind ads, some even click on them, which is evident by the revenue ads generate. What part of this article brings anything new to the table that we haven't known for months/years?

mayneack 14y ago
The exact same thing that your comment brings. It's not saying those are interesting things, it's saying "why do all these 'new sources' think those are interesting ideas"
kamjam 14y ago
You mean it's not as simple as: 1. Buy Instagram for $1 billion 2. ??? 3. Profit! I never should have followed that business plan from those damned gnomes!
aes256 14y ago
> 5. Some users don't mind ads, some even click on them, which is evident by the revenue ads generate. Don't underestimate people clicking ads for the wrong reasons (e.g. they don't realize it's an ad, the ad makes misleading or incorrect claims, the user is just using the ad as a convenient shortcut to a website when searching for it on Google, etc.) I'd guesstimate this to be the majority of ad clicks and revenue.
- asanwal 14y ago
  Sorry but this guesstimate is a bit absurd. If the majority of ad clicks were ineffective or for wrong reasons, Google's $231 billion market cap would be tough to justify.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    These are not mutually exclusive concepts, just FYI.

zissou 14y ago

I expected to see (theonion.com) at the end of this title after reading it.

juiceandjuice 14y ago

I like how they used twitter to complain about a social media application having ads.

lucisferre 14y ago
This proves just how far you can trust the stated intentions of free users.

kyllo 14y ago

Kind of a condescending article. Really, Instagram pulled an enormous bait-and-switch. Create a great application, give it away for free until you've built up a huge base of users, then sell the application and its user base to another company and let them figure out how to actually make money off it. Understandably users are going to be upset because they're being asked to either pay for or see ads with something that they used to get for free and ad-free. People will always be upset when you take something away, even if you gave it to them for free.

purplelobster 14y ago
Users don't really have any right to be upset over not being able to use services completely for free. Is this what the world has come to? Start-ups make their service free initially until they've gotten enough users, then try to monetize and then the users hop on to the next free service. And repeat. Either user expectations have to change, or start-ups will have to realize that they need to start monetize right away.
- dasil003 14y ago
  Since seed investments continue at a breakneck pace, and since instagram sold at many multiples of any revenue stream their existing service could have provided, I don't see much chance of startups realizing they have to change. Likewise, user complaints are a tempest in a teapot. Does it matter to anyone how angry you are about the downward spiral of your favorite service? I actually think people enjoy their righteous indignation and are nowhere near being mad enough to consider not using the next cool free service.
  - kyllo 14y ago
    Startups don't have to realize that they need to start monetizing right away. Companies that buy startups need to realize that if they buy a startup that has only free users who aren't looking at ads, they might not be buying what they think they're buying. Because those millions of users have all been trained to expect to enjoy the service for free. So when you buy a company for its user base, you need to consider that free users are not worth what paying/ad-viewing users are worth, and if you try to charge or show them ads without creating more value for them in return, many of them might leave. If companies that buy startups realize this, then the startups themselves will start monetizing right away, because it will be the only way to get acquired.

quarterto 14y ago

Either: Facebook have no imagination. Or: Slate (and the internet) has the wrong end of the stick. Scenario the first. So FB dropped a cool billion on a photo-sharing social network and app with a sizeable, vehemently dedicated and pretty damn vocal userbase. Now they want to make money out of it. Fine. "So guys, Instagram monetization. Hit me." "Um." "Um." "Ads?" "Perfect!" I (and I'm sure a large majority of Instagram users) am pretty much instantly put off by ads. Especially in-app or in-feed apps. Any ad space sold on my screen is pretty much money wasted. Scenario the second. There have to be other ways to make money from Instagram that make one iota of sense given the community and demographic. Premium filters maybe? I'm just sayin'.

ryanwhitney 14y ago
No, it's that Business Insider writes trolly headlines. Nowhere in the interview did Facebook say nor "confirm" they were adding ads to Instagram.
- dmix 14y ago
  Ugh, you're right. The actual quote: BI: Will you put ads in Instagram? CE: Eventually we'll figure out a way to monetize Instagram. So they're a basically just leaving the option on the table... This is modern media 101.
- ErikAugust 14y ago
  BI are masters of click-bait. Which makes them masters of spreading untrue statements.
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  > No, it's that Business Insider writes trolly headlines. BI was the child of Henry Blodget, barred from the securities industry for the famous POS memo. That should tell you everything you need to know.
notmarkus 14y ago
Did you read the article? The entire thing is about how Instagram has NOT said they're adding ads, and likely, based on the VP's response, actively trying to stay away from them.

debacle 14y ago

Headline in a year: "Instagram Owners Appalled To Learn That Users Don't Like Ads" The fact of the matter is that, as long as the VC treadmill keeps moving, there will be start-ups earlier in the cycle willing to take the place of start-ups like Instagram and Facebook (which are trying to find a way towards profitability).

JeremyMorgan 14y ago

They've never confirmed they're doing ads. But I would think something similar to in game items would work great. Aviary for instance has a great set of standard filters, and some "extras" you can buy. I have already purchased one. Would I have clicked on an ad anytime in the next year? probably not

larrydavid 14y ago

Articles that cherry pick comments from Twitter and then announce it as some sweeping generalization need to stop. The evidence for the headline is based on 4 screenshots of some random tweets. It happened recently with the MS vs Android malware 'backlash' and also when Instagram was released for Android. Just because you can cherry pick tweets from the vocal minority to form your attention grabbing headline doesn't mean it applies to the entire user base.

runT1ME 14y ago

They don't really need 'ads', just corporate accounts, right? When someone creates an account they could immediately be following a Coca Cola, BMW and Apple instagram account. They could even make it a requirement to follow a small number of brands. I for one wouldn't be too pissed if an occasional cool picture of an apple store or BMW came up in my feed...

slykat 14y ago

The title of this should be "Facebook is looking at ways to monetize its billion dollar investments, much like every other public company in world." I'm not sure how this is even worthy of an article.

CommitPull 14y ago

I always found it cool that when you can't come up with any business at all and you're totally desperate, you still can do ads. But for Instagram, sorry Adstagram?? They could do so much more. Fucking money sharks.

vlokshin 14y ago

lol @ "may"

nnash 14y ago

Hopefully they have a simple ad-free version of the app costing anywhere between $1.00-$5.00, for those of us that don't mind paying for an ad free experience.