3 ms·

Most of the apps buying installs are from game companies that have massive revenues (Supercell, King, etc.). It's not the same as the 90s. There might be an app

Most of the apps buying installs are from game companies that have massive revenues (Supercell, King, etc.). It's not the same as the 90s. There might be an app bubble, but it's not a VC driven one.

famousactress 12y ago
Revenue doesn't prove that though, profit does. Do they also have massive profits?
- mrtron 12y ago
  My gut feeling is the valley has turned sour on fb far ahead of the facts. These app (especially gaming) companies are profitably running ads on fb. Many of which have spend hundreds of millions on advertising, primarily through fb (by a long shot over Google). Other genres of apps are starting to migrate to the gaming strategies of acquiring users and increasing retention with ads. CPMs on fb are rising, not falling. Brands haven't successfully migrated to mobile advertising as a whole, and when they do I think fb will be the primary choice. I don't think VC funded negative value ad campaigns are a notable portion of fb revenues. I would love to be proven wrong on any of these assertions.
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  Revenue generation pays for ad spending which generates more revenue. The only thing that stops this cycle is people stop playing and making in-app purchases.
- notatoad 12y ago
  Yes. Supercell was $464mm profit on $892mm revenue. The other big IAP game factories are probably similar. Zynga was doing some crazy profits too before they started sinking everything into acquisition http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/12/clash-of-clans-maker-supercell-generated-892m-in-revenues-with-huge-profit-margin-in-2013/ http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/12/clash-of-clans-maker-super...
prostoalex 12y ago
Is it? If they have a large publisher network, they can cross-promote within their apps. The only reason to pay a high rate for an install ad is to gain access to the audience you don't have.

Most of the apps buying installs are from game companies that have massive revenues (Supercell, King, etc.). It's not the same as the 90s. There might be an app bubble, but it's not a VC driven one.

famousactress 12y ago

Revenue doesn't prove that though, profit does. Do they also have massive profits?

mrtron 12y ago
My gut feeling is the valley has turned sour on fb far ahead of the facts. These app (especially gaming) companies are profitably running ads on fb. Many of which have spend hundreds of millions on advertising, primarily through fb (by a long shot over Google). Other genres of apps are starting to migrate to the gaming strategies of acquiring users and increasing retention with ads. CPMs on fb are rising, not falling. Brands haven't successfully migrated to mobile advertising as a whole, and when they do I think fb will be the primary choice. I don't think VC funded negative value ad campaigns are a notable portion of fb revenues. I would love to be proven wrong on any of these assertions.
onewaystreet 12y ago
Revenue generation pays for ad spending which generates more revenue. The only thing that stops this cycle is people stop playing and making in-app purchases.
notatoad 12y ago
Yes. Supercell was $464mm profit on $892mm revenue. The other big IAP game factories are probably similar. Zynga was doing some crazy profits too before they started sinking everything into acquisition http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/12/clash-of-clans-maker-supercell-generated-892m-in-revenues-with-huge-profit-margin-in-2013/ http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/12/clash-of-clans-maker-super...

prostoalex 12y ago

Is it? If they have a large publisher network, they can cross-promote within their apps. The only reason to pay a high rate for an install ad is to gain access to the audience you don't have.