I think what they bring to the table is drastically different than anything else out there. Although, admittedly imo they have lost their ways and people are moving to Instagram as an alternative (myself included).
But what separates them, and what they think people will eventually realize is that living in the moment is healthier, more rewarding and authentic than doing things for the purpose of likes and attention. Instagram is touching on this with stories that they copied but the entire Instagram platform just feels grimy overall (and snap is starting to feel that way as well with their uncustomizable discovery page).
So the path I see is them really focusing on authentic communication, and making the best ways to let friends share their true selves without worrying about likes because that's when you can have more fun. I think instead of being a camera company snap should be the 'moment' company. To me, there are lots of ways to enable people to have engaging experiences with others in the moment outside of a camera.
Snap is bringing in significant revenue and they will book over $1B in revenue, the challenge is that revenue growth has slowed significantly. That coupled with high operating costs and headcount expenses leaves them very much in the red. And it's debatable how many quarters this can continue without restructuring or another capital infusion.
They have been able to increase revenue per user but still trail Facebook and the growth story pitched at IPO around user growth is the biggest challenge.
With the platform stalling in user numbers increasing revenue per user is only one side of the equation.
The more damning item is really what they knew during the roadshow and how they disclosed it. Obviously Instagram stories has had a material impact on their business and the "whistleblower" was bringing this to management's attention while being shutdown most likely to not derail the momentum of the IPO.
It is quite possible that this may result in fines because there will most likely be a paper trail internally that detailed these issues. Then it's up to a judge to decide if enough disclosure was done.
That's the DOJ/SEC issue as for the ten year plan that's even trickier. Anecdotally Instagram delivers more value to advertisers with actual intent and purchases whole snap is more of an awareness play. But as we've seen with MySpace and Digg even high flying priorities can fizzle out as quickly as they give traction.
In each case a competitor really takes the lions share of the users and it's obvious that in snaps case that is Instagram. And buying a stalled out social platform is a bad play for any company that's serious about building the future.
Given the voting structure I think this will be playing out for a couple of years but at the moment the prospects certainly don't look good and the stock price reflects as much.
I'd buy puts - Zuckerberg outplayed them, I don't think they know what they're doing.
I don't think they'll be around much longer, it's also interesting that puts a couple years out are pretty expensive so the market doesn't really think there's much hope for them either.
Acquisition by Apple / Amazon / Google once the price is low enough. They have 100mil+ DAUs of an attractive demographic to advertisers (unless they are lying), but they can’t monetize and their costs are too high. Snap could fit into some master plan to break into social.
Spectacles was a flop. Snap Map was a flop. Discover as a separate section leaves much to be desired (Daily Mail thanks for the consistent cleavage /s). Instagram ate stories and interactive filters. It’s been over for a while now.
The DOJ that helps Facebook “fight election fraud” while benefiting from access to its data firehose has time to sniff around at Snap, which will only drive its stock price lower, which further helps Facebook weaken one of its only direct rivals.
This is why it pays to be corrupt. Notice there’s not even a thought of an antitrust trial in the opposite direction.
How do you know there's not even a thought of an antitrust trial? People who would know would be prevented from discussing it in a public forum, so it's not going to be in their press releases.
Who are you alleging is corrupt in the above? Is the DOJ corrupt because you believe they have access to Facebook's "data firehose" (as far as I am aware, they have to subpoena data per investigation, just like anyone else). Is Facebook corrupt for complying with a legal data access request? It's really easy to make vague conspiracy allegations - please make some actual provable claims and ideally cite some sources for them.
[+] [-] koboll|7 years ago|reply
I just don't see what they bring to the table that can possibly keep them afloat much longer.
[+] [-] Jonovono|7 years ago|reply
But what separates them, and what they think people will eventually realize is that living in the moment is healthier, more rewarding and authentic than doing things for the purpose of likes and attention. Instagram is touching on this with stories that they copied but the entire Instagram platform just feels grimy overall (and snap is starting to feel that way as well with their uncustomizable discovery page).
So the path I see is them really focusing on authentic communication, and making the best ways to let friends share their true selves without worrying about likes because that's when you can have more fun. I think instead of being a camera company snap should be the 'moment' company. To me, there are lots of ways to enable people to have engaging experiences with others in the moment outside of a camera.
This video by Evan sums up the difference well too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQYBLeV6sbM&t=7s and also see Kanyes tweets (https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/1042779425048211456?ref...) on the matter :p
[+] [-] raiyu|7 years ago|reply
They have been able to increase revenue per user but still trail Facebook and the growth story pitched at IPO around user growth is the biggest challenge.
With the platform stalling in user numbers increasing revenue per user is only one side of the equation.
The more damning item is really what they knew during the roadshow and how they disclosed it. Obviously Instagram stories has had a material impact on their business and the "whistleblower" was bringing this to management's attention while being shutdown most likely to not derail the momentum of the IPO.
It is quite possible that this may result in fines because there will most likely be a paper trail internally that detailed these issues. Then it's up to a judge to decide if enough disclosure was done.
That's the DOJ/SEC issue as for the ten year plan that's even trickier. Anecdotally Instagram delivers more value to advertisers with actual intent and purchases whole snap is more of an awareness play. But as we've seen with MySpace and Digg even high flying priorities can fizzle out as quickly as they give traction.
In each case a competitor really takes the lions share of the users and it's obvious that in snaps case that is Instagram. And buying a stalled out social platform is a bad play for any company that's serious about building the future.
Given the voting structure I think this will be playing out for a couple of years but at the moment the prospects certainly don't look good and the stock price reflects as much.
[+] [-] daeken|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gonehome|7 years ago|reply
I don't think they'll be around much longer, it's also interesting that puts a couple years out are pretty expensive so the market doesn't really think there's much hope for them either.
[+] [-] seibelj|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sonnyblarney|7 years ago|reply
They don't want to be on FB really.
So until the next 'cool messaging app' comes along I think they'll maintain an audience.
[+] [-] sgwae|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajcodez|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrguyorama|7 years ago|reply
I would have switched to Instagram a long time ago if it wasn't the devil that is Facebook.
[+] [-] ajcodez|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arrty88|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jannes|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bruceb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwawayinside|7 years ago|reply
This is why it pays to be corrupt. Notice there’s not even a thought of an antitrust trial in the opposite direction.
[+] [-] seanhunter|7 years ago|reply
Who are you alleging is corrupt in the above? Is the DOJ corrupt because you believe they have access to Facebook's "data firehose" (as far as I am aware, they have to subpoena data per investigation, just like anyone else). Is Facebook corrupt for complying with a legal data access request? It's really easy to make vague conspiracy allegations - please make some actual provable claims and ideally cite some sources for them.
[+] [-] econner|7 years ago|reply