> But mobile monetizes better which is rare….a key question here is why does mobile monetize better?
I can answer this -> people don't realize ads on mobile are actually ads. FB's recent change of reducing FB Pages exposure on the News Feed affects this big time. For example, if I like Nike and I receive an ad for new shoes, I probably (1) didn't remember I actually "liked" Nike and/or (2) think this is just Nike updating a post on their Page. Regardless, because I like Nike, I don't care since the ad is relevant. FB actually does a fantastic job of providing relevant ads that most people would assume are simply their favorite brands giving them an update. Furthermore, when it comes to conversions for mobile apps install from FB ads, the friction is so low (click "Install Now" on FB, Click "Get" on the iTunes store), that the conversions (and cost per conversion) are impressively high.
A bit of background - I've been running a bunch of campaigns on FB recently for an e-commerce site which is not mobile optimized. Our conversion (both clicks and purchases) from mobile massively trumps the desktop.
I run a ton of ads on Facebook (full-time), and if you target both desktop and mobile newsfeed users, I find that for the same bid I get 90% coming from mobile vs. 10% desktop.
I could bid higher for desktop, but that would increase my cost per conversion. It obviously varies from campaign to campaign and client to client, but it's safe to say that I've moved almost entirely to mobile. It was even better when mobile was newer and CPCs were far lower.. but that's another story. The gold rush is over for marketers.
That only works when you actually like brands on facebook. Which is a bizarre behaviour that I've never understood. In fact I don't think I've liked a single marketed thing. Alas this doesn't result in no ads - just easily identified ones.
I'm stuck in a mentality where facebook was where I chatted to friends, suggested things to do, occasionally told people what I was up to, and joined such luminary groups as "I want to punch slow walking people in the back of the head".
" Specifically if ads on mobile are more engaging for consumer and more relevant than desk top ads than the addressable ad market for mobile will be bigger than desktop ad market and the valuations of mobile companies will be greater than desktop all else equal on audience size etc etc. Ie this would be a very positive factor for Snapchat
If Facebook knows this to be true it would result in them being willing to pay higher valuation for mobile companies than other acquirers because google won't know nor will yahoo msft etc because none of them have scale in mobile to understand these powerful secular trends and in essence they under value mobile vs FB and thus under invest and fall farther and farther behind."
Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit naive to assume that Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft..etc don't understand that mobile is dominating desktop because they don't have the mobile scale of FB? It seems like an obvious insight in today's world.
In fact one could argue that Yahoo REALLY understands it considering the shopping spree for mobile first companies these past 2 years.
Also it seems a bit odd to suggest Google wouldn't understand mobile advertising value vs desktop.
Google controls the #1 smartphone OS by marketshare and serves mobile ads over Google search products (& GMail now) to a large number of users.
Unless there is an inherently different value for mobile-social ads than just normal mobile/mobile-productivity ads I'm not sure how this would make sense.
> naive to assume that Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft..etc don't understand that mobile is dominating desktop...
That's not the guys point. He's considering whether the mobile ads are more engaging than the desktop ones which is not clear cut. I use my mobile a lot but I can't even recall reading an ad. I'm sure I've scrolled past some. It's possible Facebook has figured how to get people to read the things and have people buy stuff while the other companies have not yet.
Yes. This analysis was amateurish and naive, given the guy's credentials. A 1st year undergrad in business and finance could do a better job with half an hour to spare.
In case you wondered, as I did, how an e-mail from Goldman Sachs to Snapchat got to Sony; the author forwarded it to Sony Pictures Entertainment chairman/CEO Michael Lynton.
- Facebook makes money on desktop ads and mobile ads
- They are making less money on desktop
- They are making more money on mobile
- They may be seeing trends before anybody else that mobile is where they will make money
- So they might value engaging mobile apps more than competitors
Thus, as Snapchat, you realize that FB is willing to pay a lot of $$, but also that what you have (the active users on mobile) is valuable and will continue to grow in value. It's interesting because it sheds light on what went into Snapchat's decision to reject the acquisition.
Sounds like speech recognition, actually - I frequently get emails from a doctor who dictates most of his emails (on mobile), and they have a very similar cadence of grammatical mistakes...
YMMV of course, but iOS/Android (and Dragon/et. al.) are pretty good at recognizing words, less so entire sentences - and remember, this is 5 years ago, so adjust accordingly (unsurprisingly, consumer-grade speech recognition has improved dramatically in the past half-decade).
Ugh, I knew somebody would be in the comments saying this. Who cares about the ideas on offer, let's evaluate it according to the rules we all learned in third grade.
It was so painful to read that I had to give up, but from experience this isn't particularly rare; these dudes are typically so busy that they're hammering out missives like this as quickly as possible, no time to proof read or grammar check. Speed of response and communicating the core concepts is paramount.
> That said, all of this business cat stuff is way over my head. I have no idea whether it's interesting or not.
Same here, someone please annotate this Sony Wikileaks leak on Genius.com or something! I'd really like to understand it. Genius.com would be perfect for such a thing.
The real question proposed in this email remains. Has FB somehow discovered a way to make ads on mobile way more relevant and valuable than desktop? Because that's what props up their stock price. I would bet it's a lot more accidental clicks by users...
No, the ads are to install other mobile apps. The advertiser of the mobile app (say, for instance, Clash of Clans) only pays FB after the app is actually installed on the device. For instance, on iOS, those FB mobile ads open up the Apple App Store. From there, the uesr still has to click "Install".
I think it's safe to say that 99.99%+ of app installs are on purpose. No one really "accidentally" installs an app on his or her phone.
Reading (rather, skimming) this sort of analysis makes me wish that advertising had its own internet -- an anti-matter, separate universe sort of place. Depressing to see technology as a pack horse for advertising.
An internet without Google and apps, Bing, Youtube, Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat, almost all big content publishers, Tumblr (as of recently), Twitter... what would be left?
of my usage: Apple-owned apps, Spotify (premium only), Vimeo, SoundCloud, WhatsApp, Dropbox, Trello, Reddit.
I'm flagging this because the title says "privately", and I agree that it's a private email. It has no place on HN, and we aren't its intended recipient.
you can't blame the NSA for having agents reading your private email and looking through your private Internet traffic, if you are going to turn around and do the same thing at the first opportunity.
I don't blame NSA just for reading private stuff. I blame the NSA because they abuse their position that allows them to read that, much like I blame whoever leaked this email for having done so.
To me, your position is like, as we say in my country, "covering the sun with a sieve". The act is done, trying to oppose it now is futile.
It read to me more like he was whipping out something casually in short time, instead of taking the time to impress with grammar.
The context is missing here. They could've been chatting online or in person and he sent a quick 15 minute followup. Maybe they're friends who have this kind of casual grammar established. I've written things like this before when I knew the person and conveying information quickly was all I really cared about.
[+] [-] mbesto|11 years ago|reply
I can answer this -> people don't realize ads on mobile are actually ads. FB's recent change of reducing FB Pages exposure on the News Feed affects this big time. For example, if I like Nike and I receive an ad for new shoes, I probably (1) didn't remember I actually "liked" Nike and/or (2) think this is just Nike updating a post on their Page. Regardless, because I like Nike, I don't care since the ad is relevant. FB actually does a fantastic job of providing relevant ads that most people would assume are simply their favorite brands giving them an update. Furthermore, when it comes to conversions for mobile apps install from FB ads, the friction is so low (click "Install Now" on FB, Click "Get" on the iTunes store), that the conversions (and cost per conversion) are impressively high.
A bit of background - I've been running a bunch of campaigns on FB recently for an e-commerce site which is not mobile optimized. Our conversion (both clicks and purchases) from mobile massively trumps the desktop.
[+] [-] jonathanjaeger|11 years ago|reply
I could bid higher for desktop, but that would increase my cost per conversion. It obviously varies from campaign to campaign and client to client, but it's safe to say that I've moved almost entirely to mobile. It was even better when mobile was newer and CPCs were far lower.. but that's another story. The gold rush is over for marketers.
[+] [-] Ntrails|11 years ago|reply
I'm stuck in a mentality where facebook was where I chatted to friends, suggested things to do, occasionally told people what I was up to, and joined such luminary groups as "I want to punch slow walking people in the back of the head".
[+] [-] danielrakh|11 years ago|reply
If Facebook knows this to be true it would result in them being willing to pay higher valuation for mobile companies than other acquirers because google won't know nor will yahoo msft etc because none of them have scale in mobile to understand these powerful secular trends and in essence they under value mobile vs FB and thus under invest and fall farther and farther behind."
Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit naive to assume that Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft..etc don't understand that mobile is dominating desktop because they don't have the mobile scale of FB? It seems like an obvious insight in today's world.
In fact one could argue that Yahoo REALLY understands it considering the shopping spree for mobile first companies these past 2 years.
[+] [-] jkimmel|11 years ago|reply
Google controls the #1 smartphone OS by marketshare and serves mobile ads over Google search products (& GMail now) to a large number of users.
Unless there is an inherently different value for mobile-social ads than just normal mobile/mobile-productivity ads I'm not sure how this would make sense.
[+] [-] tim333|11 years ago|reply
That's not the guys point. He's considering whether the mobile ads are more engaging than the desktop ones which is not clear cut. I use my mobile a lot but I can't even recall reading an ad. I'm sure I've scrolled past some. It's possible Facebook has figured how to get people to read the things and have people buy stuff while the other companies have not yet.
[+] [-] anjc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arthurcolle|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmgbrn|11 years ago|reply
That said, all of this business cat stuff is way over my head. I have no idea whether it's interesting or not.
[+] [-] whysonot|11 years ago|reply
- Facebook makes money on desktop ads and mobile ads - They are making less money on desktop - They are making more money on mobile - They may be seeing trends before anybody else that mobile is where they will make money - So they might value engaging mobile apps more than competitors
Thus, as Snapchat, you realize that FB is willing to pay a lot of $$, but also that what you have (the active users on mobile) is valuable and will continue to grow in value. It's interesting because it sheds light on what went into Snapchat's decision to reject the acquisition.
[+] [-] kgrin|11 years ago|reply
YMMV of course, but iOS/Android (and Dragon/et. al.) are pretty good at recognizing words, less so entire sentences - and remember, this is 5 years ago, so adjust accordingly (unsurprisingly, consumer-grade speech recognition has improved dramatically in the past half-decade).
[+] [-] serve_yay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fizzbar|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pen2l|11 years ago|reply
Same here, someone please annotate this Sony Wikileaks leak on Genius.com or something! I'd really like to understand it. Genius.com would be perfect for such a thing.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bisrael|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Margh|11 years ago|reply
Not just in the sense that they are cleverly disguised, a clumsy scroll attempt often ended up triggering an ad click for me.
[+] [-] crablar|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ripberge|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scanr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vecter|11 years ago|reply
I think it's safe to say that 99.99%+ of app installs are on purpose. No one really "accidentally" installs an app on his or her phone.
[+] [-] threeseed|11 years ago|reply
Provided Facebook can match up the ads to the before/after feed content it would make sense that they would do well from it.
[+] [-] itazula|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grrowl|11 years ago|reply
of my usage: Apple-owned apps, Spotify (premium only), Vimeo, SoundCloud, WhatsApp, Dropbox, Trello, Reddit.
[+] [-] logicallee|11 years ago|reply
you can't blame the NSA for having agents reading your private email and looking through your private Internet traffic, if you are going to turn around and do the same thing at the first opportunity.
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
To me, your position is like, as we say in my country, "covering the sun with a sieve". The act is done, trying to oppose it now is futile.
[+] [-] sdlfkjsdlkjfl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] choppaface|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsprogrammer|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rokhayakebe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beaner|11 years ago|reply
The context is missing here. They could've been chatting online or in person and he sent a quick 15 minute followup. Maybe they're friends who have this kind of casual grammar established. I've written things like this before when I knew the person and conveying information quickly was all I really cared about.
[+] [-] beatboxrevival|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnguy1000100|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tarang|11 years ago|reply
Email was sent on April 24, 2014.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]