Giant Social Media Platform Scrambling for Its Life

Earlier last week, news came about Snapchat refusing the $3 billion buy-out offer from Facebook. If you recall, April of last year, Instagram was bought for $1 billion by Facebook. During then, I remember thinking how could Facebook benefit from buying Instagram, an app that did not have an existing revenue model. The thought of Facebook incorporating ads into Instagram did come into my mind, but I still couldn’t digest the thought of it. Sure enough, after a year, there are Instagram ads now – at least in its early stages, as mentioned in my previous post. But now with Snapchat, I am more confused as to how Facebook can capitalize on Snapchat if it was successful in acquiring it.

I couldn’t really see putting ads on Snapchat would be effective given the nature of the app, which is that the video – once watched – is gone forever. Also, users also have the option of whether or not they want to view the video. There is a possibility that once users recognize that it is an ad, they would stop watching it. Given these reasons, I still couldn’t understand how Facebook can monetize Snapchat, just like Pooja. In her blog posts, she listed why she thinks Snapchat refused the offer. Initially, I agree with her points but later realized she was just looking at the buy-out from the same perspective I had, which was what synergies will be created from this acquisition.

It’s true that there so much misalignment in their positioning, but what is Facebook never planned on using or capitalizing on Snapchat? What if Facebook only wanted to get rid of the competition? Reading this article made me realize that maybe Facebook did just want to get rid of its threats. With more Facebook users switching to messaging and photo-sharing mobile apps, Facebook is desperate to keep its territory in the social media space. Spending $3 billion to keep its company afloat might not be such an unreasonable move for a $120 billion company to make.

Facebook Might Be Losing It

Back in the early 2000s, Friendster was the biggest thing in the Philippines and was essentially the Facebook of people back then. Not long after, Multiply was the biggest thing. And at least in the Philippines, the rapid adoption of Multiply marked the demise of Friendster. I know myspace was huge in North America, but in the Philippines, that was not the case. Following Multiply was Facebook. Just based from these, it seems that social media platform, albeit widely used at that time, do not last for more than a decade. And I think Facebook might be nearing its end soon.

In 2008 when I first started using Facebook, I found Facebook an all-in-one online platform wherein I can have fun playing online games with my friends, interact with them and share things I enjoy. This might one of the many reasons as to why Facebook was quick to replace all those other social media platforms. However, I can’t speak for everyone, but in 2011, I started losing interest on Facebook. I saw a trend where people in my network started being less active online – less were playing online games and less engagement in general. A recent research done by GlobalWebIndex confirms the decrease in activity of Facebook users, especially the teens. The research defined “active on Facebook” as doing more than just “liking” a separate page on the web and was done surveying teenagers in 30 countries. These teenagers seem to be shifting to mobile chat applications, such as WeChat, and photo-sharing apps namely Instagram and Snapchat.  Tom Smith, CEO of GlobalWebIndex, said, “There is a clear, definitive shift to mobile in general..”

I think one of the many reasons behind this shift to mobile apps is not necessarily because teenagers are more on their phones than computers, but because things that you can do on Facebook are starting to decrease. With people being less active on Facebook, there is only so much you can do on an online platform that is based on social interaction. What do you think?

Instagram Ads may be the next Pinterest in producing business results

While going through this article that talks about the success of Instagram ads, I saw some thought-provoking comments from readers. One that really struck me the most was this:

The article talked about the yielded results from Michael Kors’ Instagram ads which led to 33,000 new followers and a 370% increase in likes. This then begs that question: Now what? When you think about it: Instagram ads, if it persists in the future, makes Instagram very similar to Pinterest. Similar in a way that these Instagram ads, when done in a right way, can also lead to consumer purchases just like how Pinterest is subtly able to do.

To answer Ron Schott’s question, companies who benefit from these Instagram ads through increase in number of followers and likes, can gear their Instagram ads to also produce business results. By strategically using attractive and relevant photos and subtly providing a link of their website on the photo caption, these ads can also result to consumer purchase.

As a consumer, if I keep seeing sponsored photos like these on my newsfeed, given that its not excessive, it would not take too long for me to actually seriously consider buying a Michael Kors bag. Keeping one’s brand relevant and visible in consumers’ daily lives can really eventually led to consumer purchase.

I don’t know a lot about the technical back end side of Instagram, but if if they can customize the platform in a way that Instagram ads for Michael Kors (as an example) will only show to its intended target market, Instagram ads might be a better option for companies than have affiliated marketing with Pinterest, as these (Instagram) ads can be directed to the right consumers unlike Pinterest.

Going back to Ron’s question, what I can say is that having more followers allows for greater reach, while having more likes makes the Instagram ad/post eligible to be placed in the popular page, which increases exposure. These both can lead to higher potential sales, and I think are quantifiable results and real benefits.