[saretired]

Google and Facebook capture user data across many dimensions, and so are able to present advertisers with highly targeted groups of prospects. I don't know if that's the case with Twitter or Snapchat. I would say that the more a site presents you with ads you have no interest in, the less likely it is that they have fine-grained profiles of their users (which is where the money is).

[rufb]

The way it stands, Snapchat already has more data points to tap from and richer content and interaction opportunities than traditional media (television, radio, print, OOH...), and this could be further improved in future versions. You don't need to set out to compete against Google and Facebook when the actual big fish in the market are in fact easier to position yourself against.

[saretired]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the actual big fish in the market. Google's Q2 16 ad revenue was $19.1B, NBC's was $2.1B, CBS's was $1.6B, and ABC's was also $1.6B.

[rufb]

I was thinking verticals as a whole, not individual companies. The budget for TV, print, radio and so forth tells the size of the market, the fact that there are more players in these verticals than in online search is maybe yet another reason to attack them rather than Google.