| > If autoplay means people watch more stories, then so be it. I don't understand what you're trying to say or suggest here. If anything, Snapchat should implement autoplay for themselves and see what happens. It's at least worth a test. They did implement it and rolled it back. I think it has to do with use case. Instagram is very much like Facebook in that it is an addictive feed style. Snapchat is more selection. > Re: Growth, The Market, Engagement Last I checked, the biggest lever they have is ad revenue, and how quickly that grows. That is the road to profitability if there is one, isn't it? Their engagement is plenty for advertisers - I don't see a 3 min boost in engagement being reflecting in hoards of advertisers. That could even be reflective of a user experience that scares away more users and ends up being a net ad negative. Growth helps, but they have valuable users already. See below for more. As far as the market, with their IPO and stock terms, I'm not so sure they care much there. The founders and employees got their short term money, as did the company in general. > Instagram's stories cover Snapchat's use case pretty well. In my experience, they are completely different. It could be age related perhaps? Instagram is a profile you curate of moments for you and others to look back on, a feed to follow people and fun accounts, and stories are mostly celebrities. Snapchat is for a night out or other fun activities, messaging your close friends, and an app to pull out for fun when bored. At least yet, I don't know of any of my friends using Instagram in those ways, though as we know, Facebook has been trying nonstop to get into those with things like Facebook Direct, the Snapchat full clone in Messenger, etc. So far, the only thing that has stuck is stories, and it worked because it was much better for following celebrities and the like, not at the close personal level. The viewers and network effect is what gives IG stories such high user numbers. I doubt the creation rate is there from what I know of my friends. Again, maybe it's different for older demo's. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- As far as numbers go, there are two things keeping Snapchat afloat as a company (forget the speculative stock price here): 1. They have a lot of users that Instagram doesn't. Advertisers love young people, and that's where they are. 2. Instagram/Facebook have yet to crack into the personal messaging aspect like Snapchat has. I actually hate feed apps and don't use that part of Snapchat at all usually, and if I do, it's in the same way as trending news on Facebook (hey what's going on in the world real quick). I deleted my Instagram pretty quickly and opted for my own personal photo collection. Snapchat is something I use for my close friends - I mainly message about 10 people or less, and view stories of maybe 20. But I use it way more than Messenger, which is used for group chats and acquaintances who don't have my iMessage. Even with the slow user growth rate, those users aren't going away (yet). Time will tell how that plays out in the future. But the moat that's keeping Snapchat alive right now is young users and close personal communication. If those two pieces go elsewhere, I don't see them surviving. I also don't see those going to anything IG/Facebook/Messenger has put out yet. |
Not necessarily. Advertisers love people who are young and have money. So 20-35 is much more valuable than 12-16. Not sure where the average age for Snapchat users is, but I can imagine that they have a higher share of users who are too young to generate revenue for advertisers.
Unrelated to that it's just because advertisers are slow to catch up. Generally, advertising is most profitable where the most money is. And that is with older people. Successful online marketing to 60+yrs is much more profitable than to 20-25yr olds.