Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

#11

Post by surfmike »

erikb wrote: post #4

I don't understand why anybody would ignore a >$100mio offer if he's not already a millionaire. The difference between not being a millionaire and being one is too huge to ignore, even if the company is undervalued by the offer.

It's ballsy for sure. If you have a company on a massive trajectory however, smart investors could convince you that you'll be worth more if you pass on the offer. Mark did the same thing.

Evan Spiegel passed on a 3B offer for Snapchat, and he owns 14% of the company. Today despite the drop, Snapchat is still worth $18B and Evan is worth 4B. And he also gets to stay CEO and control the product, which is a huge benefit of staying independent.

Citation: http://www.businessinsider.com/snap-stock-price-evan-spiegel...

Re: How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

#12

Post by hellbanner »

thinbeige wrote: post #2

Careful. Yes, Zuck tries to destroy Snapchhat but close to it? No way. Slowing their growth? Yes and this was expected. Instagram is winning this space? IDK, I only know that Instagram ads perform 10x worse than FB ads. After many test drives I've never touched them again. The only ones who are monetizing on Instagram are those shiny influencers. Paired with the current brand dillution (glossy Instagram vs not so glo…

On Instagram Influencing:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-11-30/confessio...

Re: How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

#13

Post by erikb »

ronack wrote: post #9
erikb wrote: post #4

I don't understand why anybody would ignore a >$100mio offer if he's not already a millionaire. The difference between not being a millionaire and being one is too huge to ignore, even if the company is undervalued by the offer.

"not already a millionaire" When your company is where Snapchat was at the time there's a good chance you've already taken millions off the table as part of a round. Even if not, when your company has achieved that level of growth, you can feel fairly confident that you will walk away fairly wealthy in the end, and it's more interesting to continue running your own company than it is to be rolled into someone else's.

The first reason makes sense to me. Maybe they are already, because there are other ways to take money (or money like values) out of your company besides selling it.

Re: How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

#14

Post by ballenf »

libertine wrote: post #7
thinbeige wrote: post #2

Careful. Yes, Zuck tries to destroy Snapchhat but close to it? No way. Slowing their growth? Yes and this was expected. Instagram is winning this space? IDK, I only know that Instagram ads perform 10x worse than FB ads. After many test drives I've never touched them again. The only ones who are monetizing on Instagram are those shiny influencers. Paired with the current brand dillution (glossy Instagram vs not so glo…

Just out of curiosity, can you provide the data on the 10x worst performance than FB Ads? Because I think that a claim to broad and generic to be said like that.

The wording was vague, but still seemed pretty clearly to be intended as personal experience anecdote.

If it were true and known by someone in the industry there might be competitive advantage to not making the knowledge widely known. I.e., advertising agency can show better overall performance by knowing where to place clients' ads.

A lot of supposition here, but just throwing out some reasons why something like this may be 100% true and provable without being documented as such.

Re: How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

#15

Post by thinbeige »

libertine wrote: post #7
thinbeige wrote: post #2

Careful. Yes, Zuck tries to destroy Snapchhat but close to it? No way. Slowing their growth? Yes and this was expected. Instagram is winning this space? IDK, I only know that Instagram ads perform 10x worse than FB ads. After many test drives I've never touched them again. The only ones who are monetizing on Instagram are those shiny influencers. Paired with the current brand dillution (glossy Instagram vs not so glo…

Just out of curiosity, can you provide the data on the 10x worst performance than FB Ads? Because I think that a claim to broad and generic to be said like that.

Too lazy to anonymize and upload screenshots of my FB Ad Manager.

But I can tell you that my CTRs were 10x lower compared to FB (0.15%-0.2% vs 1.5% (Unique Link CTR)) on average on categories and visuals matching Instagram followers/style/DNA. It's funny, some campaigns should have performed better on Instagram than on FB because the campaigns just matched the shiny Instagram style and consumer behavior. Nope.

Happy to hear other experiences.

Re: How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

#17

Post by ballenf »

dboreham wrote: post #8

Hmm...my kids say otherwise.

Every kid I know agrees with your kids. The article seemed like sensationalist attempt at self-fulfilling prophecy. FWIW, I'm taking a hard look at buying Snap just after the locks expire. No reason to do it now and a lot to be gleaned by seeing how much insiders sell.

Re: How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

#18

Post by thinbeige »

ballenf wrote: post #14
libertine wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity, can you provide the data on the 10x worst performance than FB Ads? Because I think that a claim to broad and generic to be said like that.

The wording was vague, but still seemed pretty clearly to be intended as personal experience anecdote. If it were true and known by someone in the industry there might be competitive advantage to not making the knowledge widely known. I.e., advertising agency can show better overall performance by knowing where to place clients' ads. A lot of supposition here, but just throwing out some reasons why something like thi…

I gave little more data in the other reply and I am happy to hear other experiences.

But as said the results are significantly worse than on FB. I experienced 10x.

Re: How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

#19

Post by polote »

It is weird to compare Snapchat and Instagram, they have very few in common.

Instagram is for photos you want to have long term, and which are defining your social level. And it is not for communicating

Snapchat is for communicating.

But Snapchat is just overvalued has everyone wants to have share in the futur big name of the internet, but they are far from dying ...

Re: How Facebook has used Instagram to beat Snapchat

#20

Post by mliker »

thinbeige wrote: post #2

Careful. Yes, Zuck tries to destroy Snapchhat but close to it? No way. Slowing their growth? Yes and this was expected. Instagram is winning this space? IDK, I only know that Instagram ads perform 10x worse than FB ads. After many test drives I've never touched them again. The only ones who are monetizing on Instagram are those shiny influencers. Paired with the current brand dillution (glossy Instagram vs not so glo…

I believe you're using biased sampling to value Instagram, Messenger, and Facebook. That's why you believe Instagram isn't valuable
Post reply on HN