> He believes Facebook's ad revenues are also overdependent on venture-backed startups buying traffic and users
FB's ad portfolio seems too composite to be called startup-dependent. Or is it? I have no data on this.
11–20 of 54 posts
> He believes Facebook's ad revenues are also overdependent on venture-backed startups buying traffic and users
FB's ad portfolio seems too composite to be called startup-dependent. Or is it? I have no data on this.
This is exactly what the Oculus acquisition is all about and it was a genius move.
The use cases and the biz cases for buying/using a rift is imho not yet a given.
Babel metaphor aside, is Spiegel's core argument true? > He believes Facebook's ad revenues are also overdependent on venture-backed startups buying traffic and users FB's ad portfolio seems too composite to be called startup-dependent. Or is it? I have no data on this.
This is exactly what the Oculus acquisition is all about and it was a genius move.
This is exactly what the Oculus acquisition is all about and it was a genius move.
Yahoo tried it with their Tumblr acquisition (and others), but they seem to buy companies at their peak, rather during their early growth stages.
Are marketers really putting blind money on Facebook like they do on other forms of offline advertising -- or they did with online advertising during the first dot-com bubble? Or are they putting up money, measuring their CPAs against LTVs and changing advertising tactics when CPAs get too high? There are lots of choices for online advertisements today and a platform will produce profits as long as the platform produ…
Are marketers really putting blind money on Facebook like they do on other forms of offline advertising -- or they did with online advertising during the first dot-com bubble? Or are they putting up money, measuring their CPAs against LTVs and changing advertising tactics when CPAs get too high? There are lots of choices for online advertisements today and a platform will produce profits as long as the platform produ…
> So he's saying people take VC money and invest it in poorly devised advertisement strategies. I'm not familiar enough with VC-backed companies but is this that common? This was very common in the last dot-com boom. That time, Yahoo was the beneficiary of the funds. People were blindly throwing money at "internet advertising", without any clue as to whether they were getting any value or not. And VC-backed companies…
"Yes, and in his email he seems to believe that his dick pics app is "revolutionizing personal communication". Ok guy."