Mobile App Install Ads & Facebook’s Earnings Report


Very interesting tidbit for the #stats hound in Facebook beats the street and Wall Street yawns: Facebook earnings report for Q2/2014 reveals that their App Install Ads may be driving significant revenue increases. [above chart is from the post]

But lest you think that this is a Facebook issue alone, it is really much bigger than that:

1) The rise of App Install Ads (AIAs), which for some reason according to Re/Code’s Peter Kafka “…In [the] FB [earnings] call, [Facebook’s] Sandberg tries to downplay importance of app install ads to mobile biz. Not a ‘great majority’ of $.”

… appears to prove my long-held belief that Context is the key to getting ads to work, i.e. offer people something that makes sense in the context of what they are already doing. In that light, offering people mobile apps while they are using a mobile device and likely app, is exactly the right approach.

(Compare what I wrote here a long time ago: .)

Pair it with the “Impulse Purchase Territory” pricing of between FREE and $4.99 say, and you have something that works, compared to offering them a refrigerator or car in a mobile ad.

(More on the Impulse Purchase Territory pricing concept here: where…

“…I’ve said previously that e.g. Sony is making a huge mistake by not going the $1/month route for complete/unlimited streaming music access with their own new offering: Because that would put it in the complete impulse purchase, don’t-need-to-think, will-likely-never-cancel-for-any-reason category.”

BTW Amazon took another significant step a few days ago in the inevitable march to near $0 book content with its $10/month all-you-can-read Kindle eBook subscription service: Yes, there are still the “Big 5” publishing houses as holdouts, because they wrongly believe that they have pricing power left… .)

2) The relative ARPUs shown below are particularly interesting to me from the perspective of Web or mobile service monetization strategies. As you can see, the world-wide ARPU for Facebook is creeping towards $10 per user per year, with significant — though expected — variation between various regions:

In the U.S. with $6.44 per quarter = near $26 / year, the revenue is more than double a European user, and 6 times that of a user in Asia.

I have been playing with the idea over the past 6+ months of what would happen if Web services attempted to charge their users $1/month in exchange for never having to bother them with ads, or any other form of targeting or data exploitation, except maybe for where that were specifically requested by the user (OPT-IN), in line with +Doc Searls‘ and others #VRM  ideas.

For FB, the world-wide and European ARPU numbers still show this as a viable option, but for the U.S. of course one could argue that FB would be leaving too much money on the proverbial table if they went this route (they would have to charge a U.S. user $2/month to break even with their current number).

Then again, a non-public company wouldn’t have short-term shareholder interests to answer to, and could well choose to go the longer-term more sustainable route of forgoing some ad revenue for a happier, more loyal user base.

(Not that it is by any means easy to significantly drive up ad monetization on social media, as Twitter has been finding out for a good while now.)

It least that’s my current view/argument, that once ONE successful Social Media / etc. service offers this #privacy respecting option, that they will either clean up big, or force  the competition to follow suit in relatively short order. Yes, we all once thought that G+ could be that option, but it was not to be…

3) Related: This chart shows the rise of FB’s mobile ads going from a mere blip around Q2/2012, to 1.5x or the stagnant desktop ads a mere two years later!

“Where Facebook’s money comes from, via @BIIntelligence”

Mobile is rising in the near blink of an eye (and not done yet…), and Mobile Apps have emerged as maybe THE way to monetize it beyond device sales and mobile bandwidth. Stands to reason that selling ads WITH this trend instead of against it would work.

Tangentially related posts on Mobile and Pricing issues:

Stats hound Tuesday: Box’ storage financial internals

A Look Inside Box: Competition, Product Plans, And Unit Economics | TechCrunch

A stats hound Tuesday (or any day…) item – A Look Inside Box: Competition, Product Plans, And Unit Economics | TechCrunch

Interesting look into the financial internals of Box’ (mostly storage) cost for the #Free accounts portion of their Freemium model, which they actually count as “marketing costs” (because they “warm up” the users for some of those later sales):

According to their pre-IPO  S-1 filing $171 Million for 2013, for 25 Million registered users, of which something like 7% are paying “Premium” customers.

To keep the math simple let’s say that 2M are paying, so that leaves the remaining 23M costing 171 / 23 = about $7.50 per user per year. Obviously all of this is on average, as there will be plenty of abandoned accounts among the 23M, and plenty of even the actives using only marginal portions of their allotted X GBs of storage, asf.

Still, that shows that if Box could convince currently free users to pay them as little as $1/month, they would more than break even! (I’ve been arguing for about 6-12 months now that this is the route to go from here on out:

Cover infrastructure costs with a nominal (very low) monthly fee in the “Impulse Purchase Territory”, in return give to the users freedom from data harvesting, snooping, etc. etc. of all kinds.

Yes, that could include end-to-end encryption for non-collaboration files stored in your account among other things. And so forth.

(Additional #b2bsales and #enterprise relevant portions further down in the piece.)

Tech Bubble or nah…?

Let’s begin with key quotes from this worthwhile read: Why the global tech startups bubble isn’t likely to burst

“…Likewise, the technological building blocks for digital firms have now become so evolved, cheap, and ubiquitous that they can be easily combined and recombined.”

Those building blocks are many, and the most important of them are “platforms”: hosting services (the cloud), distribution services (app stores) and marketing venues (social media). The ultimate platform, they argue, is the Internet, which has become “fast, universal, and wireless.”

Startups can be thought of as “experiments on top of such platforms,” and they are doing, according to the report, what humans have always done: “apply known techniques to new problems.”

I have in the past argued (mostly) that “this time it’s different” since tech valuations are not really that high given the massively increased user bases we are talking about, both as to the overall Web, and Mobile in particular. See here:

There also were moments when I started to have my doubts, and there certainly are excesses and plenty of “froth”:

But ultimately they are just not in the “irrational” territory, galling though they may be at times (ask the average San Franciscan about Twitter, Google, et al. making their city ever more unaffordable… asf.).

Here is a thought I just developed over on an old thread I was rereading: (see for the per sector employment stats/trends data background)

Re: “Information Services” / Software employment remaining steady, that is one of the reasons for startup / Silicon Valley perceived bubble valuations:

1) If the input of s/w engineers stays about constant, but they are serving ever larger user populations with roughly those same numbers, then the price of the company/startup (= group of engineers) must by Supply/Demand “law” go up. Compare 50 odd employees of WhatsApp serving 450M active users!

2) “Mobile” (phones mostly) has created a 10x jump in addressable users (even for relatively new companies) that was previously unheard of, while the #dinomedia and similar “dinosaur” businesses are having to contend with ever stagnant or even shrinking “user”/customer pools.

E.g. think about “Old Hollywood” and why it is increasingly in trouble world-wide: If a semi-hit movie brings in $100M in U.S. box-office, that means that given the current price for a ticket trending toward an average of $10, that’s really only 10M people that have seen it! (Yes, there is the Redbox/Netflix/TV distribution aftermarket, but that’s “Aftermarket dimes for Box Office dollars”. Fine. Add another 10M say, but realize that the prices for this are increasingly trending to $1 – Redbox, or less – bundled subscription content a la HBO.)

TV similarly is looking at normal “users” (viewership) in the 5M to 20M range even for its top shows BTW. Yet no one had/has ever accused Hollywood or TV of being in a (valuation) “bubble”. Maybe in decline, but not a Bubble.

Now compare that to Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, etc.”addressable users bases”!

3) In summation, Mobile truly has changed the game. Ecosystem (size) is everything…

Compare the specific case of “digital news businesses” as a recent growth in VC funding phenomenon

…For the longest time, the founder, Shane Smith, talked about Vice becoming the next CNN, which sounded outrageous. Now that it is valued at five times what The Washington Post recently sold for, it doesn’t seem quite so silly.

Big (Old) News(paper) Media caught in the same trap of their comparatively minuscule addressable user bases:
(no, neither the WSJ or the NYT are far behind, in an “Orders of Magnitude” sense…)

Yes, they each have a “digital” leg to lean on, but they largely insist on trying to veil those behind “Paywalls”/-fences. Which brings me back to the oldie but goodie pronouncement I made here:

“…Only then will some in the #Dinomedia come to see, that the race was not about who was still going to eek out some residual ‘crumbs’ profits from the Old System, but who was going to wholesale import the masses into their Ecosystem.”

All the way back to the original linked posts “platform” angle: Yes, the platforms are massively more evolved than they were in say 1999. Just think on Amazon’s AWS Cloud Infrastructure service and from there on down (Google, Facebooks “OpenCompute”, etc. etc.).

The one area where all of this wonderous infrastructure is underdeveloped and deeply insecure is in boring basics such as passwords (they STILL don’t work…), security, encryption (as we’re learning weekly from Greenwald/Snowden), and that most basic Internet protocol of all, E-mail (up to 90% spam load last I heard…).

Those are the areas where the entire Internet could still trip and fall…