Similar to FB’s news feed ads; similar to ads in Wechat Moments, etc.
Effort Two – Ads in Instagram Stories, in three forms: Learn More, Shop Now, Subscribe
E.g.
Currently Instagram hasn’t provide direct shopping/subscription function; it is linking to third-party websites.
But I could see it is possible to bypass Amazon or Apple ID subscriptions.
Effort Three – cosponsored
E.g. (from a public account through search)
This is more like a platform and pairing influencers with businesses. Provide a way for influencer to monetize and change the way businesses used in promotion.
Effort Four – cross suggestion/reference
It is not formally introduced to users. But it is enabled by Instagram’s ecosystem.
E.g., after I followed an independent hotel in Palm Spring, I got three likes from JW Marriott Desert Springs (a nearby hotel).
Also, I got followed by collegehousephilly after following DailyPennsylvania (student-run newspaper at Penn, mostly seen by Penn students); Philly is short for Philadelphia, where Penn is located.
Uber reported some 2018 Q3 quarterly financial numbers on Wednesday.
As similar ride-hailing companies across the globe may go public in the coming 2019-2020, here I compiled some publicly available numbers together.
While Uber’s revenue growth is slowing down, at least it can target a 2019 full year revenue over $15 billion with 25%+ growth rate (an implied valuation multiple of 8x revenue).
Similar for Lyft – at least it needs an annualized revenue of $3 billion (an implied valuation multiple of 10x revenue), which means ~$750 million per quarter. It seems easier to achieve to me in Lyft’s case.
And Didi… its take rate from GMV is said to be much lower than Uber’s (~23%). Assuming a GMV of ¥120 billion in 2019 and a take rate of 10%, Didi will achieve an annual run rate of ~$1,700 million. Then it will be valued at 50x revenue multiple for a $85 billion valuation…
No comments on specific company. But overall, this space seems to have stretched valuation.
However, some other factors need to be counted in, such as low risk of competition (the market structure is mature or foreseeable I would say), the definite future of transportation-as-a-service (with growing market share in overall transportation), upcoming initiatives (e.g. autonomous car services, autonomous on-demand truck, etc.)
It seems that certain future is coming for sure in many investors’ eyes. Or they are just made to believe in it.
Social network platforms such as Twitter and Weibo, are where we post our words/expressions, and is taking an essential role in todays’ Modern Communication.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, they are also providing a feedback loop to change our ways of communication (and our thinking – but that’s another different story). After all, we are one of those animals with natural herding inclinations.
Taking a very simple example – as Twitter was becoming more popular, people started to lean heavily towards the use of new abbreviations, partially due to its 140-word limit. (Similarly, when Blackberries were popular, certain abbreviations were created, used and spread among professionals in texts & emails)
In 2017, Twitter officially made its “140-word limit” a history [Weibo ended the limit in 2016] and doubled the character limit to 280. One resulting impact is that people are spelling out abbreviations and acronyms more often, according to Twitter’s report.
Source: TwitterData
TwitterData also touted that “people are saying ‘please’ (+54%) and ‘thank you’ (+22%) more.” in the first year of doubling limit.
[Something worth noting on the data – 1) need to consider the difference in total number of tweets 2) need to consider other ways of saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’…]
It is really nice that people could be more friendly and polite (not excessively tho). It would be even nicer if people could inherit their concise and efficient use of language in the 140-word era & all the other positive impacts Modern Communication made on us.
Today Apple announced new products of three lines of business – MacBook Air, iPad Pro and Mac mini.
MacBook Air 2018 Gold | Source: AppleiPad Pro 2018 11-inch and 12.9-inch | Source: AppleMac mini 2018 | Source: Apple
Besides the new features and superior performance, Apple seems to be more addicted to aggressive price tags. Today’s event is the latest episode of a series, starting from the 10-year anniversary model iPhone X last year.
[discussion below is based on the most basic consumer version of each product]
9/12/2017 – iPhone X introduced @ $999, a 30% increase from the high-end phone (iPhone 7 Plus @ $769) one year before
5/27/2018 – updated iPad introduced @ $329, flat with the new iPad debut price in Apr. 2017.
7/12/2018 – updated MacBook Pro @ $1,799; the price seems to be the same as Oct. 2016’s debut price with Touch Bar, but is a 20% increase in terms of available low-end option (MacBook Pro with no Touch Bar @ $1,499).
9/12/2018 – iPhone XR @ $749, increased by 7% ($50) compared to the low-end phone last year (iPhone 8 @$699) ; Apple Watch Series 4 @ $399, increased by 21% ($70) from a year ago @ $329.
10/30/2018 – new MacBook Air @ $1,199, a 20% increase from the old model years ago @ $999; updated iPad Pro @ $799, a 23% ($150) increase from previous Jun. 2017 version @ $649; new Mac mini @ $799, a 60% increase from the old model years ago @ $499; redesigned Apple Pencil 2 @ $129, increased by 30% from $99 when it was introduced 3 years ago
The 2-way strategy looks clear: 1. use entry-level new products (e.g. iPad & iPhone XR) to attract new users and compete with other firm’s often lower-priced products. Educational market and some international markets are important here, especially for new-user growth, ensuring an increasing number of total active users in Apple’s ecosystem and getting more market shares in terms of shipment. So there is barely any increase in price. 2. raise prices by 20-30% in other product lines to keep margin (for example Apple Watch price increase might be more associated with costs) or to compensate lower margins in entry-level products.
Apple’s overall average gross margin from 2016 to present is actually lower than the average from 2014 to 2015 (38.44% vs. 39.63%, down ~120bp), even with higher gross margins from service revenues weighing in more recently.
