Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Snap Tells Investors Apple's Opt-In Ad Tracking Privacy Measure Presents 'Risk' to Advertiser Demand

DblHelix said:
Too f’ing bad. I am an advertiser. I don’t see the issue. We measured results before all of these ids we will figure out what works after. Use matched markets to determine what is performing.
Click to expand...
I don't think its really a problem for advertisers, I think it's a problem for the companies that try to extract the absolute most possible ad dollars out of advertisers, by showing the advertisement of the advertiser that is willing to pay the most in any given situation. If ad performance metrics drop across the board, ad prices will fall, and these networks will have a massive revenue drop (at least equal to the decrease in conversion efficiency.)

I also have dabbled in advertising of the online variety, and the ad networks are basically vacuuming up all the margin between business costs and revenue. If revenue drops, and costs remain the same, available money for the ad networks to extort decreases.

TLDR: eventually google, Facebook et al extract all profit from every business you see advertising on the platform because of the way reverse auctions work.

**** them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DblHelix and Captain Trips
warp9 said:
I suspect it will happen when it hits peoples wallets, like insurance premiums that suddenly go up based on "additional data".
Click to expand...

Well, in my state, the insurance companies got a big wet passionate kiss when the legislature took their money and killed 'no-fault'. Now, it's a morass of BS and hidden items not covered. It's a mess. Car insurance went down for *some* people, but health insurance went up, and had more restrictions I've heard. And there are enough shyster insurance cooks that will readily screw you out of coverage to take up where the auto insurance now won't.

For people that don't have a good insurance company, their first accident is likely to be an expensive learning experience.
 
az431 said:
You’re “sure“ of that? Based on what? There is zero evidence (i.e., facts) that Snapchat sold user data to anyone.
Click to expand...
Please stop commenting on everyone’s posts like a self sanctified saint. You are an ******* az431. Get a life
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
I have been rather surprised at how many people shrug at their lives being sold for easy profit by companies like FB. It happens so much, and the majority of people don't give a damn. Will the sheeple ever wake up? How bad does the data sellout have to get before people wake up and demand laws to protect their data.
Click to expand...
I think it’s psychological. Because you can’t really see what the companies are doing or how it affects you, you don’t need to care. All you see is that something is free & you see an advert on the corner of the screen that you don’t care to click on. I’ve always found it weird that people have never liked paying for software/services on computers, but they’ll happily pay for a computer game for their games console (this includes me).

People need to read Surveillance capitalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PinkyMacGodess and Captain Trips
Says the company that forces you to give permission to turn on the front facing camera to use the app. Ecosia, DuckDuckGo, ProtonMail, Netflix, RedHat, Ubunutu, and others all proved that to be a profitable tech. company you don't have to be privacy abuser. These companies are using unethical business practices.

And whats this IDFA thing, this should be illegal. Its literally spying tracking code. I really don't like this across platform and apps tracking code working behind the scene, you don't see it and you don't know its working. Apple should ban this.

farewelwilliams said:
people still use snapchat?
Click to expand...

For some its THE social media platform. It has transformed from being a "secret message app" (which was stupid since you can capture it) into being a Facebook/Instagram alternative.
 
When I used Snapchat, all the ads I saw were for Match.com (I’m not single), streaming apps I already subscribe to, and ****** betting sites like Draft Kings (I clearly have no interest). If you are going to claim tracking users is essential to your business model, show at least some evidence of how you serve meaningful ads, or kindly do one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Trips
Maconplasma said:
Who cares? Snap's CEO is a 30 year old arrogant smirky-smile billionaire who doesn't give a rats butt about anyone. I hope he loses revenue.
Click to expand...
Why does it seem that everyone misses the most important part of their statement, that they support Apple’s initiative? They are required to disclose the potential revenue loss, but they are not advocating against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
FaustsHausUK said:
When I used Snapchat, all the ads I saw were for Match.com (I’m not single), streaming apps I already subscribe to, and ****** betting sites like Draft Kings (I clearly have no interest). If you are going to claim tracking users is essential to your business model, show at least some evidence of how you serve meaningful ads, or kindly do one.
Click to expand...
They do not claim they are essential to their business model, and in fact said they support Apple’s initiative. They just disclosed, as required, a potential loss in revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
Alan Wynn said:
Why does it seem that everyone misses the most important part of their statement, that they support Apple’s initiative? They are required to disclose the potential revenue loss, but they are not advocating against it.
Click to expand...
There’s zero reason why SNAP would need to go public saying they support Apple. The only reason this happened IS because they are losing revenue. The same crying FB did last week.
 
Maconplasma said:
There’s zero reason why SNAP would need to go public saying they support Apple. The only reason this happened IS because they are losing revenue. The same crying FB did last week.
Click to expand...
They are required by the SEC to disclose a material change that might affect revenue. Since Apple has not yet instituted this policy, they cannot yet be losing revenue, however, they think that it is likely there will be a revenue loss.

Their Chief Business Officer (revenue officer) however did not complain about this decision, stating: "We admire Apple and believe they are trying to do the right thing for customers," he also said that Snap is well prepared to guide advertisers through the iOS changes.

This is exact opposite of what Facebook has done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
mariusignorello said:
People on here got mad when a dev started charging $3 a year for a package tracker and said they got no value out of it. $3 A YEAR.
Click to expand...
I know people complaining to me that they have to delete photos off their $999 iPhone because they don’t have enough cloud storage. I say “50 GB is $0.99 a month”. “But that’s too much, I can’t afford it”. I just think “if you paid $999 for your phone and can’t afford $0.99 a month for storage, then you must keep deleting your photos”.
 
Apple_Robert said:
A risk to advertisers? Is this supposed to be a joke, or some pretzel logic by Snapchat to try and leverage support against Apple?
Click to expand...
Seriously, that is Snap in an announcement to share holders where they MUST announce any potential risks to their share holders and could be in legal trouble if they don’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kc9hzn and Apple_Robert
wlossw said:
I don't think its really a problem for advertisers, I think it's a problem for the companies that try to extract the absolute most possible ad dollars out of advertisers, by showing the advertisement of the advertiser that is willing to pay the most in any given situation. If ad performance metrics drop across the board, ad prices will fall, and these networks will have a massive revenue drop (at least equal to the decrease in conversion efficiency.)

I also have dabbled in advertising of the online variety, and the ad networks are basically vacuuming up all the margin between business costs and revenue. If revenue drops, and costs remain the same, available money for the ad networks to extort decreases.

TLDR: eventually google, Facebook et al extract all profit from every business you see advertising on the platform because of the way reverse auctions work.

**** them.
Click to expand...
Lots of advertisers concerned about not being able to capture and target against IDFA though
 
B4U said:
I am kind of thinking more of a pay once and done model for games.
A monthly subscription is like the Apple Arcade model.
Looking at Mario Kart 8 DX on the Nintendo Switch vs the Mario Kart Tour on mobile.
$60 for the game itself (plus the online membership if anyone wants to play online), vs a constant robbery of IAP and pay to win. :eek:
Click to expand...
I don’t really have an issue with subscriptions/DLCs themselves, assuming it pays for ongoing development of the title. But I’ll qualify that statement by saying that the DLC (especially for a paid game) should be new content, and not cosmetic skins or consumable items. Getting away from the idea of one and done DLC and returning to the idea of 1990s or 2000s era PC game Expansion packs. But a subscription based title, like an MMO, should probably include expansions for ”free” with the subscription, as well as engine updates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B4U
This is why I like Apple....
I however have, No idea what snap chat is....
Advertising has ruined YouTube, it is now simply unwatchable, and anyone advertising on it , I will never ever buy a thing from....
Advertising is and has been out of control on the web for far too long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back