The unbearable lightness of Snapchat
Snapchat’s rejection of Facebook’s $3 billion acquisition offer prompted me to use my weekly column in Spanish financial daily Expansión to explore the appeal of social networks where messages are automatically erased after a few seconds; information that is never stored.
The popularity of Snapchat has grown phenomenally over the last year: from some 20 million shared photographs per day to more than 350 million, with an active user base of around 26 million people, most of them in the United States. Around 9% of Americans use Snapshot regularly, but in the 18 to 29 segment—younger people will certainly be using it, but there is no data—the figure rises to almost 30 percent. Of course calculating such data is difficult due to the very nature of the service: photographs disappear within a maximum of 10 seconds, depending on the setting. The service is designed to prevent screen captures, making it popular among those who like sexting: sending photos of themselves in what used to be called compromising poses.
Snapchat has no business model as such: it makes no money, and there is no indication so far that it intends to. Its ephemeral nature, whereby all information is destroyed soon after it is sent, means that it is of no interest to advertisers. Some in Silicon Valley are drawing the conclusion that if a network like Snapchat can prompt an offer of $3 billion, compared for example to the measly $1 billion made for Tumblr, perhaps it is better to create a business that makes no money.
At the same time as Snapshot’s star has been rising, Facebook’s has been falling, at least among young people, as the company itself has recognized. Facebook is no longer cool, and its attempt to copy Snapchat has failed: if you can’t beat ‘em, buy ‘em; the only problem is that the founders of Snapchat aren’t interested, at least not at the moment. It will be interesting to see how this story develops in the coming weeks and months, and what its impact on the internet will be.
Here’s the full story as published:
The appeal of the ephemeral
Can you imagine what $3 billion looks like? That’s how much Facebook offered to pay for Snapchat, the founders of which have turned down.
What is Snapchat anyway? It’s a social network that makes no money, has virtually no presence outside the United States, and the appeal of which resides in being able to send photographs that self-destruct after a few seconds. You take a snap, scribble something on it, decorate it or whatever, decide on a life span of between one and 10 seconds, and you send it. The recipient then has as long as you have decided to look at it, having to press two buttons while doing so, thus making it almost impossible to make a screen save. Then the photo is gone forever.
This simple idea has attracted millions of users: in September alone, some 350 photos were sent via its services. What really attracted Facebook’s attention was that its user base is beginning to slide, with growing numbers of youngsters going over to Snapshot. So what does Snapshot have that 15-to-25-year olds find so irresistible? For one thing, everybody is now using Facebook, even mums and dads, who are now sneaking a peak at their children’s updates, or worse, adding their own comments. But above all, the appeal of Snapshot is that nothing of what you send remains online. It is bewitchingly fleeting. Once the message has been sent, it will be gone in seconds. Forever.
Pushed on to the back foot by the astonishing growth of Snapshot, Facebook even tried to clone it: Poke is all but identical to Snapshot, but has been a failure. Next move? Try to buy it. So what next Mr Zuckerberg?
