Per the screen shot, Instagram said: “We want your followers to focus on what you share, not how many likes your posts get.â€
That sounds benevolent, and it aligns with all of the studies that suggest social media is stressing people out. But as is seemingly the case with everything else involving Facebook/Instagram changes, the ulterior motive probably boils down to one thing.
Money.
Consider this: The first thing any marketer looks at when evaluating an Instagram post, feed or influencer is engagement rate, a quick measurement of how many people, as a percentage of a feed’s overall following, like or comment on a post. If you can’t tell who’s got engagement and who doesn’t, it makes working with an influencer far less appealing.Â
It also becomes more likely that spends once earmarked for influencers will instead become direct ad buys with the platform itself. Measuring the true ROI of influencer marketing is hard enough. Removing critical data from the equation would only exacerbate this problem.
If like counts do go away, what becomes of Instagram Influencers? If they’re not already looking to conquer new territory, they should be. Short-from video sharing network TikTok is probably the most obvious landing spot, and Facebook recently launched “Lasso,†a TikTok competitor. Anyone who’s serious about being an influencer has a vested interest in skating to where the puck is going to be, and taking their followers with them.
The question is, will Instagram take this drastic step? I think they’ll keep it in their back pocket for a while. But it feels inevitable.
Despite massive popularity, unrivaled cultural relevance and a billion daily active users, Instagram can’t seem to figure out long-form video. Specifically, its “IGTV†platform, which originally launched as a standalone app in June (remember that?) is largely being ignored by users, at least if multiple media reports (New York Magazine, Fast Company) are to be believed.
Small sample-size? Sure. But the numbers aren’t encouraging when so few show have shown any interest in IGTV.
We don’t have much else to go on. Despite scouring the internet, I couldn’t find a credible reporting of IGTV’s monthly active users (MAUs). Presumably, that would indicate that the number is underwhelming, and as such, it hasn’t been released. I found a random tweet that pegged it around 65 million, but that number is unsubstantiated and seems unlikely.
Quick, informal polls on my Twitter and Instagram feeds suggested the same conclusion.
In my own Instagram story and Twitter feed last week, I asked followers, most of whom work in the digital marketing space, if they actually use IGTV. Of 40 responses to my Instagram story poll, only one person acknowledged actually watching the IGTV platform.
At 2.5% percent, that’s about as effective as a PPC ad. That’s not what we industry types call a great conversion rate.
On Twitter, most replies were “Nope.†Others suggested that they’d only landed on IGTV accidentally.
Instagram launched IGTV to much fanfare midway through 2018, with analysts proclaiming it to be a potential YouTube competitor. That didn’t pan out. Almost a year later, the platform feels like, at best, an afterthought, and at worst, a miscalculation. When the initial standalone app failed to take off, IGTV was more deeply integrated into into the main Instagram experience.
However, IGTV doesn’t seem to be resonating with rank-and-file Instagram users.
Definitely not. I actually get super annoyed when it flashes up about someone posting a new video to it.
Early on, Instagram was preaching patience. “It’s a new format. It’s different. We have to wait for people to adopt it and that takes time,†former Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom told TechCrunch in August of 2018. “Think of it this way: we just invested in a startup called IGTV, but it’s small, and it’s like Instagram was (in the) ‘early days.’â€
A month later, Systrom, along with Instagram Co-founder Mike Krieger, left Facebook, Instagram’s parent company.
So, is IGTV the new Google+? It’s likely too early to tell, but it’s looking that way.
Instagram’s main feed and Stories products have become symbiotic with the influencer community, and IGTV seems tailor-made for brands and influencers to offer longer-form content; videos can be up to an hour long. However, the people who should have the most interest in the new platform, creators themselves, are mostly just repurposing (read: cropping vertically) their YouTube content.
Without a clear monetization path, they’re unlikely to continue to put any real effort into the platform. Top talent on YouTube can make six figures or more a month.
IGTV isn’t the first time that Facebook has swung and missed on long-form content. Facebook Watch, which was also positioned as a YouTube competitor, initially was paying content providers, with an estimated budget of $90 million. But as that money started drying up, outside of truly unique content like Tom Brady’s “Tom vs. Time,†“Ball in the Family†or WWE’s “Mixed Match Challengeâ€, there wasn’t much to see on Watch.
Far more problematic beyond a revenue model is the main issue for influencers: If nobody’s watching, who’s being influenced? Is there really a long-form content appetite to be fed on Instagram via the smartphone?
Depending on which gurus you believe, millennials either want “snackable†short-form content, or they actually want long-form content. Go ahead: Google “longform video making a comeback.†You’ll find articles from 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2018 in the first page of results.
Gary Vaynerchuk has embraced the platform, but many creators have already given up on IGTV.
But here’s the thing: Long-form content never went anywhere. With apologies to L.L. Cool J, don’t call it a comeback. Long form content has been here for years. It’s called YouTube. And why is YouTube so successful?
One word: search. YouTube is the second-biggest search engine in the world, trailing only its parent company, Google.
IGTV, in an effort to differentiate itself from YouTube, launched without proper search functionality. In fact, when you activate IGTV, it opens with static fuzz, like what you would see when you turned on a TV with a cable box back in 1983 and flipped through channels, not knowing what you’re going to get next.
“Because we don’t have full text search and you can’t just search any random thing, it’s about the creators†Systrom explained at the time of the launch. “I think that at its base level that it’s personality-driven and creator driven means that you’re going to get really unique content that you won’t find anywhere else and that’s the goal.â€
Search has since been added to IGTV (and it quickly auto-suggests feeds that create IGTV content), but when I opened IGTV over the weekend, I was served up content from ESPN, WWE, Gary Vaynerchuk and The Daily Show.
This is all content I can find everywhere else, on Twitter, television, Linkedin, etc.
Discoverability is one of the main issues that’s continued to plague Snapchat, and seems to be hurting IGTV as well. With all of the choices we have today, am I going to invest five minutes into a random piece of longform content that an algorithm thinks I want to watch? Possibly.
The likelihood increases dramatically, however, if it’s something I’ve searched out.
With all of the data these major platforms have at their disposal, why do they continue to make such large errors in assessing what their users actually want? Why do they fail in targeting new spaces like Google did with social, or Instagram seems to be doing with long-form video?
In reading about the Google+ failure, one anonymous former Googler said the company was “late to market” and motivated from “a competitive standpoint” as they looked to take on Facebook.
If you’ve never read this infamous tweetstorm from another former Google+ engineer, it describes office politics, siloed teams and a lack of clear vision as major factors in the demise of Google’s failed social network. Here’s the start of that thread:
Now that Google+ has been shuttered, I should air my dirty laundry on how awful the project and exec team was.
I'm still pissed about the bait and switch they pulled by telling me I'd be working on Chrome, then putting me on this god forsaken piece of shit on day one.
Given the recent Instagram drama surrounding the founders’ departure from Facebook, it’s likely that similar forces were at play with IGTV.
Whatever the reason, IGTV hasn’t lived up to the hype of last year’s launch, and it may never take off at all. Instagram itself doesn’t seem to be losing steam. But they badly misread the market and their users’ appetite (or lack thereof) for long form content.
Not once, haven't even thought about it. Some of these platforms need to chill on the "TV" content. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Burger King made news this week by offering up its iconic Whopper sandwich for just one cent on their mobile app. It’s an incredible deal.
The catch is, you can only get this deal once, and you can only get it at… McDonalds???
In a clever technology/PR stunt, Burger King’s #WhopperDetour promotion geofenced about 14,000 McDonalds locations in the U.S. inside its mobile app. When users get to within 600 feet of a McDonalds, they can activate the one-cent promotion in the Burger King app, then head to the nearest BK to get the deal.
I’m not a big fast food guy myself, but I am fascinated by mobile marketing, and it was a unique promotion that leveraged technology. So I downloaded the Burger King app and tried it out this week to see how seamless the experience would be. And hey, can you argue with a $0.01 Whopper?
I did a little research in Google Maps to find a Burger King that was near a McDonalds in Las Vegas, and found one about 5 minutes away from me. So I made the drive to Micky Ds.
As I pulled up next door, I re-opened the app and clicked on the promotion. It immediately confirmed that I’d unlocked my #WhopperDetour deal, and then provided me with a link to navigate to a nearby Burger King.
So far, so good! It then asked whether I wanted Drive-Thru, Dine-In or Take Out. After that, I started to make my order, and grabbed my $0.01 Whopper, and added some chicken tenders and a drink. Total cost: $2.49. Not too shabby.
Except the kicker was coming, and I assumed it would be around the corner: Burger King wanted my data. This was not entirely surprising, but as a new user of the app who downloaded it just a few minutes ago, I will say, it almost caused me to abandon ship.
After all, why not just have a Big Mac here instead? I’m already 600 feet from McDonalds…
Quite frankly, this is where the promotion may backfire for Burger King. Some people just aren’t willing to give away their data in exchange for a “free” Whopper. The marketer in me was willing to do it to evaluate the promotion, but otherwise, I would have likely just hit the road, or enjoyed a full-price Big Mac and called it a day.
So I started the sign-up process, and hey, there’s a Facebook Connect option. One click. Let’s try that.
Not so fast!
Facebook wouldn’t log me in. So I had to sign up, with a name, email, zip code, password and my credit card info on the next screen.
(Apparently you can’t just drop a penny on the counter for your Whopper. I had one ready to go.)
Finally, I was able to complete my order.
Time to drive to Burger King!
The restaurant I’d picked was about 5 minutes away. The app gives you a direct link to Apple Maps to get you turn-by-turn directions to the store. Nice and easy. Well done, BK.
The app also gives you an hour to go complete the mission, and there’s a countdown clock in the bottom of the screen to let you know how much time you’ve got left to cash in on the deal.
When you get to Burger King, you check in with the red button, which charges your card and lets the store know you’re actually going to pick up your meal.
As I walked in the store, I hit the button, and seconds later, a receipt automatically printed at the counter.
My app confirmed on screen that Order 86 was being prepared. “We’re preparing your order now. Please give your name to a BK Staff member and let them know you placed a mobile order.”
I told them I had ordered on the app, and the cashier told me it would be a few minutes.
Finally, mission accomplished.
Overall, it’s a clever promotion, and it certainly generated plenty of media attention. It got me to download the app out of curiosity, and spend $2.49 for a quick meal. The location aspect of the promotion worked seamlessly, but the logistics of setting up an account in the app slowed the process down quite a bit, and as I said earlier, almost made me abandon the whole thing, and even made me consider eating at their competitor’s store.
While I appreciate their desire for data collection, in this case, it may have been more effective to just allow customers to claim the deal, and pay however they wanted to when they get to Burger King.
The promotion ends on December 12, and apparently, you can only cash in on it once. According to CNN, 50,000 people have already redeemed the promotion.
While it’s a little wonky from an execution standpoint, it got people talking about Burger King this week, and it gave customers a reason to download their app, which is not easy to do. Mobile apps have to solve problems and complete tasks to earn a spot on consumer’s home screen.
At least for one day, Burger King got their app on my phone. That’s half the battle.
Delicate Arch at Arches National Park in Moab, Utah.
If you follow my Instagram (http://www.instagram.com/peterstringer), you probably think I travel every week. I wish that we’re the case. If anyone wants to pay me to do that, I’m all ears. But in the last few months, I’ve really rediscovered my love of photography through my passion for travel. I take my Nikon with me everywhere now. While I certainly spend some time editing the shots, they are all my own, and I’m starting to think I actually (mostly) know what I’m doing with a camera (thanks to a lot of trial, error, practice and research.)
While landscapes are certainly far easier to capture than portraits, or action sports for that matter, and I have incredible respect for professional photographers, it’s been neat to get so much positive feedback on my travel pictures. But more importantly, I’ve consistently heard from many people who see my photos that they “need to travel more.” As I’ve gotten older, I’ve made a point of traveling whenever I can, and I’ve seen much more of America than most people I know.
Delicate Arch, from my visit to Arches National Park in February 2017.
Look, New York and L.A. are great, and hey if you want to “do Iceland” or “do Thailand” like seemingly everyone in my feeds these days, go ahead. I’d love to see them too. But there’s an amazing country out there between the coasts. Go see our National Parks. I know, they’re in “fly-over states.” (I hate that term.) But if you’re mad about the election, want to Make America Great Again, or don’t understand why the country is divided, you need to see how the rest of America lives. And you’re robbing yourself of some spectacular scenery and breathtaking sights you might not even know exist. I certainly did not grow up with an appreciation of the National Parks. I didn’t go hiking or camping as a kid. But I’ve become passionate about these places now, and I’ve made memories in amazing places like Arches National Park, Red Rock Canyon and Horseshoe Bend that will stay with me forever.
Politics and perspective aside, travel has enriched my life far more than I’d previously imagined it could. I grew up without the resources to travel as a child, beyond a few family trips where we packed the kids into a station wagon and took three days to trek down I-95 from Manchester, NH to Dunedin, FL, stopping overnight in rundown Motel 6s with abandoned pools, and dining at dirt-cheap truck-stops. I stepped on my first airplane at age 17, and it would be four or five years before I’d do it again.
In the last 10 years, I’ve been on countless flights. I’ve done three cross-country drives and many other thousand-mile-plus loops. If I could give my younger self any advice, it would simply be this: travel more, and do it earlier, and always see something new. Go see the rest of America. I’ve spent way too much money on travel, but I’ve never regretted a dime I’ve spent on a trip.
I’ll admit, I wasn’t sold on Snapchat as a marketing channel for sports, or anyone else, for that matter. But after talking to Alex Restrepo, Social Media Manager for the New Orleans Saints, he may have changed my mind.
If nothing else, it’s probably worth giving a try. We had a long conversation about how the Saints use Snapchat to share content with their fans.
