Category: SOCIAL MEDIA

Despite conflicting evidence around the viability and value of the plan, the Australian Government has now voted to implement a new law that will force all social media platforms to ban users under the age of 16.

The controversial bill was passed late last night, on the final full sitting day of parliament for the year. The government was keen to get the bill through before the end-of-year break, and ahead of an upcoming election in the nation, which is expected to be called early in the new year.

The agreed amendments to the Online Safety Act will mean that:

• Social media platforms will be restricted to users over the age of 16
• Messaging apps, online games, and “services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users” will be exempt from the new restrictions (as will YouTube)
• Social media platforms will need to prove that they’ve taken “reasonable steps” to keep users under 16 off their platforms
• Platforms will not be allowed to require that users to provide government-issued ID to prove their age
• Penalties for breaches can reach a maximum of $AUD49.5 million ($US32.2 million) for major platforms
• Parents or young people who breach the laws will not face penalty

The new laws will come into effect in 12 months’ time, giving the platforms opportunity to enact new measures to meet these requirements, and ensure that they align with the updated regulations.

The Australian Government has touted this as a “world-leading” policy approach designed to protect younger, vulnerable users from unsafe exposure online.

But many experts, including some that have worked with the government in the past, have questioned the value of the change, and whether the impacts of kicking youngsters off social media could actually be worse than enabling them to use social platforms to communicate.

Earlier in the week, a group of 140 child safety experts published an open letter, which urged the government to re-think its approach.

As per the letter:

“The online world is a place where children and young people access information, build social and technical skills, connect with family and friends, learn about the world around them and relax and play. These opportunities are important for children, advancing children’s rights and strengthening development and the transition to adulthood.”

Other experts have warned that banning mainstream social media apps could push kids to alternatives, which may see their exposure risk increased, as opposed to reduced.

Though exactly which platforms will be covered by the bill is unclear at this stage, because the amended bill doesn’t specify this, as such. Aside from the government noting that messaging apps and gaming platforms won’t be part of the legislation, and verbally noting that YouTube will be exempt, the actual bill states that all platforms where the “sole purpose, or a significant purpose” is to enable “online social interaction” between people will be covered by the new rules.

Which could cover a lot of apps, though many could also argue against it. Snapchat, in fact, did try to argue that it’s a messaging app, and therefore should not be included, but the government has said that it will be one of the providers that’ll need to update its approach.  

Though the vague wording will mean that alternatives are likely to rise to fill any gaps created by the shift. While at the same time, enabling kids to continue using WhatsApp and Messenger will mean that they become arguably just as risky, under the parameters of the amendment, as those impacted.

To be clear, all the major social apps already have age limits in place:

So we’re talking about an amended approach of 3 years age difference, which, in reality, is probably not going to have that big of an impact on overall usage for most (except Snapchat).

The real challenge, as many experts have also noted, is that despite the current age limits, there are no truly effective means of age assurance, nor methods to verify parental consent.

Back in 2020, for example, The New York Times reported that a third of TikTok’s then 49 million U.S. users were under the age of 14, based on TikTok’s own reporting. And while the minimum age for a TikTok account is 13, the belief was that many users were below that limit, but TikTok had no way to detect or verify these users.

More than 16 million youngsters under 14 is a lot of potentially fake accounts, which are presenting themselves as being within the age requirements. And while TikTok has improved its detection systems since then, as have all platforms, with new measures that utilize AI, and engagement tracking, among another process, to weed out these violators, the fact is that if 16-year-olds can legally use social apps, younger teens are also going to find a way.

Indeed, speaking to teenagers throughout the week (I live in Australia and I have two teenage kids), none of them are concerned about these new restrictions, with most stating simply: “How will they know?”

Most of these kids have also been accessing social apps for years already, whether their parents allow them to or not, so they’re familiar with the many ways of subverting age checks. As such, most seem confident that any change won’t impact them.

And based on the government’s vague descriptions and outlines, they’re probably right.

The real test will come down to what’s considered “reasonable steps” to keep youngsters out of social apps. Are the platforms’ current approaches considered “reasonable” in this context? If so, then I doubt this change will have much impact. Is the government going to impose more stringent processes for age verification? Well, it’s already conceded that it can’t ask for ID documents, so there’s not really much more that it can push for, and despite talk of alternative age verification measures as part of this process, there’s been no sign of what they might be as yet.

So overall, it’s hard to see how the government is going to implement significant systematic improvements, while the variable nature of detection at each app will also make this difficult to enforce, legally, unless the government can impose its own systems for detection.

Because Meta’s methods for age detection, for example, are much more advanced than X’s. So should X then be held to the same standards as Meta, if it doesn’t have the resources to meet those requirements?

I don’t see how the government will be able to prosecute that, unless it actually lowers the thresholds of what qualifies as “reasonable steps” to ensure that the platform/s with the worst detection measures are still able to meet these requirements.

As such, at this stage, I don’t see how this is going to be an effective approach, even if you concede that social media is bad for teens, and that they should be banned from social apps.

I don’t know if that’s true, neither does the Australian Government. But with an election on the horizon, and the majority of Australians in support of more action on this front, it seems that the government believes that this could be a vote winner.

That’s the only real benefit I can see to pushing this bill at this stage, with so many questionable elements still in play.

Hey, remember a few months back when reports suggested that X was on track to post a major financial loss for the year, but X executives were like “nah, our ad revenue will be fine, we’ll make heaps on the U.S. election and the Olympics?”

Yeah, I’m guessing that didn’t happen, because Elon Musk’s personal social network is making a big push to eek out more money in the final stretch of the year.

This week, X has started pushing full-screen promotions for X Premium, as it seeks to get more people paying to use the app.

In addition to this, X has announced a new promotion, in conjunction with Shopify, which will see X match Shopify merchants’ ad spend this holiday season.

As per X:

“From now through December 1st, we’re offering Shopify store owners an unbeatable deal to help you scale your business and drive more sales. To help you take advantage of this exciting new update, we’re offering a 100% ad credit match when you speak with an X Ads Specialist.”

As you can see in this overview, there are some provisos on that, in that you’ll need to commit to a level of X ad spend, and connect your Shopify info through to X. Your ad credits will then be valid for only 30 days, but these are fairly minor considerations for, effectively, free X ads.

But you also don’t offer something for free if it’s in high demand, and as such, the promotion itself suggests that X is still in a pretty tight spot on overall ad intake.

Of course, many advertisers have turned away from X, due to Elon Musk’s controversial changes at the app, which have seen major shifts in moderation (putting more reliance on Community Notes, which is not up to the task), and a rise in the presence of right-wing political commentary.

And above all that, a rise in the presence of Musk himself. Musk’s clearly using the app as a bullhorn for his own political views and preferences, and that’s made some brands more wary of using the app for audience outreach.

Which is why, as noted, X was on track to record a major loss this year heading into the election and Olympics periods.

As we reported last month, X is currently on track to bring in an estimated $2.9 billion in total revenue for 2024, which is a significant decline on the $4.4 billion that Twitter brought in in 2022. Musk took ownership of the app late in that year, and his plans to revitalize the platform, and convert it into a billion-user powerhouse, have thus far largely fallen flat.

And while Musk has arguably succeeded in his broader mission of getting Donald Trump back into office, X itself remains in dire straits financially, especially when you also factor in the $1.2 billion in annual loan repayments that Musk brought into the company when he purchased the app.

What’s leftover, then, is unlikely to be enough to cover X’s bills. But then again, it has shut down offices (including its San Francisco HQ) and laid off a heap of staff. So maybe its overheads are far lower than most presume.

Though even factoring in these changes, X might still be in a tough spot, and if it can’t pay the bills, it could still be facing bankruptcy, if it’s unable to get its ad business back on track.

There have been some positive signs, with reports suggesting that several major advertisers are now returning to X, potentially in an effort to hold favor with Musk, who’s expected to hold significant sway in the second Trump Administration. Trump’s victory could also see more advertisers reconsidering their audience understanding, and that too may also see more returning to the app.

It would take a big turnaround, but I do think that X is going to find a way, particularly now that Elon believes that he can use the platform to sway political outcomes in his favor.   

I doubt he’s going to give that up so easily, and with Musk pulling political strings, and calling in favors, I assume that he’ll be able to find a way to keep the company afloat, one way or another.

But this latest offer shows that X is still struggling to win back ad partners, and get its ad business back on track. That still looms as a challenge for its future.

Though if you’re a Shopify merchant, free expanded X campaigns, if you want them.

Is Threads really concerned about the rise of Bluesky?

Well, yes and no, though it depends on what exactly you mean by “concerned” in this context.

First off, to clarify the situation, Twitter clone app Bluesky, which was originally launched as an internal Twitter project, and is staffed by former Twitter employees, has jumped from 9 million users in September, to 20 million today.

Now, 20 million is still a long way off of Threads’ 275 million actives, so it’s not like Bluesky is suddenly breathing down Threads’ neck on overall popularity, while neither app is anywhere close to X, which claimed that it’s now up to 570 million monthly actives back in July.

But it does seem like Threads is at least a little concerned, based on its sudden roll-out of a heap of new updates (several of which mirror those available on Bluesky), and Instagram and Threads chief Adam Mosseri making a public statement on reports of Bluesky’s growth.

That statement doesn’t really tell you much, but the fact that Mosseri felt compelled to comment at all is interesting, considering Meta’s long-held media approach in not commenting on speculation.

So the indicators do suggest that Threads is at least monitoring the Bluesky situation, with the concern likely being the rise in momentum, and what that can mean for expanded usage.

Take, for example, Clubhouse, which rose from 600k users to 2 million in just four weeks when it became the trending app of the moment back in 2021. It then rose to 10 million users just three months later. So while, right now, Bluesky might not be a significant lure for potential Threads users overall, the risk is that as more and more influential users switch over, and continue to sing the app’s praises, it could rise from 20 million to 100 million very quickly. And while even then it wouldn’t be competing with Threads on total users, as such, that’s a heap of potential Threads users who would be signing up to a rival instead.

And that is the audience that Meta’s targeting with Threads.

Meta originally created Threads in order to gather up cast-offs from Twitter/X, who had been alienated by the changes implemented by new owner Elon Musk.

Indeed, at launch, Instagram (and Threads) chief Adam Mosseri noted that:

“We wanted to get more done [before launching Threads], but we’re starting to worry that the window of opportunity was closing on us.”

That window was the market gap that had been left as people turned away from X, and were seeking an alternative. Mastodon had gained some early momentum, and Bluesky was also attracting more users. But Meta wanted to push Threads as the alternative, and snap up as many Twitter refugees as it could.

As such, Bluesky is now diluting that market share, at least to some degree. And the fact that tech journalists, in particular, seem enamored with Bluesky also poses a risk, in that more popular and influential users posting to the app will continue to attract a bigger audience.

And now, even celebrities are starting to promote their Bluesky handles.

So it’s not that Bluesky is a contender straight out of the gate, but the momentum is growing, which may well be why Threads is pushing out more updates, and why the Threads team seems a least a little spooked.

But Threads remains the leading X alternative, and it’s also worth noting that it too has gained a heap more users since the U.S. election, which is when Bluesky started to get more focus. But based on the trends, Bluesky could well become a 100 million or 200 million user app very quickly, which is why Threads is now seeking to negate its key elements of differentiation where it can.  

It’s smart business, and replication has long served Meta as a key means to fend off rivals. So yes, Threads is at least a little concerned about the rise of “the Sky”, but it’s got a long way to go to become a legitimate contender in the real-time social race.

Remember when Clubhouse was the app of the moment, and every other thought leader was proclaiming the rise of audio social as a return to real connection and engagement?

Yeah, it wasn’t, but that didn’t stop most of the major social apps from jumping aboard the audio social trend, in fear of losing audience if indeed it was a legitimate, sustainable shift.

LinkedIn was one of them, with the platform rolling out dedicated live audio events in January 2022, which looked very much like Clubhouse in format:

But now, less than two years later, LinkedIn is retiring its dedicated audio events option, and rolling audio events into its existing live-streaming tools. Which will mean that you can still run audio-only live events, but you’ll need to add a static image into the video field, via a third party tool.

Which is probably not a big loss, but notable for LinkedIn marketers either way.

As per LinkedIn:

“We are updating our live event creation experience, bringing together our Audio Events and LinkedIn Live into a single entrypoint. From December 2, 2024, the creation of native Audio Events will no longer be available. If you have an Audio Event scheduled before December 31, 2024, you can host it as usual. If you have an Audio Event scheduled after that date, you must create a new event through LinkedIn Live by December 15, 2024, as the original event will be removed.”

So no more live audio chatrooms on LinkedIn, though I’d guess that these were not being used enough for this to be a major impact for your strategy.

It is interesting, though, to see how tech trends can spark multi-million dollar shifts, that ultimately lead to nowhere. Meta shut down that last of its various audio social elements early last year, and while X is still pushing on with Spaces, that too has become a minor consideration in the app.

Though it’s arguably seen the most enduring success with the format, with the real-time news focus of the app better lending itself to live discussion. But it didn’t work on Reddit either, and over time, we’ve seen that sudden wave of enthusiasm for live audio almost all fade out.

Though it was good while it lasted, and it’s good to see new trends and shifts gain traction, as platforms try to seek out alternative ways to connect.

And Clubhouse is still going. It doesn’t have anywhere near as many users, but it’s still chugging along, so this has led to new opportunity in many ways.

But on LinkedIn, not so much, so your live audio options are changing in the app.

If this was part of your strategy, time to update.   

Meta: Hey, all this generative AI stuff is pretty cool, don’t you think?

Me: Sure, there’s some interesting ways to use it

Meta: Hey, wouldn’t you love to create a picture of yourself doing something crazy, like riding in a UFO?

Me: No, not reall…

Meta: Or competing in the OIympics, or fighting a dragon, or skateboarding on a ramp?

Me: I don’t…

Meta: Here’s how you can do it…

Me: Okay, I don’t really…

Meta: Also, you can do it on Facebook too, just ask Meta AI to generate a picture of whatever you like, and it’ll do it

Me: Why?

Meta: Hmm?

Me: Why would I want to generate an image of myself doing something that’s not real in any way, that’s not me, because it’s not real, and not something that I’ve ever actually done?

Meta: Because generative AI is cool, everyone’s doing it, and look at how cool these pictures look

Me: They look ridiculous

Meta: No, this is amazing, now you can create anything that you can imagine

Me: Yeah, but, I didn’t actually do these things, you’re asking me to share fake depictions, for no reason other than I can

Meta: That’s right, you can, and you can also do it on Instagram, see:

Me: Yeah, I get that, but I don’t see what this adds to the social media experience, which is supposed to be a means to connect with other people over shared interests, friendships, and, you know, actual experiences

Meta: But generative AI is amazing, and ours in particular…

Me: No, I get that you’re excited about what your AI tools can do, I just don’t know what it adds to my personal social media experience

Meta: You can do anything

Me: But I’m not actually doing it

Meta: No, but you can imagine what it would be like if you did, right?

Me: …

Meta: Right?

Me: Yeah, no thanks

Meta: Wait, wait…

Me: What?

Meta: You wanna’ chat with Snoop Dogg?

Me: Is it really Snoop Dogg?

Meta: No, it’s an AI version of him, which is even better, because…

Me: I’m done

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri has announced that Threads is now moving into a more independent phase, which could eventually see it separate itself from Instagram entirely.

Maybe.

Yesterday, Mosseri announced that:

Wow, people on Threads, which is an entirely different platform, facilitating an entirely different use case to Instagram, don’t want to follow the exact same accounts on both platforms. Who’d have guessed?

This has long been an issue with Threads, that it’s so closely tied to Instagram, which means that you often get recommendations of posts on Threads that are based on profiles you’ve interacted with on IG. Which can be annoying, because each platform is so different. The profiles that I followed on Twitter, for example, are nowhere close to the ones that I engage with on Facebook, and the same with pretty much every other app, and really, it’s somewhat surprising that Mosseri’s treating this like it’s a revelation of sorts.

Though it is also worth noting that Threads will still use your IG graph for post recommendations. Mosseri is only saying that it’s removing IG-related recommendations from your onboarding experience, but it’s still looking to use what it knows about you from Instagram in building your “For you” feed. Which means that you’ll still get Instagram-related post recommendations there.

Which, in my opinion, and experience, is not the way that Threads should go, but then again, Threads has been able to grow so rapidly because of its linkage to IG. And Meta’s real interest is in the numbers going up, so it’s hard to argue that Threads might be on the wrong track as it continues to gain growth momentum.

Indeed, Mosseri also noted today that more than 15 million people have signed up for the app this month alone, with two weeks still to go. At that rate, if all of those new accounts become regular users, Threads will be on track to exceed X’s user count sometime in the first few months of the new year.

So while many people have criticized Threads’ content approach, especially its anti-politics stance, the numbers don’t lie. And even if the majority of those users are refugees from X, alienated by Elon Musk’s changes at the app, the data, at least right now, would indicate that Threads is on the right track.

Though it still feels like it has some refinement to go.

The problem with Threads is indeed Meta’s resistance to political content, while it still amplifies recommended content well behind time, which often makes your timeline feel stale, as opposed to having your finger on the pulse of the moment, as Twitter felt at peak.

As noted by Will Oremus, what it feels like is that Threads is trying to be “TikTok for Text”, where it seeks to boost engagement by showing you the most entertaining content, as opposed to the most relevant. But that’s not what a lot of people seem to want from a text-based social app.

But it is reflective of broader social media engagement trends, which has seen apps switch from highlighting content based on your social graph, to using algorithms to show you the most engaging, entertaining content, based on what their systems understand of your interests. TikTok sparked this shift, by demonstrating that algorithms are now smart enough to understand user interests, so users don’t actually need to follow profiles anymore, as the system doesn’t need your explicit input to understand what you want to see more of.

And that works on TikTok, where it’s all about showing you the most entertaining video clips, while it’s also worked for Facebook and IG. But Threads feels like it needs a more specific focus on real-time updates, and the most relevant posts in the moment, as opposed to what’s getting the most engagement.

Because using post engagement as a proxy means that you can only display content in retrospect, and that doesn’t work for breaking news. Neither does a restriction on “political” content, and it still feels like Threads needs to refine its balance on both elements if it wants to supplant Twitter, and become a new home for that type of activity.

Though that also assumes that that is Meta’s aim, which may not be correct. Meta has said that it is looking to take on X with Threads, but it’s also said that it wants Threads to be a “more friendly” version of that experience.

Which, again, points to that “TikTok of Text” approach, where, really, Meta wants all the engagement, but none of the issues that come with a more news-based approach, including more challenging moderation, increased risk of misinformation, concerns around manipulation, etc.

So really, it all depends on how exactly Meta wants to approach this. But it does seem like Bluesky, for example, is only gaining traction now because of Threads’ failure as a real-time news source, which was highlighted on Election Day.

And while Bluesky only has 15 million users in total, that’s still 15 million people that may well have been Threads users, had it gotten its approach right.  

And it does feel like Threads is sitting on a major opportunity as a real-time news and information source.

X is now too biased in this respect, and offers no real protections around misinformation (Community Notes is not good enough in this respect), while Bluesky is too small, though as noted, it is growing. But right now, Threads has the best opportunity to become that real time news discussion space. But it will also require Meta to take on a level of risk in its approach.

In the wake of the election, I do think Meta will eventually change tack, and it’s interesting to see it taking the first steps in re-aligning Threads around its own, separate use case.

But that, really, is what needs to happen, with Meta putting more focus on real-time relevance versus light entertainment.

Meta’s making more changes to its ad-free subscription offering in Europe, in order to meet ever-changing EU requirements on data usage and consumer protections.

Today, amid ongoing scrutiny from EU officials, Meta has announced that it’s cutting the price of its ad-free subscription offering in the region by 40%, in the hopes of enhancing its appeal to regulatory groups.

As explained by Meta:

“Going forward, people based in the EU will still have the option to choose between subscribing for an ad-free experience or continuing to access our services for free. For those people who choose to continue using our services for free, they’ll now also be able to choose to see less personalized ads. However, we remain committed to personalized advertising, which will always be the cornerstone of a free and inclusive internet.”

To recap, back in November last year, in response to new EU rules which dictate that social platforms have to offer an opt-out from targeted ads, Meta announced that it would provide a new, ad-free subscription offering for EU users, which would enable access to both Facebook and Instagram for €9.99 per month without any personal data gathering.

That, in effect, met the new EU requirements, in that it would enable users to opt out of data sharing for ad purposes, while it would also ensure that Meta’s business was not significantly impacted by those doing so.

But various advisory groups challenged Meta’s subscription alternative, arguing that it undermined the focus of the GDPR, and its protections against “data capitalism”. That led to more scrutiny from EU officials, which saw Meta offer to halve the price of the option back in March in order to make it more accessible, and appease such concerns.

At the same time, Meta has also been forced to add in an option for all users to see “less personalized ads”, ensuring that even those who don’t subscribe to its ad-free option can opt out of full data sharing if they choose.

Which it’s clearly trying to make a less appealing option:

“This means people will see ads that they don’t find as interesting. This drop in relevance is inevitable given that drastically reduced data is being used to show these less personalized ads to people. In a low data environment, we will also introduce ad breaks to allow advertisers to connect with a wider audience. This means that some of the ads people will see in the less personalized ads experience will be unskippable for a few seconds.”

So you can opt to not pay for the ad-free option, but Meta’s gonna’ make it a more annoying experience.

The idea, then, is that Meta will be able to offset its losses in not utilizing personal data for ad targeting by getting as many people as possible who opt out to pay a monthly fee. Which will now cost a lot less than its initial offering, and it’s feasible that at least some EU users will pay up to avoid data sharing.

But most won’t, and if they want to get fewer, more annoying ads in-stream, they’ll need to opt in to Meta using their data for ads, essentially maintaining the status quo in the app, despite the new EU data restrictions.

I’m guessing EU regulators and advisory groups won’t be happy about this new compromise either, especially considering Meta’s overt efforts to push people towards its money-making options.

But at the same time, Meta has the right to minimize its losses where it can, and if you’re going to force it into a system that will reduce its revenue intake, free market rules would dictate that Meta can respond to that as it chooses.

Or you’re arguing that Facebook and Instagram are public utilities, and as such, should be subsidized by the government. Which they’re not, so as a private entity, I’m not sure how much further the EU can stretch Meta to meet its requirements, without unfairly impacting regional trade.

Either way, Meta will be hoping that it’s made enough compromises to adhere to these new EU rules, while also ensuring that it doesn’t lose out as a result.  

Instagram’s expanded its post boosting options, giving you more ways to maximize the value of your best-performing organic updates.

Instagram’s “Boost” option gives you a streamlined, simplified ad set-up process, so that you can get the most out of your best-performing organic posts while they’re resonating.

Up till now, however, some posts have been ineligible for boosting, due to limitations in Meta’s system and copyright concerns. But now, a broader range of posts can be boosted in the app.

As per Instagram:

“Ever tried to boost content with GIFs, stickers, or copyrighted music and faced an error? Give it another go. Instagram’s latest update to boosting now means that most GIFs and stickers are now eligible to be boosted.”

Note that this is “most”, not “all” posts, and it’s not entirely clear which will be eligible and which won’t. But if you’ve ran into problems trying to boost some of your best-performing organic posts in the past, it could be worth revisiting them in order to maximize your promotional efforts.

It’s also worth noting for your future posts, that including GIFs and stickers won’t be a deal breaker for boosting.

Though you do have to be running a Professional Account, and restrictions on music will remain, but you’ll now be given the option to switch out the song for a boost-eligible one instead.  

Also, if you’re on Meta’s ad-free subscription in Europe, you can’t boost posts, which seems to be a glitch in Meta’s system.  

It’s a small update, but a relevant one for those looking to maximize their IG performance by doubling down on their best-performing updates, and getting them in front of more people.

Instagram says that its updates to post boosting are now live in the app.

There’s something going on with Reddit, which has seen a big surge in traffic of late.

But does that make it a more viable avenue for advertising, or is its newfound audience reach, largely facilitated by Google referrals, more transient, and thus, less conducive to ad exposure than other social apps?

As reported by The Information, Reddit usage has been on a major upswing over the past year, with the platform rising from 66 million daily active users last October, to 97 million, as reported last week.

That’s a 46% increase in daily actives over the past year, which eclipses every other social app’s growth, by a significant margin.

That helped Reddit boost its stock price, and improve its market standing, making it the hot social media sector buy of the moment.  

But as I noted in my review of Reddit’s Q3 data, one of the most interesting aspects of Reddit’s current usage is this:

“Reddit also says that its Weekly Active Unique user count (WAUq) averaged 365.4 million in the third quarter, an increase of 53% year-over-year. The amount of daily to weekly usage here is unusual for social apps, which usually see about 2.3x usage between daily and monthly actives. Reddit seemingly sees a lot more than this, which could point to the less consistent way in which visitors use the app.”

The Information noted the same, pointing to Reddit’s data sharing deal with Google as a key element helping to drive this growth, and noting that:

“⁠Reddit’s content is now 4x more visible in Google’s search results than it was in July 2023.”

Indeed, part of Reddit’s deal with Google is that Google can now display Reddit insights in Search, while also using Reddit’s trove of product-related discussion to help power its AI responses via its Gemini tools. That’s seen Reddit get a lot more exposure in Google’s products, and is also why Reddit’s weekly and monthly traffic is so out of synch with every other social app.

Indeed, as noted above, while most social apps have around 2.3x the rate of monthly versus daily users, Reddit’s is 3.77x variable.

That suggests that while Reddit is getting a lot more people to the app, most of them are likely coming across from a Google Search, checking the response to their query, then moving on from the app.

Over time, Reddit is seemingly converting more of these visitors into active users, which bodes well for its future prospects. But right now, Reddit’s 97 million daily actives is significantly lower than the other major social apps. As such, that could mean that Reddit provides less opportunity for ad exposure, and thus, a more confined pathway to audience reach.

Does that make such exposure less valuable?

Well, theoretically, the more transient Reddit traffic that’s coming from Google is also looking for more specific product insight, and as such, getting your promotions onto those screens could also prove valuable, despite lower overall usage. So there may well be opportunity there, and 97 million daily users is also still a significant amount of users who are visiting very specific, focused subreddit groups.

I do think that there is value there for the right brands, and it’s worth exploring the broader Reddit discussion around your business niche to understand the potential. But it is also worth noting that a lot of the current interest in Reddit is being driven by traffic from Google, which is not as sticky, and not as accessible via Reddit promotions.

Yet.

Again, the app is also growing its returning user base at a solid rate, and over time, it is worth monitoring that growth, and considering how those users are engaging with Reddit content. But there are variances in usage, which are worth considering.  

Snapchat’s making another push on Snapchat+ subscriptions this holiday season, by partnering with Amazon, Walmart and Target to sell Snapchat+ gift cards in store and online.

Which, if last year is anything to go on, will help to boost Snapchat+ subscriptions once again this Christmas.

As per Snap:

“As we approach the holidays, annual Snapchat+ subscriptions are now available for purchase at Target stores across the US, and online and via Amazon and Walmart. Gift cards are easy to redeem right away at snapchat.com/plus. With Snapchat+, Snapchatters can unlock so many fun ways to personalize their app with custom chat wallpapers, seasonal app icons, Bitmoji pets, and more! It’s the gift that keeps on giving all year long.”

And while those additions won’t appeal to everyone, they have been a hit with millions of Snapchat users, and you can bet that many young teens will be keen to find a Snap gift card under the Christmas tree this year, so that they can customize their in-app presence like their friends.

Snapchat made the same push last year, launching Snapchat+ gift cards via Amazon only. Yet, even with just one retail partner, that still saw Snapchat+ memberships rise from 5 million in September, to 7 million by end of Q4, meaning that its subscriber base rose by some 40% in the period.

I mean, that growth wouldn’t be 100% attributable to Snapchat+ gift cards, but they no doubt played a significant part. As such, the expansion to physical stores, and a lot more outlets, should help Snap boost Snapchat+ memberships once again this year.  

Snapchat+, which is now up to 12 million total members, has become a handy supplementary income stream for the app, as it continues to re-shape its revenue intake. Snapchat still generates more than 90% of its revenue from ads, so it’s not a major stream overall. But as the company continues to invest in new technologies, like AR glasses, the extra money that Snapchat+ is bringing in is a good complement to its ad business.

It’s also a great example of Snapchat’s audience nous, and its understanding of what its users actually want.

For comparison, X Premium, which was launched around the same time, and to much more fanfare, has struggled to reach even 1.3 million sign-ups, with users not being as enticed by the option to buy blue checkmarks as Elon and Co. had hoped.

Because X’s add-on features don’t align with how the majority of people actually use the app. Snapchat’s add-ons for Snapchat+ however, do, which is why it’s seen significantly more take-up of its paid option.

And that looks set to continue to rise in 2025.

Again, it’s unlikely to ever become a major revenue stream, by comparison to its ad business, but it’s a valuable driver of supplemental income for the app.