Recently, YouTube introduced a new $20M fund to stimulate creators inside educational categories. And as the discussion about the founders of Facebook-acquired startups leaving the company doesn’t go away, I decided to look once again at two most discussed successful tech acquisitions in the 21st century.
These days our kids are raised by YouTube and our teens by Instagram. However, we can assume little number of people would know about two services in 2018 unless they were tightly integrated and promoted by parent companies. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, Instagram was worth as much as $100Bn in early July 2018, while YouTube could be worth as much as $150Bn. For comparison, McDonald’s was only $124B at that time.
Measuring the value
These companies may have justified valuation based on revenue, but what about the net positive value that is delivered to humankind?
1.9bn and 1bn people watch YouTube and Instagram respectively every month. Both companies are home for piano-playing cats and ultra-silly lip-sync. Both have problems with radicals and extremists. Both companies are being run as separate products and brands. To see what value they create, I had to start from the origins of companies as we know them today.
Choosing the parent company
In 2012, Google, Facebook and, still very promising, Twitter started to compete with each other for Instagram. Just like Google, Facebook had virtually unlimited design and development resources. What actually attracted founders of the startup was the sheer size and potential of network their product could get integrated with.
With time, users came to some rough common understanding of what’s worth to be posted on Instagram and what isn’t. The bar for the quality of published photos was set high, so numbers of daily active users started to get worse. Copying the Stories was a logical way to “democratize” the feed, and opportunity Instagram didn’t miss. The rest is history.
What the company was up for after shamelessly copying Snapchat? Shamelessly copying YouTube.
Lacking ideas for improvements of the short-form content (because Snapchat is dying), Instagram decided to venture out into space so far monopolized by YouTube. Although, there was a little problem:
“Instagram cemented itself as the place in the social media landscape to come for short, entertaining video updates. Not as a place for longer, produced stuff. For that, everybody knows you can just go to YouTube.” — Madison Malone Kircher wrote for Intelligencer.
The audience didn’t see the reason to watch IGTV. And the company didn’t really try to convince it. Not all power users were even aware of IGTV, which led to biggest content producers having just a fraction of views compared to other formats. Where is IGTV now? Low numbers of viewers, low amount of content and no founders. Was there an internal conflict between them and Zuckerberg who pushed to copy the format once again? I don’t know.
Stories were an extension of Instagram product, but IGTV offer was too remote to succeed. Simply copying the product doesn’t work anymore — you have to provide additional value. The power of the user base is not endless.