Shopping coming to Instagram | Hacker News Reader

Shopping coming to Instagram

blog.business.instagram.com

140 pointskeyle54 comments

This seems like a natural way to monetize instagram for accounts that I follow. I would take this over ads any day. If I like a business enough to follow them on instagram, then I won't mind being able to purchase something from the account.

For instance, I follow King Arthur Flour for their scrumptious baking recipes. It'd be great to be able to go straight to their online store to purchase some of their harder to find ingredients like Boiled Cider.

One thing I hope they do is make it so everybody can get in on it. Say you want to be able to sell prints of your great photos, how awesome would it be to have a built in way for customers to do so? Or have a brewery and want to sell some t-shirts?

That said... will this taint the instagram experience? Youtube feels increasingly optimized for profit-making and seems be crowding out some of the more "just-for-fun" type projects. If too much of a social media site focus on profit it becomes just another mall and less of a social setting.

It only seems like the professional content is crowding out the home grown stuff because that's what YouTube suggests for you. If you find good content, you share it with others, regardless of its professionalism. If you want amateur videos to do well, share ones you find interesting with others.

vaguely related, "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" [1] There's probably some similar folk wisdom like, adding advertising to an interesting thing makes the thing less interesting.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

So, Instagram is the only social media I use (generally to share photos from our many road trips). My account is private, and I only follow people that I know in real life. I suspect this change won't affect my experience at all, because I'm not consuming much of anything aside from my friends' photos. I suspect, however, that I might be in the minority as far as Instagram user habits go...

>Say you want to be able to sell prints of your great photos //

This opens the printer up to potentially massive copyright infringement issues. Sharing images online is one thing, being directly paid to actualise then on offline products is a big step with a lot of potential liability.

There's already lots of competition in that space, the sites I've used for Tshirt & mug printing (in Europe) have been very hot on trademark and copyright issues, stiflingly so IMO.

There's probably much more to be made selling pictured goods over good with pictures on.

This is anything but seamless. As soon as I saw them slide out that webview with the vendor's site I nearly vomited. They had a chance to make buying items that users like so much more painless, but they only delivered a partial experience. I don't want to bother with creating an account for every random vendor, typing in my CC info, and then having to rummage through emails to get tracking info. This is a great idea, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

Apple pay in the web is going to fix most of those issues

The situation you describe would require building and maintaining what's basically an etsy competitor. That's a hugely more complex undertaking compared to "here's a buy button that links to a URL".

As much as I'd love IG's UX to become the baseline level of ecommerce quality, I can see why they went the route they did.

Regardless of complexity, if the opportunity is there then they ought have gone after it. Perhaps, though unlikely, they just didn't see it.

Alternatively it could be seen as a sign that IG are becoming complacent. A competitor may just swoop in, out-execute, and take the chocolates.

On the contrary, it could be a quick initial test with a plan to flesh it out if the response is good.

I've been thinking about building something like this for over a year now (I know I know, ideas are worthless).

I wanted it to be a social network where brands can hook into and sell their stuff directly from within like you describe. People share their outfits and followers can tap on times like in this demo and directly buy the item if a vendor hooked into it.

A bit similar startup from Zurich: http://tech.fashwell.com/

So the typical experience then?

I get that this is a pilot program of sorts, but it seems rather... limited.

Why not extend this to every account? Whenever an Instagram user posts a picture which hosts a product, they can decide in that post to create a link to that product. Followers can then buy the product through Instagram, knowing that they are getting a genuine product (unlike, say, if they were going to buy through Amazon). Manufacturers are incentivized to list products through Instagram to drive sales. Users are incentivized to link to the products in their posts because it makes them eligible for some small percent of sales driven through that post. Instagram takes a cut for making the sale happen on their platform. Everyone wins.

Maybe misreading, but a lot of major Instagram publishers exist through product sponsorship.

Letting publishers have control of this sort of linking increases the value of the sponsorship, thus helping out content creators. Like how YouTube's ad-revenue sharing supports people making videos.

I would see this more as a way for content creators to monetize better than for Instagram to monetize.

I really hope Instagram or the merchants go with Apple/Android pay integration. I've gone through the hoops of image->link to shop in the profile->search for the item, only to bow out when faced with the tedium/inevitable spam of creating an account on the merchant's site.

This explains why they blocked hyperlinking outbound URLs except for the 'bio', which I always thought was weird but in retrospect makes sense. Instagram has a lot of activity but it's mostly confined to Instagram as opposed to the dispersing effects of reading e.g. Twitter. Snapchat has a similar internal lock-in principle.

This is one of the rare instances, where a monetization strategy actually improves the UX of a vanity product. Users have been asking for this (passively) for years. If you check out popular fashion posts, you can find a lot of comments along the lines of "where can i buy this?", "i need this.", etc. Instagram was always great at creating attention and desire for products, but the platform never allowed users to take action directly.

Trying to solve this problem myself back in 2013 with a somewhat popular iPhone app, the key will be to rollout this feature to smaller merchants, or maybe even to "fashion inspiration" accounts who provide a massive followership, as well as massive engagement on their posts - but I don't really see that happening.

It's pretty nuts to me how many people already use Instagram as a business platform, literally for sales. I have a couple of friends for instance who own a vintage clothing/furnishings store and do MOST of their business posting items on Instagram, getting DM'd from people wanting to purchase, and then handling payments and pick up or delivery off of the platform. They're only one case of many I've noticed from folks who'd otherwise be on Etsy (or are also on Etsy, but have an easier time curating customers on Instagram and avoid the high fees).

Imagine that landline phone calls were initially free and had to be "monitized" via adverts. Or, if it ended up being the case that they couldn't be sufficiently monitized and thus were considered a "failed business model". This age of freemium is producing all sorts of wack products. Why can't I just have a phone company that adds Twitter-like functionality in my paid plan. Oh right, because even though it's all "free" it's all proprietary and incompatible.

I'm sure the phone company could have built twitter, but it would have cost you $0.1 per tweet and $1 for pictures. The phone companies built quite a lot of innovative stuff early on (e.g Minitel), but it was even more proprietary, incompatible, and monopoly priced.

And regulated by the government, so that everyone received service, that was inter-operable, and sustained.

Perhaps an Instagram team member can answer for me:

Is there a way for Instagram creators, stylists and influencers to make money by recommending products or styles?

My use case: I buy clothes based on "looks / styles" and camera products based unique experiences created by other people. I'd like to pay influencers for creating such awesome content that help me discover new products.

Most of the fitness men/women with lots of follows get sponsorship deals to promote protein-bars, weight-loss stuff, and similar.

It's not directly based upon the site, but it is pretty blatant once you start spotting it.

In that niche the "leaders" are well compensated already.

Yes, they get given products and are paid to feature products in their images. To tip them, keep following, liking and maybe refer them more followers via word of mouth, etc.

Source: Got a friend whose full-time gig is posting on Instagram.

What would be interesting is if I take a picture of lets say my "new" macbook pro and tag it. It becomes like an amazon affiliate link and I get a cut if someone buys the underpowered thing.

This would then be the only platform outside of YouTube that would then allow you to monetise the content you create directly via the platform itself.

See, I think it would be cool if I could do it without flipping my account to a business account, but at the same time, then I'd think Instagram runs the risk of empowering everyone the ability to assign monetary values to things quite inappropriately, at least from a cultural standpoint.

On the one hand, I like the idea of being able to pawn off a cool gadget I found.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of seeing pricetags all over people's profiles, or worse, seeing people sell mementos or sentimental items on a social media platform so very in-my-face just to turn a quick buck.

The latter strongly outweighs the former for me, so I suppose I'm glad this appears to be limited to business accounts.

> On the other hand, I don't like the idea of seeing pricetags all over people's profiles, or worse, seeing people sell mementos or sentimental items on a social media platform so very in-my-face just to turn a quick buck.

People do that all the time already, I must get at least one follow from someone trying to sell me supplements (steroids?) every day

Wow, blocking ads (which are inherently unethical) doesn't kill every company on the internet but forces them to come up with better and more inovative business ideas. Who'd have thought?

> which are inherently unethical

What is the argument here?

The usual arguments against advertising on the internet are about privacy, security and intrusiveness. These are all valid but even if none of those things were true, ads are still inherently manipulative. I consider manipulation to be unethical.

Everyone and everything is manipulative. Life is all about perception.

Packaging is designed to make you want to buy one thing more than another. Would as many people buy Red Bull if it was in a standard stubby can instead of the slimline can? No they wouldn't. Is it therefore unethical for Red Bull to sell their beverage in a slimline can?

Is it unethical for a salesperson to talk to you? For a shop to have a sign? For me to suggest eating a kebab for lunch? What if when I finish talking to you I tell you to have a nice day?

I object to advertising in principle. It causes people to become more consumerist. It exists to generate a desire to purchase stuff, usually by promoting feelings that one is missing out otherwise.

Plenty of people try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". There's even bigger reasons to oppose them than mere convenience, though.

For one, it messes with buyer's rationale, the greatest aspect of markets, so that you cannot be sure that a product winning in the marketplace is doing so out of quality or out of better advertising. The possibility to make up for deficiencies in quality with proper advertisement encourages a company to spend money into selling product instead of improving product.

And if one person is impervious to advertising and getting some content "for free", that still means that some other poor sap who is less educated, more vulnerable to advertising, is buying enough extra to make up for the content the first got for free. An exploitative arrangement to be sure. It's basically simulated peer-pressure.

It exists on a spectrum with free speech, but all your examples have an easy answer: It's unethical for you to suggest someone have kebab for lunch if you are getting paid for it and not disclosing it.

Ads on websites are usually pretty clearly recognisable as ads though (except for sponsored content, which I totally agree is unethical).

While I respect your line of thinking, I believe that advertising does improve a product substantially. It improves how you are perceived using it, it can change your experience with the product, and it can reduce the amount of time you need and give you better information about products -- especially when there are no obvious benchmarks for the industry. (E.g. clothing)

Part of advertising is educating customers on what features your product has, and doing so in an easy to understand way.

Imagine a world with no advertising. You want to buy a coat, so you search Google. There are no ads, so you just click the first link (which has done no SEO). What do you see? A picture of a coat? A list of coat 'specs'? A description of the coat?

All of these could be considered advertising (People "wasting" money on putting coats on models of different body sizes, creating different standards for clothing 'specs', and copywriting product descriptions) yet they also provide value to the customer.

So I would say that advertising has to be considered part of the product that can enhance its value.

  Imagine a world with no advertising.

I do so regularly. You wouldn't have to rely on what you saw on a billboard or a website, where the products by the company that payed the most are displayed. Instead you would consult an independant source dedicated to comparing the type of products you are looking for. Or you'd ask friends what they would recommend. You know, sources with the priority of actually pointing you at the best solution, not getting you to give them money over someone else.

With ad blockers having made a lot of people conscious about ads and their ethics, I feel like we are closer to an ad free world than ever. Personally, I can't wait.

Thank you for elaborating on your perspective.

> It exists on a spectrum with free speech, but all your examples have an easy answer: It's unethical for you to suggest someone have kebab for lunch if you are getting paid for it and not disclosing it.

What if I'm getting paid in gratification of having a kebab for lunch instead of some sort of currency? I'm selfish and I want a kebab, similar to me being selfish and wanting a job.

I actually agree with a lot of what you have to say, and I will offer that this TED talk gives a very interesting perspective on advertising you should try giving a few minutes to: Rory Sutherland: Life lessons from an ad man

http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_life_lessons_from_a...

I applaud this. I follow lots of #brands of cool hip outdoorsy stuff on Instagram and wish merch sites in general would do a better job showing their products in use so I am not left guessing how they fit and look in the wild. And if this means no more tower heist ads in my instagram, sign me up now!

Good source of revenue for them. UI/UX reminds me of https://www.thinglink.com/. Would be nice if it was open to everyone (anyone selling, cross-platform, worldwide).

Hopefully this works out. I've been doing some metal fabrication lately and have thought about doing commission work in the future. I see other makers on IG selling stuff, but the experience leaves a lot to be desired.

Hey HN! I want to hear the arguments as to why this is or isn't a positive development for society. Not whether or not it's the right business decision, or whether or not they should have the right to do it.

Any thoughts?

I think this is great for the economy. It's one more venue for small businesses to get their products to the masses and it'll create jobs as these 'stores' will need to be updated and managed.

I think some might argue that any sort of service that gives customers more choice is a good thing, but recent research seems to be pointed in the direction that too many choices available is causing anxiety [+] (which might outweigh the utility the additional choice is providing).

Its good for Instagram, and its good for the economy. Society? More data needed. I worry its going to turn into Tinder for purchasing, and it simply greases the pipeline of purchasing things you don't need with money you don't have in the name of social status ("We buy things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like.”) [++].

[+] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-tyranny-of-ch...

[+] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/21/choice-...

[+] https://www.fastcompany.com/3031364/the-future-of-work/why-h...

[++] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25775-we-buy-things-we-don-t...

you take the red pill, you read Marx, Althusser, and Adorno and your eyes are forever opened. you take the blue pill, you agree with the posts up voted above mine and go back to sleep. your choice, kid

You forgot Stirner.

Instagram is where we reflect the interesting life of the kate spade new york girl through relatable social moments which highlight the products that are characters in her story

I think you can work up a good lather of doomsaying from just that quote, but it's all been said before -- so it's not really a new development. It reminds me indirectly of David Foster Wallace's essay E unibus pluram: television and U.S. Fiction:

It's true that there's something sad about the fact that young lion David Leavitt's sole descriptions of certain story characters is that their T-shirts have certain brand names on them. But the fact is that, for most of the educated young readership for whom Leavitt writes, members of a generation raised and nourished on messages equating what one consumes with who one is, Leavitt's descriptions do the job. In our post-'50, inseparable-from-TV association pool, brand loyalty is synecdochic of identity, character.

There are a number of startups offering 'shoppable instagram' solutions, some quite large, and one recently acquired; though I suppose they knew it was coming. RIP, or pivot I guess.

It's a good idea as it's pretty much a shopping mall for yoga wear, protein powder and leotards now.

Interesting how it evolved from a social media site to an online shopping mall!

The main difference compared to Facebook for example is, that you don't see that if you don't want to. There are no "live tickers" in your face of what people you follow are doing. Well at least for now.

Curation is the key.

I think the name Instacart is already taken.

Long live fake accounts pretending to be your friend.

offtopic: I still find it fascinating (hilarious, even) that the official instagram blogs are tumblrs.

Yawn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com