Snapchat's Stock Sinks After Rihanna Denounces Domestic Violence Ad | Hacker News Reader

Snapchat's Stock Sinks After Rihanna Denounces Domestic Violence Ad

npr.org

34 pointstechman926 comments

> Snap Inc's stock prices fell around 4 percent later Thursday, wiping out nearly $800 million from its market value, reports CNN

I don't believe that Rihanna's tweet caused $800 million worth of investors to change their mind. In fact, it only finished 1% lower on the day.

SNAP stock is like any other: noisy.

Stock market reporting is generally a case study in “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.

Furthermore, a variation of 4% hardly fits the definition of "sinking".

This sort of militant journalism is getting out of hand.

Um, if you look at the stock price it's still up 17% since Feb 1st which is before both the Kylie Jenner and Rihanna tweets. Tasteless as the ad was, markets are driven by greed way more than social outrage. Now if this is a trend that actually results in Snapchat becoming uncool and usage falls over time then that would be a story, but for now this is just grasping at straws trying to attribute stock market noise to some minor scandal with zero long-term effect.

>You spent money to animate something

Is this true? From the article it doesn't sound like Snapchat made the ad. It sounds like some other company made the ad and paid Snapchat for it to be placed on Snapchat.

It's highly doubtful they did, but it's how the person who took offense in this situation exclaimed it happened, so that's how it will get coverage of.

Of course, if there's evidence Snapchat personally animates every ad on their platform, I'd love to see it.

The ad in question was of course totally tasteless and tone-deaf, but I'm curious as to whether Snap is uniquely susceptible to price fluctuations based on the comments of social media influencers for some reason.

This is really poor journalism. Just 23 days ago, we had In One Tweet, Kylie Jenner Wiped Out $1.3B of Snap's Market Value. Discussed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16439534

So can we safely create a model for writing stories?

    If SNAP stock sinks
       find (social media from $celebrity)
       write $celebrity responsible for wiping $x in market value.

Just a reminder to everyone who thinks the world is simple, any platform is sensitive to somewhat small forces from big players. The article claims that BILLIONS were lost after a Kylie Jenner tweet. Stay cautious

Billion dollar reductions in market capitalization doesn't mean a billion dollars were lost (that is, transferred to some other parties from Snapchat).

Yeah no rihanna has little bearing on this. But looking for causality in stock market behavior is fun and makes you seem smart.

That's what happens if all your business does is sending pictures around. What's the intrinsic value of it?

Of course people will uninstall the app as quickly as it's uncool or they are told to by their idols.

If Snapchat generated any kind of value / saved a lot of time, people couldn't afford to just get rid of it.

Snapchat does not just send pictures around. First of all a big part of their value proposition is ephemeral communication in a time and age where everything lasts for ever. Yes there are ways to work around it (using an unofficial client that allows you to save snaps without telling the other person you did) but still.

Additionally, Snapchat has a bunch of effects that you can add on top of videos that people enjoy, for example the dog ears and nose and tongue.

And Snapchat has text chat and group chat.

And Snapchat has “stories” that you can post pictures and videos to and view other peoples “stories”. A story is a feed. You can either post to a story that your friends can see or a story that people in a group can see or to “our story” that everyone can see.

The intristic value is communication. They are far from the only one to let you communicate but they have a polished product and they are offering a different sort of communication than a lot of others do.

This is just as meaningless as Snapchat having billions in valuation.

I just dont get how can SC be valued so much when all it does is move pictures around.

Not to defend Snapchat's reputation or anything...but all Dropbox does is 'store files'. Saying snapchat just 'moves pictures' around and therefore shouldn't be valued so highly kind of misses the point. That being said, there are other reasons Snapchat probably shouldn't be valued so highly.

Dropbox does a lot more than just store files. It provides a valuable abstraction over universal storage, through its integration with various services. For example, integration with MS Office to provide a single virtual drive to save my work to a single location from any PC i use.

DB adds tangible value.

And snapchat provides a valuable abstraction over picture moving that many people use. Does something need to integrate with MS office in order to be useful?

No but integrating with MS Office increases the likelihood that it’s valuable. Utility != value. Always ask yourself: who is my user? Am I providing them with a painkiller or a vitamin?

Dropbox's value is equally dubious.

> Dropbox's value is equally dubious.

That's a very short-sighted value. Even if you don't believe that there is no value in providing a very convenient and easy-to-use file hosting and file-sharing service that even supports collaboration, just having access to so much personal information is already quite valuable.

And people actually pay for this, to the point that Dropbox is profitable as it is.

Like its $1B revenue you mean?

And facebook, just like snapchat also only moves pictures, text and news around then?

People don't really care about pop celebrities, they might as well be fiction characters. If I were to make the same, rather tame, would-you-rather joke with a group of friends does that mean I 'make light' of domestic violence? Is it not possible to make a joke that ignores the subtleties and nature of a complex subject for the sake of a cheap laugh? People know where the line is, this isn't it, and no one cares when multi-millionaires with nothing in common with anybody hit each other. The world continues to turn...

I think this is the line but it's an arbitrary inconsistent line. People still shoot each other in video games, even with characters based on real people. That's OK though because murder isn't as bad as slapping, or something.

It seems that many people do care about celebrities, and that if you want to understand the world, understanding celebrity's function is part of that. A useful place to start thinking about why celebrity matters is Max Weber's conception of charismatic authority.

"with a group of friends" and "in a global advertising campaign" are completely different things.

People ought to care more than they do about domestic violence, regardless of how wealthy those involved are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com