I'd like to highlight this quote from the statement:
> and ads signal loss have caused our revenue to be much lower than I’d expected
Apple decisions + EU regulations?
> and ads signal loss have caused our revenue to be much lower than I’d expected
Apple decisions + EU regulations?
What is the link between Apple introducing new rules to nerf tracking and Meta making less money?
I guess less tracking means less relevant ads. Are Meta's customers able to somehow evaluate this and are they now unwilling to spend as much money on advertising with them? Or is it that Meta now has lower click-through rates on iOS? Is there something else?
This means the quality of the analytics coming back are much poorer. so its harder to optimise for a market segment.
“How many people that clicked the ad made a purchase?”
It’s how you determine the cost of advertising and measure its effectiveness.
Due to the iOS privacy consent form, FB can’t provide these kinds of reports anymore. There hasn’t been a decent replacement which drives companies to spend money with Facebook. That’s why revenues are down.
This is also why VR is such an important investment. If Meta will own the VR platform, other companies such as Google and Apple wont be able to block Meta’s attribution.
https://daringfireball.net/2022/08/ft_effects_of_app_trackin...
> What I think makes ATT a tempting scapegoat is that it creates a great story. Apple enacted a change in the name of privacy and that change has adversely affected both Facebook and small businesses that relied on Facebook. That’s a dramatic, captivating storyline, with two rivals, both corporate behemoths, on opposing sides.
(The footnote on this blog is a great explanation as to why FB's adTech was considered so bananas and why its no longer as much.)