After listening to Facebook’s earnings a second time because a $270B drop in valuation deserves it, a few things stood out to me. First, the CFO, who I’ve been saying for 18 months needs to be clearer about their kneecapping, said the word “headwinds” 25 times so it’s a start. /1
Second, I’m seeing too much focus on flat/drop of Daily Active Users. Yes, that’s new but it’s their loss in ability to microtarget users as they’re opting out of tracking (iOS) plus CA and EU privacy laws are catching up to them that kneecaps their surveillance biz model. /2
Let’s listen in to their earnings a bit here. Here is the CFO during Q&A talking through some of the “headwinds” related to iOS and he also sort of mentions they may not be able to transfer data across the Atlantic any more (Schrems II). /3
This wasn’t just an on the fly answer that sounded bad. Here is how the CFO described the outlook in his prepared remarks upfront related to these same “headwinds.” /4
Then CFO describes “headwinds” in 22q1 as unique because they’re lapping q1 and q2 where they didn’t have the headwinds in place making for a tough comp in the first half of the year. This makes zero sense. Then he throws out an even $10B impact from iOS tracking prevention. /5
Of course an analyst asked how he came up with the $10B number? Zero confidence in answer. Listen, Facebook isn’t reporting its opt-out rate on its most valuable platform (iOS) but it must be 70%+. That’s a massive kneecap on their core surveillance advertising biz model. /6
Sheryl Sandberg comes in to try to clean up describing how they’re going to mitigate the effects of tracking prevention on their core surveillance advertising business model. Listen to this work of art answer. It’s just too much. /7
By the way, I wouldn’t miss that Facebook is also losing “friends” as he stumbles through a wicked and misleading (tracking prevention affects browsers, too) swipe at Google and Apple with an awkward🍎 pun in the middle of it. /8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
woah. a deeply concerning internal Google doc just unsealed in US DOJ vs Google (adtech antitrust trial seven weeks from now).
Smells like bid rigging.
Translation (by me):
Red = bad for Google
Green = good for G
'Levels playing field' = helps G
'fairer competition' = helps G /1
at the very least, demonstrates the conflict of interest with having significant market power on both sides. here is a Google doc roadmapping these changes to their auctions from the buy-side and the sell-side ahead of analyzing the impact and mitigating outcry. /2
for example, here is what looks to be Google analyzing what would happen to their biz when they removed "Last Look" which gave Google a significant advantage after an ad auction had been run. Don't miss the Green at bottom. /3
more news yesterday in flurry of activity in lawsuit vs Facebook for (over)paying FTC $5B to protect Zuckerberg. Big names involved. Board records inspection shows who's who in 'approval' - everyone now gone except Zuckerberg, Andresseen and Alford. Gets interesting quickly... /1
Yes, Andreessen joined Thiel in politics with full-throated endorsement of Trump with close allies. Alford was CFO of Chan Zuckerberg right before approval. WSJ reported Chenault and Zients (important: now Biden's chief of staff) stepped down over disagreements with Mark Z. /2
So what's happening. Well, first in April 2024 all of these prior and current board members were served in the lawsuit. Again, this is based on a prior records inspection of non-privileged board documents and the Court at that point deciding to allow the case to move forward. /3
Friday night KA-boom. In adtech antitrust lawsuit against Google, court has ordered the state AGs may depose Google co-founder Sergey Brin and CEO Sundar Pichai. Huge. /1
So the two cited reasons Pichai will be deposed (although not all of them) are incredibly sensitive. 1), “Jedi Blue,” the alleged collusion with Facebook that everyone wrongly wrote off back earlier in this lawsuit. Google CEO Pichai met directly with Facebook CEO Zuckerberg. /2
A reminder the Google and Facebook deal (aka the “NBA” or “Jedi Blue”) is also in a private antitrust suit against Facebook. The deal was signed by the lieutenants of the CEOs (Sheryl Sandberg for Facebook). /3
US v Google flooded docket (103 filings!) over weekend as Court said Friday...hey now, let's skip summary judgment, this baby is going to trial. Much is companies trying to keep their secrets sealed but we get a sense for the witnesses. And a small taste of evidence to come. /1
On the companies filing to keep their secrets sealed which they mostly provided under subpoena, it's a mix of adtech, agencies, platforms, you name it. /2
We also learn some glossary items which likely come up:
'RASTA' - Google's tool to evaluate new 'launches' (aka changes) in ad serving system, runs on live traffic
'Ariane' - identifies and summarized launches
'Launch' - creative name (lol), it replaced Ariane in 2020/2021 /3
SCOTUS just posted order list. It granted cert to Facebook on its Cambridge Analytica matter. Only first question but that’s a huge one. Basically should Facebook have disclosed to shareholders what it started to cover up in 2015 rather than presenting risk as hypothetical? /1
Here is the actual first question as written. One immediate item, it’s outrageous if Justice Kavanaugh didn’t/doesn’t recuse seeing his reported best friend, Joel Kaplan, was directly involved in the matter and its cover up. He threw his SCOTUS confirmation party IIRC. /2
Here is a link into background. I strongly urge press not to overlook this or assume you know fact history. Over the years much has played out in coverup and much of the reporting has been bent towards Facebook’s spin. I am more than happy to point you to the court records. /3
“X has lost dozens of major advertisers under Musk’s ownership, with 74 out of the top 100 U.S. advertisers from that month no longer spending on the platform as of May.” 1/4
Smart NBC report focusing on amplification, velocity and reach, “X isn’t living up to its own policies when it allows violent extremists to use the platform’s amplification features.” 2/4
“It’s not clear to what extent people at X were aware that the company was monetizing the extremist hashtags prior to NBC News’ reporting.” 3/4