The Key Differences in Demographics for the Top 7 Social Networks
In today’s multi-platform world, the smart businesses are tailoring their messages to audiences based on a variety of factors.
Of course, there are the benefits and limitations to each platform to be considered – but even more importantly, the audience and activity on each platform can differ considerably. The demographics of Pinterest vary from those of YouTube or Facebook, and content creators need to think about these fundamental differences in order to maximize user engagement.
Breaking Down the Top Social Networks
The following infographic comes to us from Tracx, and it dives deep into the demographic differences between the top seven social networks.
We noticed that Snapchat, owned by newly-IPO’d Snap Inc., is not included in the above infographic. While the growth of the $25 billion company has been extremely impressive, by some metrics it is still closing in on some of the smaller social networks (Twitter, Pinterest).
In any case, here’s what you need to know on the fast-growing, millennial-focused network.
The Missing Social Network
According to the most recent S-1 filing, Snapchat currently has 2.5 billion snaps created per day by an audience of 161 million Daily Active Users (DAUs) as of December 2016.
Here’s what growth looks like, on a quarterly level, for DAUs:
Some other interesting Snapchat stats?
- Users who were 25 years old or older opened Snapchat around 12 times a day and spent 20 minutes a day in the app on average.
- Users who were younger than 25 visited Snapchat more than 20 times a day and spent 30 minutes in it on average.
- Millennials account for 7 out of every 10 Snapchatters.
- Between 500,000 and 1 million Snapchat ads are seen per day.
- About 70% of Snapchatters are female.
- 30% of teens rank Snapchat as their most important social network.
Snapchat is already considered an important piece for companies looking to hit the North American millennial market. As a result, investors value the company over 2x more than Twitter, even despite Snapchat’s monetization problems.
The question is: how long can the growth continue – and when it stops, will it be a top three social network in North America overall?
Timeline: The Shocking Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank
Silicon Valley Bank was shuttered by regulators becoming the largest bank to fail since the height of the Financial Crisis. What happened?
Timeline: The Shocking Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank
Just days ago, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was still viewed as a highly-respected player in the tech space, counting thousands of U.S. venture capital-backed startups as its customers.
But fast forward to the end of last week, and SVB was shuttered by regulators after a panic-induced bank run.
So, how exactly did this happen? We dig in below.
Road to a Bank Run
SVB and its customers generally thrived during the low interest rate era, but as rates rose, SVB found itself more exposed to risk than a typical bank. Even so, at the end of 2022, the bank’s balance sheet showed no cause for alarm.
As well, the bank was viewed positively in a number of places. Most Wall Street analyst ratings were overwhelmingly positive on the bank’s stock, and Forbes had just added the bank to its Financial All-Stars list.
Outward signs of trouble emerged on Wednesday, March 8th, when SVB surprised investors with news that the bank needed to raise more than $2 billion to shore up its balance sheet.
The reaction from prominent venture capitalists was not positive, with Coatue Management, Union Square Ventures, and Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund moving to limit exposure to the 40-year-old bank. The influence of these firms is believed to have added fuel to the fire, and a bank run ensued.
Also influencing decision making was the fact that SVB had the highest percentage of uninsured domestic deposits of all big banks. These totaled nearly $152 billion, or about 97% of all deposits.
By the end of the day, customers had tried to withdraw $42 billion in deposits.
What Triggered the SVB Collapse?
While the collapse of SVB took place over the course of 44 hours, its roots trace back to the early pandemic years.
In 2021, U.S. venture capital-backed companies raised a record $330 billion—double the amount seen in 2020. At the time, interest rates were at rock-bottom levels to help buoy the economy.
Matt Levine sums up the situation well: “When interest rates are low everywhere, a dollar in 20 years is about as good as a dollar today, so a startup whose business model is “we will lose money for a decade building artificial intelligence, and then rake in lots of money in the far future” sounds pretty good. When interest rates are higher, a dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow, so investors want cash flows. When interest rates were low for a long time, and suddenly become high, all the money that was rushing to your customers is suddenly cut off.”
|Year||U.S. Venture Capital Activity||Annual % Change|
Why is this important? During this time, SVB received billions of dollars from these venture-backed clients. In one year alone, their deposits increased 100%. They took these funds and invested them in longer-term bonds. As a result, this created a dangerous trap as the company expected rates would remain low.
During this time, SVB invested in bonds at the top of the market. As interest rates rose higher and bond prices declined, SVB started taking major losses on their long-term bond holdings.
Losses Fueling a Liquidity Crunch
When SVB reported its fourth quarter results in early 2023, Moody’s Investor Service, a credit rating agency took notice. In early March, it said that SVB was at high risk for a downgrade due to its significant unrealized losses.
In response, SVB looked to sell $2 billion of its investments at a loss to help boost liquidity for its struggling balance sheet. Soon, more hedge funds and venture investors realized SVB could be on thin ice. Depositors withdrew funds in droves, spurring a liquidity squeeze and prompting California regulators and the FDIC to step in and shut down the bank.
What Happens Now?
While much of SVB’s activity was focused on the tech sector, the bank’s shocking collapse has rattled a financial sector that is already on edge.
The four biggest U.S. banks lost a combined $52 billion the day before the SVB collapse. On Friday, other banking stocks saw double-digit drops, including Signature Bank (-23%), First Republic (-15%), and Silvergate Capital (-11%).
|Name||Stock Price Change, March 10 2023||Unrealized Losses / Tangible Equity|
|First Republic Bank||-15%||-29%|
|Fifth Third Bancorp||-4%||-38%|
|Bank of America||-1%||-54%|
Source: Morningstar Direct. *Represents March 9 data, trading halted on March 10.
When the dust settles, it’s hard to predict the ripple effects that will emerge from this dramatic event. For investors, the Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen announced confidence in the banking system remaining resilient, noting that regulators have the proper tools in response to the issue.
But others have seen trouble brewing as far back as 2020 (or earlier) when commercial banking assets were skyrocketing and banks were buying bonds when rates were low.
The whole sector is in crisis, and the banks and investors that support these assets are going to have to figure out what to do.-Christopher Whalen, The Institutional Risk Analyst
Markets2 weeks ago
Ranked: The World’s Most Valuable Bank Brands (2019-2023)
Mining5 days ago
Charted: 30 Years of Central Bank Gold Demand
Markets4 weeks ago
Retail Investors’ Most Popular Stocks of 2023 So Far
VC+2 weeks ago
NEW FEATURE: Unlock the VC+ Archive in March
Money4 days ago
The Richest People in the World in 2023
Politics3 weeks ago
How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Impacts Science and Academia
Datastream2 weeks ago
The Drive for a Fully Autonomous Car
Demographics5 hours ago
Mapped: The World’s Happiest Countries in 2023