Facebook ventures into targeted real estate advertising

Facebook has launched its first ad product designed specifically for residential real estate brokerages.

“Dynamic Ads for Real Estate,” first reported by real estate news site Inman News, allow real estate brokers and agents to advertise directly to Facebook and Instagram users who have already searched for properties on that brokerage’s website. The product goes after a key money maker for Seattle-based Zillow, which allows real estate professionals to advertise to prospective home buyers and sellers on its site.

The new real estate product connects Facebook’s ad platform with a brokerage’s search data to understand a user’s preferences, then automatically shows that user relevant listings from the brokerage’s inventory. The ads are served on Facebook and Instagram.

“Real estate is an area we’re betting big on as a company,” Facebook’s real estate and financial services chief Keith Watts told Inman. “We think its content that consumers want to see.”

In October, Zillow rolled out a new feature that allows its Premier Agents to advertise to Facebook users under a partnership between the two tech companies. It’s not clear how Facebook’s move into real estate ads relates to that partnership. GeekWire reached out to Zillow for additional details and will update this story when we hear back.

“We’re really comfortable aligning our brand with you all, some of the finest real estate professionals in the world,” Greg Schwartz, Zillow Group chief business officer, said at a conference where the Facebook collaboration was announced. “But in technology partnerships we’re extremely choosy.”

read more here:


One to Many: Streaming Live Video to Multiple Platforms

As recently as two or three years ago, most live streams were distributed by a single service provider like Livestream or Ustream, whether on a page on their websites, via an embedded player on your website, or both. With the rise of YouTube Live, Periscope, and particularly Facebook Live, the focus has changed from publishing to a single platform to getting your video on every platform possible. As with all things streaming video related, there are multiple ways to get this done. This article will cover the most prominent alternatives.

One great thing about most alternatives is that you don’t have to be a technology guru to use them. Understand a few key concepts that I’ll cover at the start, and you’ll be well on your way to becoming a multiple-platform streaming maven.

Before we jump in, note that the companies discussed below are meant to be a representative sampling, not an exhaustive list. As you’ll see, many of the products and services are ones I’ve reviewed or discussed in the past. If you feel like your product or service should have been included, feel free to add it via comment below.

The first point to understand is that from an encoder interface perspective, there are two ways to connect to services like Facebook Live and YouTube Live: via platform-specific presets or via generic configurable destinations. With most of the products or services that we’ll discuss, if you’re using a platform-specific preset, you choose the preset, log in to the service, and your encoding tool and platform shake hands and exchange all required information.

If you’re using a generic destination or preset, you’ll have to provide the same information manually, which I show how to do in Figure 1. On the right is the server URL and stream key information provided by Facebook Live; on the left are the corresponding input fields from a generic destination provided by livestreaming service provider Livestream. By way of background, real-time messaging protocol (RTMP), originally developed by Adobe, is the common language spoken by all live-streaming encoding tools and live-streaming services. If you must create a custom preset, you’ll have to dig around in your streaming service to find these parameters, then copy and paste them into the encoder setup screen. Easy-peasy.

Why will you almost certainly have to use generic destinations? Because the 600-pound gorilla, Facebook’s Platform Policy Live API, states, “Don’t build apps that enable publishers to simultaneously stream to Facebook and other online streaming services.” So, if a product or service offers presets for Facebook Live and YouTube Live, it can’t let you use both simultaneously.

What’s the workaround? Stream to Facebook Live via the Facebook Live preset and to YouTube Live via a generic RTMP preset (or vice versa), which all products and services enable.

Now that you know how the plumbing works, let’s begin our look at on-premises hardware and software programs.

On-Premises Hardware and Software
These are devices or programs that you run from the source of your live stream, whether on-premises or at your live event. In general, the advantages of these products are:

Cost—You pay for it once, and that’s it.

Ease of use—There’s one product to learn, as compared to an encoder and web service.

Security—There’s one less service you’re bouncing your videos through, which may be important to some networks and businesses.

Lower latency—Web services that redirect your streams add some latency between the live event and the video seen by your viewers.

Captioning—This is available in many on-premises encoders but in few web services.

The primary disadvantage of products in this class is outbound bandwidth, particularly for those producing live, off-site events at conferences or stadiums where outbound bandwidth costs are prohibitive. That is, with a web service, you send one stream out to the cloud which is then redirected to multiple web destinations. With on-premises encoders, you’re sending multiple separate streams to the various web destinations, which all require their own bandwidth. The other primary disadvantage is CapEx, at least for several of the alternatives discussed below.

read more here:


YouTube’s Is In the Living Room and Advertisers Want in

There’s a great migration happening among the citizens of YouTube, and it’s not in the direction one might assume.

Although most digital content producers, including YouTube, are fixated on mobile phones and producing short-form shows for audiences on the go, YouTube viewers are increasingly firing up the TV set.
“Our fastest-growing area is the big screen, the TV,” said Sarah Ali, head of living room products.
In 2016, viewership on TV screens grew 90% compared to 2015, according to YouTube. And in 2017, viewership on TV screens is set to rise another 90%, the company said. It would not release the number of people viewing on TV screens.

With televisions now internet-connected, app-enabled and smart-speaker assisted, it’s easier to stream over-the-top — also referred to as OTT or streaming-video — to the larger screen, which is likely why an increasing number of YouTube’s 1.5 billion viewers are channel surving like the “old” days of TV.

YouTube is undergoing a transition that touches on more than where people view. The brand safety revolt this year prompted the company to hold creators, some with big followings, to higher standards. The full impact of that is yet to even play out. The move to the living room, however, could ultimately prove helpful by giving more prominence to professional content and de-emphasizing reliance on the “creator class.”

To be sure, YouTube is not the only beneficiary of this migration. Companies like Roku are attracting more consumers. Apple TV and non-traditional players like Facebook and Twitter are building TV apps to offer their brand of internet videos on demand.

Here’s a broader view of the landscape. 50% more advertisers.

The living room is recognized as a more lucrative territory to hook consumers. A YouTube viewer spends 30% more time watching NBC’s content when it’s on TV versus mobile or a laptop, said Mark Marshall, exec VP-entertainment advertising sales group at NBCUniversal. YouTube, in general, is a growing platform for NBC, with a 30% increase in minutes watched across all screens, Marshall said. But NBC’s YouTube clips on TV are growing faster—minutes watched were up 65% year-over-year.

That’s still fewer minutes than mobile and laptop, but changing viewer habits are clearly presenting new opportunities for digital advertisers to place commercials that resemble the ad breaks of TV’s heyday. “In the upfront this year, we will have 50% more advertisers buying YouTube than last year,” Marshall said.

Advertisers have been chastened—even a bit shell-shocked—by the mobile revolution, and the digital domination of Facebook and Google. Mobile, for instance, still accounts for 60% of all YouTube viewing, according to Marshall.

Mobile has grown so unforgiving to brands that Facebook and Google developed six-second video spots, so advertisers get used to snappy messaging.

The OTT market is offering an alternative to that mobile mindset, and media players like Hulu are luring brands with 15-second and 30-second commercial interruptions. YouTube is phasing out the 30-second spot, but advertisers still get 15 seconds, which shows advertisers just how much time they can expect to get in front of consumers, which is not much.

Roku, with 23.1% of the U.S. connected-TV device market, is the leader in OTT boxes, which are hubs for apps like YouTube, Hulu, Amazon Prime and traditional broadcasters trying to reach an audience that no longer buys cable packages. Google Chromecast and Amazon Fire TV sticks are No.2 and No. 3 among streaming devices, according to eMarketer, and 170 million people in the U.S. plug into connected TVs.

Over-the-top boxes and connected TVs account for 32% of ads that run alongside what’s considered premium digital content—shows and movies with respectable production values, according to Freewheel, a video ad-tech platform. Four years ago, connected TV devices accounted for only 2% of such ads, it said,
“We’ve been very public about how much audience has shifted back to the large screen,” said Scott Rosenberg, Roku’s svp of advertising. “In this new world, there are thousands of apps and channels, and getting consumers to tune into your show, it becomes an interesting and a hard problem.”

read more here:


Advertisers Must Take Direct Control Of The Inventory They Buy

– by Wayne Blodwell, founder and CEO at The Programmatic Advisory.

So far this year, header bidding has been adopted at scale by many of the world’s largest publishers. But it hasn’t been without challenges and has significantly impacted the way buyers trade media as trading leverage is reduced.

At the same time, the middleman tech tax is under siege. The differentiators in the early days of ad exchanges – unique supply, unique demand and forecasting capability and commercials – have changed over time, and the models have come under scrutiny. We will continue to see the middleman tech tax squeezed to a point where value is truly realized versus cost.

Meanwhile, programmatic has reached significant scale while brand safety has become front-page news. Advertisers are learning that their budgets have been flowing to fraudsters and the wrong types of content creators.

All of these developments bring with them lots of considerations for advertisers, who need to take greater control of where their money is going.

The Audit

Auditing exactly how advertisers are purchasing programmatic inventory is a classic first step to help advertisers get a grip on what they are doing today. They need to determine which sites they are buying from and with which buying mechanisms, such as direct, private marketplace (PMP) or guaranteed. Which ad exchanges are taking the greatest share of budget? And what third parties are in place to manage fraud?

Many advertisers believe this is solely the responsibility of their agency or third-party buyer, but I think that is the wrong attitude. Supply selection can be such a significant differentiator for campaign performance across a range of KPIs, and yet it often barely considered.

Further, where an advertiser uses a third party for programmatic buying, they may not be able to get the level of granularity they need. Is the agency trading desk really willing to hand over domain-level reports with total spend and performance volumes when they have commercial deals in place with a number of publishers on the list? It’s worth approaching this sensibly and constructively.

Accessing The Right Inventory

Once advertisers have a greater understanding of the specifics of their current setups, they should start forcing their buyers to prioritize conversations directly with publishers, with a focus on the highest-performing publishers.

Advertisers need to determine which publishers are aggressively progressing header bidding and the impact of that on campaigns.

Should an advertiser set up a preferred deal with the publisher at a fixed rate rather than a PMP? If so, what’s the ideal win rate? Hint: Advertisers need to be in as many auctions as possible and adjust their bids accordingly, often at a domain level.

Does the publisher have tons of relevant data that could be overlaid on top of a PMP deal? And should an advertiser use a PMP with an ad tech tax that is lower than in an open auction? There are differing tech taxes for each publisher based on the buying mechanic and the exchange. It isn’t about finding the cheapest route to the inventory as that’s impossible to do in real time; it’s about finding the most optimal way to buy the inventory.

Build Relationships With Publishers

Publishers really do want to work as closely with buyers as possible because the worst-case scenario for publishers is that a buyer turns them off because they’re not working. This, for me, is the single biggest barrier for header bidding: finding a truly realized buy and sell price so that the advertiser doesn’t turn publishers off.

Lots of the time the relationships with publishers are handled by a third party, such as a media agency. Very few advertisers commit to owning publisher relationships and contracts, but those that do see many benefits.

Advertisers should reach out to their best publishers and build relationships from a strategic perspective and also potentially from a commercial perspective, with an eye toward negotiating pricing for a few placements (there aren’t many cases where pre-agreed CPM rates are important in programmatic). We’re seeing this happen already with the likes of Google, Facebook and Amazon, but this could also happen with other key publishers.

Build Relationships With Third-Party Verification Companies

Recent reports show that fraud is a very real problem, and if advertisers are to take greater control of their own supply purchasing, they need to ensure they are buying ads seen by humans against great content. Selecting a third-party verification company to work with to protect the brand with existing technology is important.

read more here:


TV Screen Still Most Valuable for Advertisers

Television advertising is the most powerful medium for advertisers to drive consumer purchases, according to the recently released Purchase Funnel 2017 study.

According to the report, television advertising is the most important influencer, from initiating awareness of a product or service all the way through the purchase decision-making process, to the actual purchase. Interestingly, this holds true across age groups, including hard-to-reach, cord-cutting millennials.

The study was commissioned by the Television Bureau of Advertising, the trade association for local broadcast TV stations, but conducted by the GfK AG research firm. It covered six categories (automotive, banking services, furniture, bedding/carpet, legal, medical and QSR/casual dining) and 20 different media across five phases of the “purchase funnel,” i.e., awareness, interest, visit, consideration and purchase.

It was based on an opt-in panel of 3,000 US respondents aged 18 years or older who were exploring the purchase of each of these products and had been exposed to advertising across different media. Forty-six percent of consumers picked TV as having the “strongest influence on their decision,” with just 3% picking social media.

Almost two thirds (62%) of respondents selected TV as “the strongest driver of their awareness about a product/service” while 65% said that TV advertising influenced their social media searches.

That helps explain why the upfront advertising market this year went so well, despite falling ratings and pay-TV cord-cutting. Upfront ad sales totaled $19.7 billion in 2017, up 5.9% over 2016, according to researcher Media Dynamics. That’s a new record, exceeding the previous high of $19.2 billion set in 2013.

The key to the TV’s advertising effectiveness is apparently related to the lean-back experience offered by it. A study conducted last year by Hulu & Kantar Millward Brown — and quoted in a recent study from FreeWheel — found that “exposure to the ad message in a living room setting produced the highest lift for aided awareness and brand favorability compared to exposure on desktop and mobile.”

The report, entitled The Promise of OTT, is from FreeWheel Media Inc. , a digital advertising management company owned by Comcast, and is focused on advertising in online streaming services. It found that video streams to OTT devices such as Apple TV, Roku and Amazon Fire (which display the video on the TV screen) were the most likely to be viewed.

In fact, 98% of viewers of advertising on OTT devices viewed the ad completely. Other digital devices were also very effective with tablet viewers completing 91% of ads viewed, smartphone viewers completing 86% and desktop viewers completing 84% — but OTT devices were the highest.

FreeWheel also found that viewers of streaming video on OTT devices were more likely to be younger and more affluent than the average TV viewer, and therefore more attractive to advertisers. Based on their analysis of Nielsen data, FreeWheel found that the median age for OTT viewers was 31, while the average for traditional television was 54. Their median annual household income was also about $10,000 higher. And FreeWheel found that these platforms are well suited to reaching the elusive millennial demographic, with 75% of ads reaching viewers between 18 and 49, and 56% driven by those between 18 and 34.

read more here:


Everything you should know about Facebook TV

What is Facebook TV?

“Over the next couple of years or a few years, the much bigger driver for the business and determinant of how we do is going to be video, not Messenger” … “the biggest trend that we see in consumer behavior is definitely video” – Mark Zuckerberg during Facebook’s Q2 earnings call in response to a question about monetizing the company’s Messenger app

When we talk about Facebook TV, we’re referring to the company’s efforts to compete with traditional TV and video platforms, mostly through a foray into scripted and non-scripted, professionally produced video content. Facebook itself has – so far – never referred to these efforts as ‘Facebook TV’, but industry press came up with the name and it stuck, so we’ll use it in this article to refer to this new initiative.

Why does Facebook want to compete with TV?

Ad revenue. Half a decade ago, 85 percent of original TV content was supported by ads. Now, with the rise of subscription based VOD services, that percentage is just over two-thirds. Advertisers still want to be a part of that video content experience, but at the same time they’d like to see addressable, targeted TV ads that can be measured. Facebook can deliver all these things, offering advertisers a ton of new video ad inventory within a semi-traditional TV experience, but with the added benefit of being highly targeted and measurable. The economic opportunity for Facebook is obvious.

What kind of content can you find on Facebook TV?
Social and Facebook Live

Facebook has been attempting to go head to head with YouTube on this for a while. In 2016, the company famously dived head-first into the live social video space, paying content creators to produce live video for the platform. Even though these deals all seemed to fizzle out, the platform has seen a big uptick in the adoption of the format by ‘regular’ users. Currently, these Facebook Live video streams, as well as the more traditional community video uploaded by users still makes up the bulk of the videos consumed on the social network. The company expects this segment to continue to show strong growth as time goes by, mostly because of technological developments that make the user-experience better both in uploading- as well as in consuming this content. Mark Zuckerberg in the Q2 earnings call: “if you go back 5 years, you try to watch a video on your phone, it would probably have to buffer for a minute or so before you actually get to watch it,” … “So now as the technology on the network level improves to support that, what we’re seeing is the ability to serve what is a large amount of demand for what’s a very engaging type of content.”

Professional produced scripted and reality-TV

Facebook has been investing in video content and is expecting to invest even more for the foreseeable future. In the Q2 earnings call it’s even specifically mentioned as a possible reason for rising operating expenses in the coming quarters. Some names to keep an eye on in this regard are Facebook content SVP Nick Grudin, Head of Global Creative Strategy Ricky Van Veen and Head of Original Content Mina Lefevre. So what exactly are they spending all this money and resources on?

read more here:


Buyers Run Into Roadblocks In OTT Trackability

While it reaches the cord cutters traditional TV advertisers want to target, that audience is still difficult to track in an OTT environment.

Although the channel is capturing more attention (and dollars) from the traditional TV camp, digital buyers say connected TV needs to address the issue of identity resolution, since OTT ads exist in a cookieless environment.

And network subscriber lists don’t always link up to a cross-screen identity system, which creates obscurities in audience discovery and attribution.

“There is definitely a bit of a challenge when it comes to connecting audiences [with] viewership data or device usage,” said Seth Walters, president at Modi Media.

It can be very difficult, for instance, if a marketer wants to see if a consumer exposed to an OTT pre-roll ad later took some desired action.

“That’s very hard to trace back,” Walters said. “There are some options with providers like Roku, who have an ad framework and [an identity] graph, where they’re able to take a targeted, addressable message and tie it back to usage or time spent in the app.”

As a result, some advertisers instead track clicks, installs, downloads and usage. But that level of performance data isn’t available across all publishers and devices, which shows how, from a measurement standpoint, OTT still lags behind its digital counterparts.

Part of the problem is that there aren’t many solutions linking OTT to the rest of the digital ecosystem.

“It’s not like mobile where there are multiple players in this space that have built out solutions to address those attribution questions for advertisers,” Walters said.

Solutions that do exist require a lot of custom development work with publishers and, as a result, don’t always scale, Walters said.

Scaling would require each solution to update its app across different devices and operating systems like Roku, Apple and Amazon – which is still a major process for many buyers.

Another problem is that ad buyers don’t get bidstream data, so when they buy OTT inventory, they don’t always know if their ad is served from a Chromecast or Xbox, which undermines attribution.

However, DSPs like The Trade Desk are trying to solve these problems as more OTT inventory becomes programmatically enabled, said Doug Fleming, head of advanced TV for Hulu.

“The Trade Desk is just one that we’re working with to uncover solutions to the device identifier and bid attribute challenge,” he said. “The biggest gap in the industry right now is lack of CTV standards as it relates to identity. For DSPs who have relied on cookie data to reconcile audiences, they’ve entered uncharted territory.”

There are, however, workarounds to perform identity matches, which buyers borrowing tactics from addressable TV targeting are already implementing.

read more here:


Can Netflix cointinue borrowing its way to success?

When Netflix was founded, the Internet was young, DVDs were popular and no one considered watching a movie streamed online.

Twenty years later, Netflix’s transformation from an underdog DVD-by-mail service to Hollywood powerhouse — one that has redefined how TV and movies are produced and consumed — has been remarkable.

The global streaming giant today boasts some impressive stats: 104 million subscribers worldwide, up 25% from last year and almost quadruple from five years ago. Its series and movies account for more than a third of all prime-time download Internet traffic in North America. Its more than 50 original shows garnered 91 Emmy Award nominations this year, second only to premium cable service HBO.

But there’s another set of numbers that could spell trouble for the company’s breakneck growth. Netflix has accumulated a hefty $20.54 billion in long- and short-term debt in its effort to produce more original content. The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company hopes more new shows will capture more subscribers, its primary revenue driver. It’s also under pressure to keep spending on new shows as streaming rivals such as Amazon and Hulu expand their own slates of original programming.

The result is that Netflix is burning through cash at a growing clip. The company is pouring money into expensive prestige projects and expects to spend at least $6 billion in content this year. Its net cash outflow this year is forecast to grow to as much as $2.5 billion, up from $1.7 billion last year. Reflecting its growth, Netflix recently moved its Southern California headquarters into a 14-story building in Hollywood.

So far, investors have expressed approval of Netflix’s spendthrift ways. They are betting that debt financing in the near term will create growth and yield big results down the road on the theory that you have to spend money to make money.

Netflix shares surged more than 10% this month after it reported better-than-expected subscriber growth. For the year, the stock is up nearly 50%. It closed Friday at $184.04, up $1.36 or 0.74%.

But some industry experts are warning of a Netflix bubble that may burst if the company fails to produce enough hit series to keep attracting new subscribers.

“Nobody is ever the dominant player forever,” said Mike Vorhaus, president of Magid Advisors, a media and digital video consultancy. “I think they’re going to need some luck in not drowning in debt in the ultimate slowdown of growth.”

Still, Netflix isn’t expected to dial down spending any time soon. The company’s strategy is to invest more and more on self-produced original series such as the ’80s-themed “Stranger Things” and the kid-centric “A Series of Unfortunate Events.”

The goal, executives say, is to increase the portion of self-produced originals to 50% of its slate in an effort to own more of the shows on its platform.

“That’s a lot of capital up front, and then you get a payout over many years,” Chief Executive Reed Hastings said in a recent investor call. “The irony is the faster that we grow and the faster we grow the owned originals, the more drawn on free cash flow that we’ll be.”

As a result, Netflix said it expects “to be free-cash-flow negative for many years,” meaning it will continue bleeding cash for the foreseeable future.

A big chunk of Netflix’s expenses goes to licensing TV series and movies. Many of Netflix’s most popular and acclaimed shows are licensed from other studios despite being marketed as “Netflix Originals.”

In fact, some of the best-known shows on Netflix aren’t made by Netflix. “Orange Is the New Black” is produced by Lionsgate, and “House of Cards” comes from Media Rights Capital, an independent film and TV studio. “The Crown” is a Sony Pictures Television production, while “Iron Fist” is a Marvel creation.

Netflix pays undisclosed licensing fees for the exclusive rights to stream these shows. And many of those fees are expected to rise over time as TV networks — which have grown increasingly wary of Netflix — look to protect their business from further erosion. A growing number of consumers are bypassing linear TV in favor of streaming services like Netflix.

Netflix is investing more money into self-produced originals in hopes of becoming less dependent on outside studios.

But bearish experts say building a catalog of must-see titles can take years, even decades, and requires an enormous cash outlay. HBO has created numerous hit shows, including “Game of Thrones,” but more than half of the content consumed by the cable giant’s subscribers is still licensed from its content partners.

Netflix is still fairly low on the learning curve compared with HBO, and its self-produced original series have had mixed success. Whereas “Stranger Things” quickly became a popular and critical hit, shows like “Santa Clarita Diet” and “The Ranch” have so far failed to generate much buzz.

“I don’t believe Netflix is going to get this right at a better rate than anyone else,” said Michael Pachter, a Wedbush analyst who has long been pessimistic about the company. He said his “underperform” rating on Netflix shares has been wrong in the past but believes the company’s lavish spending will eventually catch up to it.

“I think it is kicking the can down the road and a looming write-down is coming,” he said.

Netflix, which declined to comment, has been canceling more shows in recent months, including expensive series such as “The Get Down” and “Sense8.” But the company said it has renewed 93% of its shows and it continues to greenlight new shows at a rapid pace, with a growing emphasis on foreign titles to cater to its overseas markets.

For the first time, Netflix counts more overseas subscribers than domestic ones, with 52 million subscribers outside the U.S. Titles such as the movie “Okja” from South Korea and the series “3%” from Brazil are designed to appeal to both local audiences and viewers worldwide.

Wall Street treats Netflix’s subscriber growth as the key indicator of future health, and as the U.S. market gets closer to saturation, executives will be under greater pressure to seek new viewers elsewhere. But foreign subscribers are more expensive to acquire than domestic ones.

read more here:


Facebook’s Premium Video Section Will Arrive in Mid-August

Facebook’s first efforts in premium video programming are almost here. According to Bloomberg, the social network will offer TV-style shows in a new video section in mid-August.

While this section will include user-generated content, as well, the highlight will be professional content. Facebook has commissioned several short-form series for the area, as well as long-form premium content. News broke in June that Facebook is bankrolling some of its lead-off programs with six-figure budgets.

Premium video will include Last State Standing, a reality competition show, and Loosely Exactly Nicole, which continues a show that originally ran on MTV. These large-budget shows won’t be available at the August launch, but the short-form commissioned series will. Facebook doesn’t plan to fund premium shows going forward, but did so this time to jumpstart the area.

Facebook’s goal with premium video is taking a share of the television industry’s $70 billion ad market. Viewers won’t be limited to computer viewing, as Facebook announced apps for a variety of connected TV devices—including Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, and Samsung Smart TV—earlier this year.

Bloomberg reports the video area was originally scheduled to launch a month ago, but has been impacted by delays. Facebook currently has over 2 billion members.

Facebook Raked in $9.16 Billion in Ad Revenue in the Second Quarter of 2017

Facebook reported advertising revenue of $9.16 billion in the second quarter of 2017, a 47 percent increase over the same quarter last year.

In its quarterly earnings report released today, the social giant beat analysts’ expectations with a total revenue of $9.3 billion—an increase of 45 percent year-over-year. Mobile now makes up around 87 percent of the company’s overall ad revenue, up from 84 percent in second-quarter 2016.

Earnings per share for the second quarter totaled $1.32, up from 78 cents during the same period last year.

The company also reported an increase in both daily and monthly active users, with daily active users totaling an average of 1.32 billion in June for a 17 percent increase year-over-year. Monthly active users also increased 17 percent year-over-year to total 2.01 billion as of June 30. (Facebook officially announced last month that it had hit the 2 billion mark.)

“We had a good second quarter and first half of the year,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said today in a statement. “Our community is now two billion people and we’re focusing on bringing the world closer together.”

Facebook also reported an overall growth in head count. As of the end of last month, the company had 20,658 employees—an increase of 43 percent year-over-year.

While second quarter earnings were plenty strong, it does show a bit of deceleration—the company reported a 59 percent increase in overall revenue between the second quarters of 2015 and 2016. That year-over-year deceleration falls in line with what a few notable agencies reported to Adweek late last month—slower growth in cross-client ad spend in the second quarter compared to previous years. (For years, the company has consistently reported an acceleration of revenue growth. Late last year, Facebook executives have warned that advertising revenue growth would slow, given the lack of room for ad load growth.)