New integration will help businesses build experiences to chat with customers on WhatsApp, while being able to manage communication directly from the Salesforce platform.
We want more people to benefit from faster, richer interactions, and we continue to invest in ways to make it quick and easy for businesses to get up and running on WhatsApp. Today we’re taking a big step in making our WhatsApp Cloud API’s powerful capabilities easily available to all Salesforce customers globally, through a new partnership that will enable these businesses to offer new experiences right on WhatsApp and easily manage these across Salesforce Customer 360 applications.
Earlier this year, Meta launched a cloud-based API that would help businesses of all size get started on WhatsApp quickly. The idea is that this new API will lower the technological barriers to entry and enable organizations to connect with their customers as frictionless as possible. In this sense, the partnership with Salesforce is a natural evolution. Salesforce has a lot of big customers that operate at an enormous scale. By making WhatsApp Cloud API a native integration into Salesforce, Meta wants Salesforce customers on their WhatsApp Business platform and leverages these companies’ scale to accelerate the usage of WhatsApp Business.
What’s in it for WhatsApp and Meta? Well, WhatsApp Business has a conversation-based pricing model. The first 1,000 conversations every month are free. Past that point, companies are charged per conversation, depending on who initiated the chat. Conversations initiated by users look to be about 30-40% cheaper than those initiated by businesses. Here is how Meta defines a conversation:
All conversations are measured in fixed 24-hour sessions. A conversation starts when the first business message in a conversation is delivered, either initiated by the business or in reply to a user message. Businesses and users can exchange any number of messages, including template messages, within a 24 hour conversation session without incurring additional charges. Each 24 hour conversation session results in a single charge
As part of the push into eCommerce, Meta sees big potential in business messaging. In April 2021, the company revealed that businesses using WhatsApp API sent over 100 million messages per day in 2020. In July 2022, there were 1 billion users that message a business every week across Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp. Meta also disclosed that click-to-message is already a multi-billion dollar business for them. Therefore, I expect to see more integrations similar to the one with Salesforce in the future as Meta continues to scale their business messaging. Capitalism forbids leaving money on the table, you know.
However, I do think that there is a subtle yet important difference in how users view WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram. All of these apps are what people use to stay in touch with friends and family. That’s the primary use case. The feeling of safety and privacy that enable such a use case is paramount. With Messenger and Instagram, there is a natural concession from users that they know they are tracked in the background and ads is acceptable since this is Meta we are talking about. With WhatsApp, it’s different. The brand positioning of WhatsApp is built on privacy. It’s fine for users to chat with a business that they are engaging with. But I suspect that it wouldn’t feel comfortable to see ads blasting on your screen based on previous conversations and purchases. Meta already rolls out ads on WhatsApp. I don’t know what they see with internal data, but as an end user, I would not use WhatsApp for eCommerce if I saw even one ads from them. They should tread carefully, when it comes to combining ads and eCommerce on WhatsApp.
According to a study published Tuesday by Appsumer, Apple is gaining momentum in digital ads, while Google and Facebook appear to be losing steam.
The research, based on an analysis of the online ad budgets of over 100 different consumer app companies, found that Apple’s ad business has benefited from the company’s major iOS privacy update in 2021, which made it more difficult for companies like Facebook to track users across the Internet.
In terms of overall app developer spend on online advertising, referred to as share of wallet, Google remains at the top, with 34%. Facebook is second at 28%, followed by Apple at 15%. Amazon wasn’t listed because it’s not a platform for developers.
“One of the things that’s quite interesting is the ATT measurement limitations that are kind of put on the wider network doesn’t exist in the same way for Apple,” Lais said. “So you could say Apple has slightly more visibility or an advantage across the other channels on iOS.”
As a shareholder, I am glad that the management team has found another sizable stream of income, especially one with a high margin like advertising. With more than 1.8 billion devices in its installed base which was reported in January 2022, the real estate on the App Store and some of Apple’s native apps is highly valuable to advertisers. Which developers or brands don’t want to talk to iOS customers known to be wealthier than Android counterparts? Financial Times reported that Apple’s ads business is expected to reach $30 billion in revenue and double its workforce by 2026. Given what advertising has done for Amazon so far, such expectation has some truth in it.
But the rise of Apple Ads also raise some concerns for me. First, ads are intrusive. Folks usually say that this is one of the main reasons why we can access free content on the Internet, but consumers won’t care. Some will annoyedly question why they still see sponsored content in some Apple native apps even though they are already subscribers. Personally, I wouldn’t enjoy that. As a result, if Apple decides to push the ads loads on their platform, they will need to be mindful of the user experience and carefully safeguard it.
In the same token, I am concerned about the impact that ads have on how users search for apps on iOS devices. Let’s say that you want to look for a meditation app on the App Store. Will the first results be the ones with the best user reviews and ranking? Or will they be supplanted by advertising apps? One of the criticisms leveled at Amazon is that they favor advertising merchants in their search results instead of giving shoppers what the actual best products are. I can see the same scenario is awaiting Apple.
Furthermore, the more Apple benefits from its ads business, the more likely it will have increasing scrutiny from lawmakers around the world. Critics of the company strongly argue that its privacy-centric initiatives like ATT are nothing other than schemes that are designed to enrich Apple and cripple competitors like Facebook. To be fair, I can see where skeptics are coming from. However, if you view this issue through the lens of direct customer relationship, Apple has every right to strengthen the relationship with its customers. It just happens that they manage to find a way to make money while doing so. Nonetheless, lawmakers do not always think critically and act reasonably. They have their own agendas to further, donating organizations to care for and voters to answer to. If there is enough outcry, there will be more hearings and regulations focused on the market power that Apple wields.
Knowing Apple, I don’t expect official figures on the size of its ads business any time soon. The media coverage of Apple; however, will surely have things to say about this ads business.
Disney is contemplating an Amazon Prime like subscription
Walt Disney is exploring a membership program that could offer discounts or special perks to encourage customers to spend more on its streaming services, theme parks, resorts and merchandise, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The program would be somewhat akin to Amazon Prime, which offers advantages such as free shipping, discounts at Whole Foods and a complementary streaming video service for a monthly or annual fee, the people said. Internally, some executives have referred to Disney’s initiative as “Disney Prime,” although that won’t be the name of the program, one of the people said.
Disney already has a special program for superfans, the D23 Official Fan Club, which costs $99.99 to $129.99 a year and comes with access to exclusive events and merchandise. That program offered members a discounted three-year subscription to Disney+ in 2019. A new membership program would be different in that it would be targeted at more casual Disney fans and customers.
As an early step to better link Disney products and services, Disney is working to enable subscribers to its Disney+ streaming service to buy merchandise such as T-shirts, themed accessories and children’s costumes associated with some of its shows by scanning a QR code on the service that links to the Shop Disney website, people familiar with the plan said.
Barring any new details, I am very skeptical of this Disney Prime plan simply because Disney is very different from Amazon and I don’t believe the former can create the same magic as the latter did with their world-famous subscription. What makes people like Amazon Prime so much that they are willing to pay $140/year? It’s not Prime Video or Amazon Music credits. They are valuable in increasing Prime’s stickiness. The primary hook is the convenience in shopping experience (deliver and return), a gigantic variety of items to shop and special deals.
Unfortunately, Disney has no asset resembling Amazon’s eCommerce ecosystem. Disney Parks are so expensive that fans will not make regular visits. Plus, since they are only available in California and Florida, how would Disney convince customers from the rest of the country to visit regularly enough to pay for a subscription? Trips to Disney Resort, Hotels or Cruise are one-off purchases, rather than repeaters. The company already has paid plans for their media content in ESPN+, ESPN, Hulu and Disney+ and their merchandise is not something that customers will order regularly. Seriously, how many Avenger-themed shirts do you think you would order every year? Even if you planned to buy one of those shirts every 6 months, would you buy a monthly or yearly subscription just to have $5 off?
Furthermore, I don’t think Disney should or could build an eCommerce site like Amazon, either. It’s not in their circle of competence. It’s expensive and it’s extremely difficult. Any such attempt would destroy shareholder value and damage the company. And if they don’t have anything that can entice consumers to subscribe, especially when this plan is geared toward casual fans, how can Disney Prime succeed? To the company’s defense, they did say that Disney Prime was just one of the ideas on the table. I hope that they have better ideas because I struggle to see how this one will succeed.
When I started working 10 years ago, I joined a local advertising agency in Vietnam. I was an Account Executive, the lowest rung of the ladder. I worked under an Account Director named Quang. I didn’t know much about her. In fact, I never got a chance to get to know her better at the time since she left two weeks after I joined. But she taught me an important lesson. One time, we were preparing a pitch deck for a potential client. I was tasked with doing some market research and putting together a few slides. Upon review, she told me that my slides didn’t have smooth transition because images were off by a few pixels from one slide to another. What she wanted was that when the audience moved from one slide to the next, everything would stay in the same position and there would be no movement, no changes in size of the images. Only the content of the images would change. I was shocked at the attention to detail and more when I saw the final product and other pitch decks from her. She did what she asked of me, even though I didn’t know her credentials at the time.
Almost two years ago, my company recruited a new person. This guy didn’t have any experience managing a credit card portfolio at an issuer before. Somehow, he was trusted by the leadership team to manage the acquisition side of a portfolio worth millions of dollars. The first few months on the job, he kept preaching about data-driven decision-making. Whenever somebody proposed something, he challenged by asking what data supported this. To me, that was a legitimate question. You need to back up your hypothesis with concrete numbers. The thing is that the standard doesn’t seem applicable to him. He repeatedly makes suggestions and decisions by starting with “my guts say” or “my hunch is”. A case of “do as I say, not as I do when the track record is non-existent”.
Amazon is known for putting a lot of thoughts to ideas before execution, even if such ideas might be crazy and far-fetched. The objective is to make the initiator think through the idea as much as possible. In “Amazon Unbound”, Brad Stone described two stories that were contrary to that reputation. In one instance, Jeff Bezos, the founder and legendary former CEO of Amazon, proposed off the cuff that the company should launch food trucks that roll into neighborhood and sell steaks to residents. Internal teams were tasked to develop a plan for that idea and execute. After more than one year and numerous days and nights worth of efforts, the service went live. But it was unsuccessful and abandoned shortly.
In another example, Jeff Bezos wanted his team to create a “single cow” burger that can only be bought from Amazon. The idea is that this Amazon burger would have meat from only one cow whereas commercial burgers on the market sourced the meat from several. It was even designated as one of the high-priority goals, directly tracked by Bezos himself and his direct reports. After almost one year, the product launched with great customer feedback initially. But the unit economics of this product didn’t make sense, as feared. Consequently, it eventually fizzled out.
You see, the one common theme of the three stories above is that a person in power asks somebody down the food chain to do something. The difference lies in whether the authority has credentials and whether such authority sets examples. My first manager showed leadership by setting examples, even though I had no idea about her credentials. The guy at my company didn’t adhere to the standard he set despite non-existent track record. Jeff Bezos didn’t demand of him what he demanded of others, but he had a monumental track record of great decisions.
The lesson here to me is that leaders should lead by examples. Show the troop that the standard is applicable to everybody, not selectively only when the situation suits those in authority. That’s especially important when a previous track record doesn’t exist. An established successful credential will earn a leader some leeway, but he or she should not use up the rope and act like they are THE culture and the expectations don’t apply to them. Aldi wouldn’t be what it is today if executives drove fancy cars and splurged the company’s money on themselves while forcing employees to find ways to cut expenses. Warren Buffett wouldn’t command respect and following if he showed up on newspapers with a scandal every 6 months, would he?
The longer leaders lead by examples, the stronger a culture becomes.
Patrick McGee from Financial Times penned an article named “Small businesses count cost of Apple’s privacy changes“. The piece, as the title may already suggest, focuses on the premise that privacy changes from Apple, namely App Tracking Transparency (ATT), increase marketing expenses for small businesses. To make his case, the author cited a few companies that had to scale back, fire staff or even close shops due to rising marketing costs.
The alleged impact on SMBs’ customer acquisition expense has been one of the primary talking points of ATT critics. Make no mistakes here, I do think that ATT did make acquisitions more expensive, but it’s not right to say that Apple wrecks the advertising world or every company regardless of size. First of all, privacy and personal data belong to users. Facebook’s business model hinges on selling access to such data even though there was never explicit consent. There is no prohibitive policy on what Facebook does to user data captured on Facebook platforms. What Apple did is to simply give users an ability to allow or disallow Facebook to track them off-platforms. If it were wrong to let the end users have a voice in the use of their own data, then we would have a bigger problem at hands, wouldn’t we? In a world where personal freedom is considered sacred, why can’t we have a say in how our own data should be used or in whether we should be tracked on our own phone?
Facebook and other ads platforms were quick to use ATT as an excuse for their disappointing financial performance. However, as Nick Heer deftly pointed out, the timing of ATT and the reported numbers in the subsequent quarters indicate that there are other forces at play.
The actual figures tell a much murkier story. I do not think it is fair to suggest ATT does nothing, but its effect does not seem as pronounced as either its biggest supporters or its biggest naysayers suggest. Snap, for example, is a company that has no major revenue stream outside of ad placements in its smartphone apps. But in Q3 2021, a full quarter after ATT’s public debut, Snap posted year-over-year revenue growth of 57% overall. In North America, it reported 60% growth — higher than in any other region.
The following quarters all show overall revenue gains in North America just one percentage point below the company’s total growth. It is a pattern that more closely mimics the number of daily active users. Snap has only posted modest, single-digit year-over-year gains in North American users, but decent double-digit growth elsewhere. Meanwhile, its growth in the average revenue per user has been stronger in North America since ATT’s debut than anywhere else.
Meta’s business is the one everyone appears to be watching because two quarters this year have been rough. In its most recent, it reported its first ever year-over-year revenue decline, which dropped by about a billion dollars in Europe and about $600 million in the U.S. and Canada. That is alarming for the company, to be sure, but it still does not track with ATT causality for two reasons:
iOS is far more popular in the U.S. and Canada than it is in Europe, but Meta incurred a greater revenue decline — in absolute terms and, especially, in percentage terms — in Europe.
Meta was still posting year-over-year gains in both those regions until this most recent quarter, even though ATT rolled out over a year ago.
In the case of Facebook, this is a tough environment for their business. TikTok is insanely popular among younger users and shows no signs of abating. A few days ago, Pew Research reported that only 32% of teenagers aged 13 to 17 in the US used Facebook, a massive drop from 71% reported in 2015. Additionally, supply chain, inflation and the threat of an economic downturn are red-hot concerns for every business and they all prompt businesses to take a hard look at expenses, among which advertising is the easiest and most obvious choice. When there are such headwinds, it’s a little bit dishonest and misleading to say that ATT is the primary reason for financial mishaps.
Think about it this way. If regulators cracked down on the sales of dubious cryptocurrency or increased the scrutiny on this business, the issuers would say: well, your actions would affect companies that sold accessories like cold storage. How do you think about that argument? For me, it’s pretty similar to what we have regarding ATT. Businesses that directly or indirectly benefit from shady practices should know that eventually there will come a time when somebody refuses to look the other way.
I’ll let the CEO of one of the companies cited in the article reflect on how ATT impacted his business
Shelly Cove’s Schroeder has cut his digital ads budget to one-third what it was a month ago, hoping that returning customers will keep the business afloat. “It’s irresponsible to say ‘Apple killed my business’,” he said. “I’m self reflecting — I realised I was way too reliant on Facebook.”
I don’t believe that as a society, we need surveillance tracking which Facebook is engaged into, in order for small businesses to survive. As the owner of the biggest social media apps in the world with millions of daily active users, Facebook has enough at their disposal to compete. They can afford expensive PR campaigns to repair their image and generate goodwill. These will lead to more trust from users and ultimately permission to track the them across apps. Moreover, the executives already thought about changing their business models. They just decided not to, out of concern that it would hurt the bottom line. Well, perhaps the recent onslaught on the stock may change their minds.
In this debate, I support Apple, but I am under no illusion that the company is an angel. The company is driven by the top and bottom line too. Though Apple has their own reasons why they do certain things and I believe them in many cases, I also believe that if they could curtail their greed a bit and do things a little bit differently, there wouldn’t be as many criticisms leveled at them as what we see now. Examples are:
Invest more in app reviews. Some developers complain about the time-consuming aspect of the review process and how it can be used to coerce developers into paying the company more
Be more discreet about the ads business. The launch of ATT and the ads business were pitifully close to each other. It’s no surprise that folks lament that Apple cares more about its financials, than users
Stop pushing their own services at every chance. Even I am annoyed that Apple advertises their own services on the Settings or Profile page on my iPhone. As the most followed brand in the world, with the financial resources at disposal, I am sure Apple won’t have to worry too much about consumers not knowing their services
In short, I am in favor of ATT and giving consumers more say in how they are tracked. Having said that, I do understand why some folks are frustrated with Apple and doubt their motive. I am sorry that some small businesses got caught up in this whole situation. But I have no empathy for Facebook, even the slightest.
Last week, PayPal announced its Q2 FY2022 results, its forecasts and some important personnel changes. Here are the headlines:
Net revenue hit $6.8 billion, a 9% YoY growth
International revenue declined by 1.7%, to $2.9 billion, while US revenue was $3.8 billion, a 19% growth YoY
Operating cash flow and free cash flow grew to $1.5 billion and $1.3 billion respectively, meaning that FCF margin is 19%
Total Payment Volume increased by 9% to $340 billion
Total payment transactions of 5.5 billion
US TPV grew 16%, to $219 billion, while International TPV and Cross Border TPV decreased by 1.6% and 11.8% respectively
Venmo recorded $61 billion in TPV, an increase of 5.2%, and 90 million active accounts
Total active accounts went flat sequentially at 429 million with 35 million active merchants
While the company welcomed a new CFO, it’s now looking for a replacement for their CPO, who is retiring at the end of the year
Cost-saving initiatives are expected to save the company $900 million by the end of 2022 and $1.3 billion next year
$15 billion in share buybacks was authorized, $4 billion of which will be realized by the end of 2022
PayPal expects operating margin expansion in FY2023
Despite the tough macro challenges and fierce competition, PayPal’s TPV increased by 9%, on top of the 30% and 40% YoY growth in the last two years. That’s pretty solid because Visa grew payment volume in the same quarter by 12%, even with its duopoly market power. The divorce from eBay is entering the final stages as the famed marketplace now makes up only 3% of PayPal’s TPV and is projected to have negligible impact in the future. Losing a household name like eBay isn’t great, but because the partnership was exclusive, PayPal couldn’t work with any other retailers or marketplaces. Hence, the separation paved the way for deals like the one with Shopify or Amazon, and would benefit PayPal more in the long term.
Another bright spot is the US market. PayPal’s home soil saw a 16% increase in TPV and a 19% expansion in revenue. Considering that the US is home to other payment alternatives, including some fierce direct competitors, those US numbers showed resilience and a formidable market presence of PayPal. Because the company barely added new active accounts, given the lack of full disclosures, my guess is that PayPal managed to increase usage among existing users.
Among the factors that contribute to the domestic success, I want to call out Venmo. Popular among young consumers, Venmo boasts 90 million active users, double from what it had three years ago. In the same time frame (from Q2 2019 to Q2 2022), Venmo TPV grew by 150% from $24 billion to $61 billion. Despite this growth, Venmo still has a lot of grow to monetize. The three main levers are debit card, credit card and the partnership with Amazon. While I suspect that PayPal will have to make some financial concessions to be on Amazon’s marketplace, this will undoubtedly help grow both revenue and margin. Meanwhile, the management team has high hopes for what the Venmo debit and credit card can bring onto the table. If PayPal can monetize Venmo more, the company will become so much more secure and attractive in the eyes of investors. In case you forgot, despite the massive scale of adoption, Venmo is still only available in the US.
I’d also point out the card strategies for Venmo are important, as well. The debit and credit cards continue to grow their volumes and those are really important for habituation. They reinforce all the in-wallet spend with offline spend, as well.
Yes, I totally agree with that. If you look at Cash App, their big growth is off of their debit card. We have a lot of room in our debit card and credit card to grow too.
Moreover, I am very pleased with the switch of focus onto increasing efficiency. I used to receive a bunch of promotional offers from PayPal. $5 here, $10 there for low-impact activities. Now, the company is willing to let go low-engagement customers and focus marketing dollars on driving usage from active users. Efficiency is also apparent in the product development side as well. Although stock trading was on the plan last year, PayPal decided to put a halt on its development. The push for in-store QR code is now replaced by efforts to promote card usage. These decisions obviously led to surplus in headcount and dismissals, where necessary. Due to its enormous scale, PayPal managed to negotiate more favorable contract terms with suppliers. The management team believes that these efforts will drive ROI and yield higher results for the organization. Concretely, they are estimated to bring $900 million in cost savings for the rest of FY2022 and $1.3 billion next year.
These cost savings are likely the main reason why the management forecasts operating margin expansion next year. Low-margin businesses such as BNPL, Venmo and Braintree are expected to grow in the near future. It’s unclear to me, reading their reports, where the margin will come from the revenue side of things. Hence, the gains must come from being a leaner organization with reduced expenses.
On the other hand, it’s not all smooth and rosy with PayPal. I am concerned about the uncertainty that changes at the top level will bring. They have a brand new CFO, who was chosen among at least 14 candidates. By next year, they will have a new Chief Product Officer. These changes may bring about new ideas and positive results, but they may also delay the progress as new hires need time to acclimate themselves to the new work settings.
While it’s good that a business wants to be laser-focused and mindful of expenses, it remains to be seen whether PayPal is doing too much. After riding to new heights amidst Covid, PayPal’s stock got clobbered, down from more than $300 to $90, due to abandoned forecasts and slowed growth. Then, the narrative switched to higher efficiency and more focus. I get it. The leadership wanted to present a nice story to investors to stop the bleeding. They may even genuinely want to set the company on a better course for the future. But they also have a history of botched plans and forecasts. Who is to say that they are not being too aggressive at the moment? What if the cost cuts hurt the business in the process? We already have three consecutive quarters of decline in International. PayPal competes on multiple fronts and their competitors are fierce. Can they right-size their capital allocation to avoid disasters?
Overall, this is not a disastrous quarter. There are some bright spots, including Venmo, solid growth overall, the US market, the cost-cutting initiatives (at least for now) and the buybacks. However, there are also things that give me pause for concern. As bullish as I want to be on the company’s outlook, I’ll wait for another quarter or two so that by then some of my concerns will be hopefully eased.
However, that headline-grabbing figure doesn’t fully tell the whole picture. The fact that Uber stocks went up by more than 10% after hours indicates investors were pleased with what they saw and heard from management. There are reasons to that.
Total Gross Bookings (GB) grew by 33% amidst a challenging environment when inflation was the highest in decades. Revenue went up by 105%, although that included contribution from the acquisition of Transplace. Without the acquisition, my estimate is that Revenue would still be up by at least 30-40%. The number of monthly active platform users hit an all-time high record of 122 million while the number of trips increased by 24% to 1.87 billion, just a tad shy of the all-time record of 1.9 billion set in Q4 FY2019, right before Covid.
More importantly, Uber became a free cash flow generator for the first time in history. All three main businesses, including Mobility, Delivery and Freight, were all profitable on an adjusted-EBITDA basis. I understand that some folks have a bone to pick with the adjusted-EBITDA numbers, but Free Cash Flow doesn’t lie and it indicates Uber is on the right track. The giant net loss quoted above included $1.7 billion of unrealized losses related to Uber investments in Zomato, Aurora and Grab, as well as $470 million in stock-based compensation expense.
Back in my review of Uber Q3 FY2021 earnings, I wrote that Covid created a golden opportunity to transform itself. The latest results were further proof of that. Before Covid, Uber was all about Mobility, both in terms of gross bookings and revenue. The pandemic hit Mobility hard, but gave Delivery a great momentum that has not been relinquished since. In the last quarter, both segments notched the second-highest gross bookings in history in Q2 FY2022 while each recorded the highest revenue ever, albeit with some benefits from the model changes in some markets. Without Covid, I doubt that Uber could turbocharge its Delivery business that quickly. Now, instead of relying on Mobility, Uber has two weapons that complement each other well.
The way I think about Uber as a business is that it connects end users, partners and drivers altogether. The more end users Uber can present to its partners, the more partners it is likely going to sign. In turn, that means Uber’s end users can have a bigger selection at their finger tips, raising Uber’s value proposition. On the other hand, a bigger end-user pool helps the company sign up drivers. Drivers have limited resources in their vehicles and time, as even the most dedicated drivers can’t drive for more than 24 hours a day. Nobody wants to drive around needlessly all day without getting paid while having to pay for vehicle expenses and gas. As a result, the more business opportunity Uber can bring to drivers, helping them better leverage their time and resources, the more drivers will sign up.
The rise of Delivery does wonders for Uber as it can bring more businesses to drivers. At times, when there is no rider to transport, couriers can deliver food or other items to better utilize the one resource that we can’t get back: time! Now that consumers are back on the road to office and travel, drivers have more opportunity to earn. On the call, the executives bragged that drivers in the US earned $30 per hour on average. That’s pretty competitive. Thanks to its scale, Uber believes it is best positioned to attract and retain drivers. The company has consistently talked about being more efficient with their operations and relying less on incentives. Such self-sustained growth is reflected by the fact that Delivery has had positive adjusted EBITDA for three quarters in a row.
Uber is a multi-sided network, dealing with consumers, drivers and merchants. They co-exist together and each cannot without the other two. Retaining drivers is crucial to retaining merchants and riders. In addition to the $30+ per hour income, Uber recently introduced some new features to support drivers. Soon, for the first time ever, drivers will be able to see in advance where the trip will end and how much they will earn for that trip. Drivers can compare multiple trips at once and decide what works best for them. Then, Uber will offer drivers a chance to earn 2-6% cash back at gas stations with Uber Pro Card. Gas is arguably one of the biggest expenses for drivers. The cash back is a nice gesture that will go a long way to retain this important class of stakeholders.
When delivery companies such as Getir or GoPuff are forced to shrink operations, the scale that Uber is operating on provides a great deal of advantages. If they can maintain that scale, other competitors will find it highly challenging to take share from Uber without near-term damage to profitability. And in case you haven’t noticed, profitability and sustainable growth is the tune that Wall Street wants companies to sing, not growth at all cost.
Sustainable growth is one area where Uber has been much better since Dara became CEO. Back in 2020, in Uber’s latest chess moves, I wrote about the downside of Uber operating in many markets and praised Uber’s effort to withdraw from countries where it was not competitive. Yesterday, in a conversation with Bloomberg, Dara reiterated that stance by saying that Uber is still operating Mobility in India, but will shut down Delivery because they don’t think they can be the market leader. This type of strategic thinking and discipline can only benefit a company like Uber in the eyes of investors.
Moving forward, there are several levers that Uber can pull to stimulate growth and profitability. The first is Uber One. As of Q2 FY2022, Uber One has 10 million paid subscribers. That’s a respectable figure, compared to the 6 million reported in Q3 FY2021. However, considering that the company has 122 million monthly active platform customers, Uber One’s penetration is less than 10%. Once that number increases, it will boost the company’s top and bottom line meaningfully.
The second lever is advertising. Every company wants those high-margin ads dollars and Uber is no exception. Since its launch in Q3 2020, advertising on Uber has been used by 27% of all active Delivery merchants. Though Uber should be mindful of how a litany of ads can adversely affect customer experience, I don’t see any reason why the share of active advertising merchants cannot reach 40%.
Then, there are New Verticals in Delivery (groceries and non-food items) and Uber 4 Business. Combined, these two levers make up less than 10% of Uber’s Gross Bookings, indicating that there is room to grow in the future. The management team mentioned that they are still hiring for Uber 4 Business, a strong signal that they consider it important to the company’s future. New Verticals, like the partnership with Albertsons, plays a key role in increasing the utility of the Uber apps to consumers. Here is what Uber had to say:
As far as new verticals go, we’re quite satisfied in terms of the growth of that team. It’s at about a $4.5 billion run rate in terms of gross bookings. We are investing in this business. And despite investing in this business and it’s in the hundreds of millions of dollars, you can see the profitability that we’ve been able to drive with the delivery business overall. It’s really because of the scale and efficiency that we’re bringing to bear.
What we’re seeing with new verticals customers is that Uber Eats customers who also order from new verticals tend to stay with us, tend to have higher frequency. And it’s really a part of the power of the platform that we’re having. If you ride with us, if you eat with us, if you drink with us, if you order groceries with us, we just become an everyday part of your life. You top that off with the membership program. And we think we have a relationship with customers that really can’t be duplicated in industry on a global basis. That’s what the strategy is all about and we’re quite optimistic about our progress to-date
Overall, I am pleased with what Uber reported this quarter. Even though the stock is still down significantly, the business is in a stronger position now than it was before and during Covid. That is not to say that the company can afford to take its foot off the gas pedal and to lose discipline. What is gained today will be easily lost in 90 days. The macro economic situations remain chaotic and unpredictable. Consumers may have to cut back on non-essential spending and Uber, whether they like it or not, often falls into that category. Regulatory threats are always there. Formidable rivals such as DoorDash and Instacart are still competing hard. Hence, they need to stay focused and relentlessly execute. But with this result, I think at least they gained some investors’ confidence, including mine.
The importance of AWS to Amazon cannot be overstated.
Covid-19 was a blessing to Amazon between Q2 FY2020 and Q2 FY2021, boosting its top line significantly. As the economies opened up, folks got back to the stores and the YoY comparisons were clearly tough, growth became so much harder to find. North America’s 10% YoY growth this quarter is the lowest I have seen in the last five years. International took a 12% plunge after growing 38% and 36% in the same period in 2020 and 2021 respectively. Both segments reported negative operating margin, the third quarter in a row.
Meanwhile, this quarter saw AWS take home $19.7 billion in revenue, brining the turnover in the last twelve months to a tad more than $72 billion. Despite a rapid increase in scale, AWS still clocked in 30% YoY consistently in the last year and a half! Although the business only made up 16% of the parent company’s revenue, AWS was responsible for all of Amazon’s operating margin when North America and International were in the red. Traditionally, AWS has been the engine powering Amazon’s profitability. Now, it carries the company’s revenue growth as well.
For good measure, AWS’s potential is as good as its current numbers. While quarterly revenue is now almost at $20 billion, AWS has long-term commitments (from contracts of at least one year in length) of more than $100 billion. These commitments have never grown less than 48% YoY since they were first reported back in 2018. If we compare this unearned revenue to the rolling last twelve month sales of AWS, the ratio grew from 75% in Q4 FY2018 to 139% currently. It means that AWS has the last twelve month sales and 39% on top of that in unearned revenue!
Amazon management knows that they have a gem in possession and they are spending money to keep that gem. Let’s look at it this way. AWS sales in the last twelve months totaled $72 billion. The company is trading at $1.25 trillion today. The market capitalization is about 17.4 LTM sales. If we project the next twelve months’ sales is about $83 billion, the multiple is 15. Some argue that means we get the Retail business for free and like it or not, they may have a point!
In 2021, the company splashed $24 billion on technology infrastructure which includes support for AWS. They planned to increase total capital investments in 2022 and more than half would go to infrastructure. It’s not certain that more CAPEX would mean more growth or revenue. But it’s a positive sign that a company is willing to open its checkbook to deepen the moat of its star business.
Andy Jassy, the current CEO of Amazon and the man credited with the success of AWS, said previously that Amazon actually stumbled upon this amazing business. At the beginning of the 2000s, after working diligently to improve the internal tools that supported the eCommerce site, Amazon realized that they were really good at running infrastructure services. It took three more years of planning and preparation after such realization before the company launched what is now a highly important and lucrative business in AWS. What a serendipitous discovery!
Let’s go over the headline numbers first. Apple had a record Q3 result with almost $83 billion in revenue, a 2% YoY increase on the back of a 36% growth last year. The 1% decline in product revenue was more than offset by the 12% growth in Services, which hit almost $20 billion in sales. The company’s gross margin profile this quarter stayed relatively similar to the historical trends: 36% for Products, 71% for Services and 43% for the whole company. Operating margin was 28%, down 200 basis points YoY, while net margin dropped to 23% from 27% in Q3 last year.
Make no mistakes: this was a tough quarter. All companies had to deal with significant challenges such as the new variant of Covid-19, unfavorable foreign exchange headwind, supply chain constraints, the war in Ukraine and macroeconomic concerns across the globe. Big retailers like Walmart or Target reported higher expenses and lower profit guidance. Meta had the first revenue decline in history while incurring more operational expenses. Even the great Amazon saw a 4% decline in revenue from their famous eCommerce segment.
Yet, we see Apple increase their top line, albeit modestly. Unfavorable foreign exchange rates were estimated to have a 300 basis point impact. Otherwise, the revenue growth would have been higher. On the other side of the equation, Apple stayed disciplined with their costs. Gross margin was relatively intact while the operating expenses (R&D and SG&A) were under controlled and rose only modestly. We all know how hard it is personally to stay disciplined with living expenses when disposable income grows. Hence, given the balance sheet that Apple has, they deserve praise for not wasting shareholders’ money on unnecessary acquisitions or ludicrous ventures.
For the next quarter, the company expected a 600 basis point impact from foreign exchange, better-than-this-quarter supply chain status and an acceleration in revenue growth. The positive note on revenue forecast is dire contrast with a somber tone from other companies, especially when we take into the size of Apple and the breadth of its operations across the world. Apple used to be a design firm known for the willingness to spend on products and services regardless of the cost. Tim Cook took over and steered the company towards a financially and operationally disciplined entity. It pays off handsomely.
iPhone and the resilient brand
Commentary from the management detailed how strong customer loyalty was towards the Apple brand. iPhone customer satisfaction stood at 98% and there were record switchers from other operating systems to iOS. Installed base for Mac, iPad and Wearables all reached a new all-time high. Over half of the new customers in the quarter were new to these products.
Apple products don’t exactly fall into the necessity category due to their high prices. As inflation hits consumers hard every country and supply chain issues still wreck multiple industries, it’s nothing short of impressive to see a 3% YoY increase in iPhone sales. That is robust proof of how dominant and what a great brand iPhone is. And we all know that once a consumer enters the Apple ecosystem, they are likely to buy more products and services. Therefore, investors can be more confident in the strength of Apple’s business amidst economic downturns, but there is NO guarantee that will happen.
China still made up 18% of the total company, pretty much in line with the historical figures for Q3. According to Apple, China’s Services revenue grew faster than the company average of 24% and hit an all-time June quarter record. The growth in Services revenue was offset by the lower demand of products in China, due to the lockdown, albeit a push late in June. China’s operating margin dropped from 43% to 38%. Because Services, which has a higher margin, grew this quarter, the drop in operating margin is likely attributed to higher SG&A. Traditionally, Q4 is the weakest quarter for China, both in revenue and operating margin. I expect the revenue share and operating margin to drop to 17% and 34% respectively. It’d be great to have an analyst ask the management for more color on China in Q4.
Our Services set a June quarter revenue record of $19.6 billion, up 12% over a year ago, with all-time revenue records in the Americas and the rest of Asia Pacific and June quarter records in Europe and Greater China. We also achieved June quarter revenue records in each major Services category, including all-time revenue records for Music, Cloud Services, Apple Care, and Payment Services.
Where are the critics of Apple’s growing Services? The pivot to Services a few years ago raised eyebrows, but eventually proved extremely fruitful and important to Apple. Not only does Services make customer experience on Apple’s devices better, but it also aids the company’s profitability with 70% gross margin. Since 2019, Services is the only part of the business that has had no down quarter and as of this quarter, made up 24% of the company’s top line. For reference, in terms of 4-quarter rolling average revenue, Apple’s Services is already bigger than Amazon’s AWS.
The number of paid subscriptions rose steadily every quarter over the past 4 years and hit the 860-million mark. At this rate, we’ll cross the 1-billion mark in the next 12 months. As the paid subscription population is highly correlated with Services revenue, the more subscriptions there are, the higher Services revenue grows.
Additionally, Apple’s commentary on the drivers of Services is very interesting. Apparently, the major contributors are Cloud, Apple Care, Payment Services and Music. The first three have high margin and are like to grow since they are sticky and central to user experience with Apple devices. How many use an iPhone without iCloud and Apple Pay? When, not if, this trend continues, it will do wonders to the gross margin of Services and the company.
One notable absence is ads. It’s understandable that this quarter saw some softness when the likes of Snap, Facebook or Google all reported slower growth than expected. But once this current economic environment subsides, ads will be a great lever to pull. Formerly limited to the Search tab on the App Store, Apple Ads was recently expanded ads to Today’s tab. More ads slots mean more revenue for Apple. These dollars also have high margin and don’t
Netflix recorded a tad below $8 billion in revenue, a 9% growth in revenue compared to the same period a year ago. It’s scarcely believable that a company formerly selling DVDs pivoted to online streaming and is now generating $32 billion in annual income. Because of some one-time expenses and the adverse impact from unfavorable exchange rates, Netflix’s operating margin was about 20%, down from 25.2% in Q2 FY2021. The company lost 1 million subscribers globally, an improvement over the loss of 2 million subscribers as forecast 90 days ago. Free Cash flow (FC) in the quarter tallied up to $13 million, significantly higher than -$175 million in FCA recorded in Q2 FY2021. These results were received well by investors as the stock has been up since the announcement.
Subscriber loss in US and Canada
Netflix losing 1 million subscribers globally deserves some headlines, but I think it’s more telling that they lost 1.3 million in the most lucrative market UCAN (US and Canada). Such a decline is biggest in the last 5 years, if not ever. Even though the loss in UCAN was offset by the growth in APAC, Netflix is trading some of the most profitable members for some of the least. This happened despite the resounding success of Stranger Things Season 4. Needless to say, it is not what either the management or investors want to see.
The loss of subscribers in UCAN seems to coincide with the growth in subscription fees. Regular price hikes, coupled with inconsistency in content delivery, definitely impacts churn. I don’t think Netflix will lower their prices, especially when they are going to launch an ads-supported tier next year. While the company forecasts a net add of 1 million subscribers for Q3, who is to say that the losing streak in UCAN will abate? Are we going to see another slide in 3 months’ time?
The missing Net Add chart and the use of dubious data
Netflix used to have a chart (Figure 3) showing net adds by year. 2020 was really impressive due to the stay-at-home orders across the country. 2021 was lower than 2018 and 2019 due to the pull-forward effect. This chart was seen last in Q4 2021 earnings. Since then, it has been missing. The company doesn’t want investors to look at the net adds in the first two quarters of 2022.
I get that. Any company wants to put their best foot forward in earnings as long as the information is accurate. Withholding some unfavorable data is a common practice. What is funny; however, is that Netflix uses cumulative engagement on Twitter as a metric to show how dominant Stranger Things 4 was, against Obi-Wan Kenobi and Top Gun. I don’t know about you, but I’d take Top Gun’s $1.3 billion in box office any day of the week and twice on weekend, over some ambiguous engagement metrics. This is NOT the first time Netflix uses some misleading data in their letters. Back in January 2020, they turned to Google Trends data to demonstrate that their Witcher series was more popular than Mandalorian, Jack Ryan or the Morning Show. The key here is that Witcher is a popular game as well. Without isolating the category that keyword is in, it’s not fair to compare Witcher to the unique name of other shows. I explained here in more details.
Occurrences like these lost some of my confidence in the company
Ads-supported tier and the binge model
I have to give credit to Netflix’s management. They stuck their guns with the binge model (releasing all episodes at once instead of dripping one per week) despite what many claim contributes to the lack of engagement around their content. Their stock has been hammered hard in the last few months. I am sure that spurred a lot of meetings at the highest level. Still, they chose to be who they are and what they are known for. I can only give them props for that.
However, this binge model puts a lot of pressure on Netflix to deliver quality content consistently and regularly to reduce churn. Series like Sex Education, Stranger Things or Ozark released all at once certainly will draw subscribers, But to keep them on the platform, given Netflix being the most expensive streamer out there, is another matter. They will need great content every month. I watched The Gray Man, which is Netflix’s most expensive film ever and has arguably the most advertising from the company. The flick stars some of the most famous actors such as Chris Evans, Ryan Gosling and Ana de Armas, and the directors of Avengers: End Game. The action is definitely entertaining, but the plot leaves so much to be desired. That’s the pattern with Netflix. I don’t think that they are as good as Apple or HBO in producing original content. That’d be fine if their price point was not the highest or if they didn’t follow the binge model. But because it is and they do, it makes me quite bearish on the company.
An ads-supported tier will help Netflix expand the clientele and appeal to those low-income households that consider Netflix a luxury. Folks that are on the fence about leaving the streamer can instead choose the new tier so that they can preserve access while paying less. The benefits of this plan are straightforward, but how Netflix will execute it is a totally different matter. Key questions are:
What will the ads look like? How will they affect the customer experience?
How will Netflix enhance the targeting while protecting customers’ privacy?
How long will it take for the company to fine-tune all the workflow details and become well-versed in the world of advertising?
Are the ads going to help brands drive awareness only? If there is a call to action and such action leads to a website outside of Netflix’s domains, will Netflix be able to report reliable attribution?
Originally, I was concerned about Netflix and its ability to delivery content consistently. Not just any content. Great content that can get viewers hooked. Then, I was drawn into taking a very small position on the company because I mistakenly followed some on Twitter and didn’t believe my own intuition. Till now, I am still concerned about Netflix’s outlook as an exclusive SVOD company. Their venture into the advertising world is exciting, but it poses a lot of questions and frankly uncertainty. Until such questions and certainty are squared away, I will stay away from this stock.
Small business owners, you may want to pay attention to the new subscription that T-Mobile and Apple just announced today. Called Business Unlimited Ultimate+ for iPhone at $50/month/line, new customers with 6 lines will receive:
Unlimited text, call and smartphone data domestically
200 GB of hotspot data per month
Unlimited Wi-Fi on select flights from American, Delta, and Alaska Airlines
Unlimited text and data while overseas, including 5GB of free high-speed data per month
Each employee on a new line gets a new iPhone 13. All the lines get Apple Business Essentials, which includes device management, 24/7 Apple support, and iCloud backup and storage into a single subscription, and Apple Care+. The two Apple services in total cost around $13 per device per month.
T-Mobile business customers can add Apple Business Essentials and/or Apple Care+ separately without a group plan and pay the standard subscription fees set by Apple.
In addition to the new Ultimate+ package, T-Mobile already has 3 existing small business plans. Compared to Ultimate+, Business Unlimited Ultimate (BUU), the highest among the existing plans, offers 100GB less in hotspot data per month, no iPhone 13, no Apple Care+ and no Apple Business Essentials. On the flip side, it does have Microsoft 365 Business 1 Basic and 1 Standard license ($25/month value) and usually costs $40/month/line ($30 now as a limited-time offer). Since each iPhone 13 costs at least $700, small businesses likely find net benefits from Ultimate+, even though they will have to pay more every month for each line.
What I really don’t like so far about this deal is that there are plenty of terms & conditions that can catch customers off guard. T-Mobile makes it clear that $50/line/month doesn’t include taxes and fees, but stops short of explaining in details and an easy manner what those fees are and when they are applied. I get it. It’s hard to make any website appealing while displaying page after page after page of terms and conditions. However, companies usually obscure the important details and “force” customers to accept the terms and conditions before making a deal. I am afraid this won’t be an exception to the rules, based on the reputation of these companies.
What’s in it for T-Mobile?
The press release from the communications giant is that Ultimate+ is the first and only wireless plan in the country as of now that offers Apple Business Essentials and Apple Care+. I looked at the websites of Verizon and AT&T and indeed no plan can match the latest offering from T-Mobile. What Apple brings to the table will help their partner stand out from competition and attract small business customers. However, I remain skeptical of how much T-Mobile can benefit from Apple Business Essentials. Here is why.
To have at least 6 employees who actually NEED 6 new iPhones and data to do their job, a small business has to reach a certain scale. A team of two or three entrepreneurs likely won’t be the target audience of this wireless plan. Even if a small business meets the scale requirement, the expense won’t stop there. A phone is NOT the primary technology tool to work. You need a laptop or a PC. Apple Business Essentials only offers the maximum value when all the devices are in the Apple ecosystem. Hence, it will cost a small business more to cover Apple Business Essentials for the additional hardware, let alone the Apple Care+. In that case, a business owner will wonder if it is really necessary to shell out at least $300/month for Ultimate+. Or will it be better to just cover Apple Business Essentials for the laptops? Those who can justify the expense will even have to have a bigger operations scale. The higher the required scale, the less I think the impact that this new service will have on T-Mobile.
What’s in it for Apple?
This partnership with T-Mobile provides Apple with another channel to grow Apple Business Essentials. It’s logical to combine a device management subscription with a wireless plan. Instead of spending money and growing the workforce to market the subscription, through this collaboration, Apple can leverage T-Mobile salesforce and marketing efforts. After all, T-Mobile is the second biggest carrier in the country and has the scale as well as resources that Apple requires.
Then, why not Verizon or AT&T? I don’t know how Apple executives made this decision, but one possible reason is the advantage in 5G that T-Mobile has over its rivals. Contrary to AT&T and Verizon , which prioritize download speeds at the expense of coverage, T-Mobile is willing to lower the top speed in order to widen their availability. This approach leads to the highest customer satisfaction with T-Mobile 5G connection.
Know for its obsession with user experience, Apple doesn’t want spotty 5G services to ruin their device users’ experience. From the user experience and marketing channel perspective, I can see why Apple chose T-Mobile. But there could be plenty of other reasons, namely T-Mobile being the only carrier willing to bend to Apple’s will. Nonetheless, as an Apple shareholder, I am happy to see Apple’s push into the SMB world. This won’t be their last move.