Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST NIGHT, SNAPCHAT unveiled a new feature called Snapcash which will allow users to transfer payments from one user to another.
Partnering with Square, a mobile payments service that is only based in the US, the service allows you to send cash by typing in an amount ($11.20), and hit the send button. It will recognise that you want to send cash once you type in the currency sign meaning you don’t have to do anything else.
The service is available to those in the US who have a debit card and are over 18. No financial information will be saved on its servers, instead it will be handled by Square.
In terms of implementation, it looks fast and smooth and requires no extra effort from the user, and considering the level of engagement it gets – 400 million snaps are sent every day – it’s going to be picked up very quickly.
But looking beyond the idea – and the obvious security concerns surrounding Snapchat despite Square’s involvement - there are a few things to take note of.
‘Seeing what sticks’
The first problem is Snapchat’s demographics. It’s safe to say that the majority of them are teenagers, over 50% of its users are aged between 13 to 17, with the main demographic being 13 to 25 year olds.
To be more specific, that means half of its user base is unlikely to have disposable income even if it didn’t have the minimum age requirement.
The other issue is that Square isn’t available outside the US. Since there is a sizable portion of users based internationally, it means that many won’t be able to use this service initially unless Square expands which doesn’t look like it will be happening in the short-term anyway.
On a broader level, it doesn’t feel like that Snapchat knows exactly how it’s going to make money. Less than a month ago, it said that it would be introducing advertisements on its service and put it in rather blunt (or refreshing depending on your perspective) terms.
Understandably, a lot of folks want to know why we’re introducing advertisements to our service. The answer is probably unsurprising – we need to make money. Advertising allows us to support our service while delivering neat content to Snapchatters. We promise that we’ll use the money we make to continue to surprise the Snapchat community with more terrific products – that’s what we love to do!
While it’s honest, it’s not the only revenue product it’s looking to introduce. It’s also working on another feature called Discover, a section within the app that will serve articles, music and videos created by companies like Buzzfeed, CNN, the Daily Mail, ESPN and Time to name a few.
And now you have SnapCash, which has the potential to generate revenue. That’s three different products that will help it generate revenue, and if you include its live events feature (which it could also easily monetise) you potentially have four.
While Snapchat isn’t hampered by having to impress shareholders (in itself a massive advantage), there is a feeling that it’s throwing numerous ideas to the wall and seeing what sticks. While these features appear to have been thought through, it unlikely that SnapCash will be a major source of revenue for the app – in the short-term at least.
Overall, SnapCash is a nice idea that won’t pay off (pun not intended) until much further down the line. But for now, it’s experimenting as much as possible to see what works and when you’re as popular as Snapchat, who can blame them?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
We really should, as a nation, stop worrying about what Joan Burton thinks about everything.
You mean iPhone Joan.
‘iPhone Joan’ has a certain ring to it.
Even when she’s right?
I don’t think anyone really cares about what that witch thinks.
She’s on borrowed time atm
Never normally agree with Joanie but she has a point here. Putting pressure on women to delay having children is not empowered them at all. In fact it’s really having the opposite effect . Women are basically being pressured to choose their career over child bearing and family in their twenties and thirties. It’s much harder to have atrain a viable pregnancy from frozen eggs so there is no guarantee that you would be able to get pregnant later on if you wanted to. I imagine better child care and flexible working hours to slow women to return to the work force after giving birth would probably be more useful . Help in finding the balance most women want and need is better than putting pressure on woman to delay starting family for several years.
Something Joan herself could do too while she’s in Government – allow couples to decide how to split up their parental leave. Quite often now, the mother earns more than the father, so it could be very beneficial for the dad to be at home instead.
Allowing the mother to go back to work at the time of her choosing, while still having one parent at home with the child, means that it has minimal impact on her career and its progression (though in theory there should not be any impact to begin with), and it also means that the dad can have time to bond with his child.
Dont care what JoanThe Butcher Bruton makes of anything, she is a waste of space in my opinion
Thought the Labour party were pro abortion … Baby’s do not concern them … When one their TDs spoke about the welfare of ms Y recently she never mentioned the baby … Nutters
I don’t understand why people are getting so pissed off over this. It’s just an additional perk that they provide to their employees, if a woman wishes to use this service, they can. Apple/Facebook aren’t actively encouraging their female employees to use this, I imagine it’s a much more common practice to do in places like Silicon Valley compared to here.
It’s the idea that employees may feel pressured to focus on work rather than family.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/apple-facebook-pay-female-employees-freeze-eggs/
“But the thing to remember is that companies like Apple and Facebook are simply opening up egg freezing as a possibility. While we wait for the incremental changes to happen that makes it easier for women to make choices in the world freely, it provides more choice. It’s not for everyone. But it’s for some.”
““There’s been an explosion,” in the number of women freezing their eggs for potential insemination later, says Dr Alan Copperman, director of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Mount Sinai hospital. The number of women opting for egg-freezing has risen fourfold in the last four years, he says. ”
http://time.com/3509930/company-paid-egg-freezing-will-be-the-great-equalizer/
“a 37-year-old marketing executive who worked at both Facebook and Google tells me. “I’m looking to control my career and choices around motherhood on my terms, and a company that would allow me to do so — and provide financial support for those choices — is one I’d willingly return to.””
By offering this service, it is implied that the company would prefer you wait as long as possible-late 30′s on before having children. It’s not a perk, it’s a threat.
First you would have to go through lots of meds and invasive procedures. Then an op to retrieve eggs to be frozen. Later on (when company says it’s ok?) you go for IVF. More meds and an op to implant embryo if you even get that far.
Freezing eggs is most common among women about to undergo intensive cancer treatment that might leave them unable to produce eggs in the future. Not because their boss thought it was a grand idea.
Having IVF is not fun and no guarantee you would even have a child at a later stage.
This is such a backward step for women in the workplace.
I completely agree Carly. IVF is no walk in the park…a very physically invasive procedure that, personally, we had to use as a last resort to have a child. What is rarely mentioned when talking about IVF is that the increased oestrogen injected into a woman’s body can fast forward breast cancer, if a woman is predisposed to the condition. IVF is an amazing medical development but not something to be taken lightly. Facebook etc should be looking at developing facilities & supports to working mothers, rather than ‘encouraging’/ pressuring to delay child rearing.
I can’t imagine it’s for all female employees either. I imagine most would be coporate full time staff with sufficient benefits and not just based on all female employees getting this treatment free.
Are they allowed smartphones?
I agree with Joan on something…I feel so dirty.
Hard boiled..
Yes Tim, or maybe even scrambled like her brain !!!
I hope to God they don’t freeze her eggs… They’d be manky at this stage anyway!!!
The Ultimate Postman, whatever you think of this woman or any woman that is a truly disgusting remark. Can you not express your views without indulging in overt misogynism or comments which criticise woman without reference to looks or fertility?
Sexism and ageism in one post. Wow.
Ahh dry your eyes!!!
Here’s a compromise. Could we get Apple or Facebook to freeze Joan Burton???
It’s really none of her business what I keep in my fridge.
Anyone got a Joanie phone ?
Maybe Joan could dream up a new tax for this. A frozen egg tax.
I don’t care what Joan thinks, I don’t care what anyone else thinks. Isn’t it supposed to be ‘my body, my choice’? #prochoice #noneofyourdamnbusiness
Her and her party are big fans of abortion and see where that got them in the elections
Every time Joan Burton opens her mouth the rest of us get a little stupider. Is there anyone that ISN’T sick of the woman at this point?
Why does everyone have to jump in with responses based on a very binary interpretation of that is on offer.
Nobody is saying “women must” do this if they work for these companies, nobody is saying it removes choice, it is a form of bullying etc.
Some women may decide they want to postpone having children and focus on establishing their career and for theses women this is something they may want to consider – it is a huge cost burden removed.
have your say