Connect with us

Business

Snapchat is nearing 1 billion monthly users. Why can’t it turn a profit?

Published

on

Snapchat is nearing 1 billion monthly users. Why can’t it turn a profit?

Snapchat, an app whose disappearing messages and silly face filters made chatting with loved ones more casual, is close to a milestone that few social media platforms achieve: reaching 1 billion monthly users.

But Snap, the Santa Monica company behind the app, faces a crucial test. The 14-year-old tech company is still losing money and has seen its share price tumble as it barrels forward to popularize augmented reality glasses next year.

And even though more people in developing countries are using the app, Snapchat usage in markets where the company makes more revenue per user, including the United States and Europe, has dropped.

Snapchat has 943 million monthly active users globally, according to the company.

Growth in India, where TikTok is banned, and Pakistan have fueled Snapchat’s global user growth, data from market intelligence firm Sensor Tower show. In India, Snapchat monthly users have surpassed 250 million, making up more than a quarter of its user base, according to numbers Snap released in July.

Advertisement

At the same time, in the third quarter, Snapchat monthly active users declined by 4% in the U.S. and double digits in France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom, Sensor Tower said.

Snap Chief Executive Evan Spiegel wrote in a September note to employees the company is in a “crucible moment,” comparing it to a “middle child” wedged between larger tech giants and smaller rivals.

“This moment isn’t just about survival,” Spiegel wrote in the note. “It’s about proving that a different way of building technology, one that deepens friendships and inspires creativity, can succeed in a world that often rewards the opposite.”

The 35-year-old tech executive co-founded Snapchat — initially known as Picaboo — in 2011 with friends as part of a class project while attending Stanford University. Back then, texts and photos posted on social media such as Facebook and Instagram were more permanent.

Snapchat’s logo is a ghost and the app distinguished itself from its competitors by giving people a way to share photos and messages that disappeared once someone viewed it. Instead of a social media app that opens to a feed of content, Snapchat opens to a camera.

Advertisement

Rather than worry about whether they looked perfect, people leaned into quirky and creative ways to express themselves. They overlaid effects onto their selfies, transforming their faces into cute dogs and even puking rainbows. The app encouraged people to keep sending these disappearing messages known as “Snaps” to their loved ones at least once a day, keeping what’s known as a “streak” alive.

As Snapchat’s popularity soared, fueling the rise of vertical videos, bigger social media rivals took notice. Snapchat’s co-founders turned down Facebook’s multibillion-dollar offer to buy the company.

Facebook and its photo-sharing app Instagram copied Snapchat’s signature features including Stories, which allowed people to post images and videos that vanish after 24 hours. This prompted some Snapchat users to flock to its rival Instagram. Spiegel jokingly titled himself as the vice president of product at Meta, Facebook’s parent company, on LinkedIn, a nod to the social media giant’s cloning of Snapchat’s features.

Although Snapchat set itself apart from other social media, it also faced similar concerns tech platforms grappled with such as child safety and mental health. The app is popular among teenagers, prompting some users to question if they’re too old for Snapchat and should leave.

Alex Sirek started using Snapchat as a teen to chat and make plans with her friends, filling the app with high school and college memories.

Advertisement

But as she grew up, she realized there were downsides to being on the app. She constantly opened Snapchat to check her face, which made her feel bad about her skin. When friends posted about partying or going out, she felt the fear of missing out.

Last year, looking to free up storage on her smartphone, Sirek deleted Snapchat.

After about a year, the 24-year-old San Diego fitness influencer downloaded Snapchat again but rarely uses the app.

“I kept wanting to open it, but now I just don’t even think about it,” she said. “I forget that I have it on my phone.”

Investor confidence in the company has plummeted. In 2021, Snap’s stock peaked at more than $83 per share. Snap’s share price closed Tuesday at $7.64.

Advertisement

Competing with larger rivals such as Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and TikTok, for ad dollars has been challenging for Snapchat and it has struggled to consistently turn a profit. Apple’s privacy feature made it tougher for advertisers to track users across apps and websites, posing an extra hurdle for social networks.

Research firm eMarketer estimates that in 2025 Snapchat will claim 2.1% of U.S. social network ad spending, but said that share is dropping.

Snapchat’s initial focus on disappearing messages made it tougher for the company to rope in advertisers because people typically don’t want to see ads in the middle of a private conversation. But the company has been updating its ad tools and expanded the places where ads are shown, including between short videos.

Although Snapchat is popular among Gen Z and millennials, its audience might limit what businesses want to advertise on its platform.

“It definitely skews a lot younger and that naturally sort of limits advertiser interests in its audience,” said Max Willens, a senior analyst at eMarketer. If a business wants to advertise retirement planning, for example, they would probably go to Facebook instead of Snapchat.

Advertisement

On Snapchat, advertisers have also used augmented reality effects to promote their brands in quirky ways to a young audience. Snapchat users can transform themselves into a dancing McDonald’s McRib sandwich or snap selfies with digital animals from the Disney film “Zootopia 2.”

Snap has been looking at other ways to make money. The company offers subscription plans so users can customize the app’s wallpaper, personalize their digital avatars known as Bitmojis and see how often their friends view their content. It started to limit the amount of free storage it offers to 5 gigabytes. AI company Perplexity said it will pay Snap $400 million over one year so users can find answers from its “AI-powered answer engine.”

In the third quarter, Snap revenue reached $1.5 billion, up 10% compared with the same period last year. The company narrowed its net loss to $104 million, versus a net loss of $153 million during the year-earlier period.

This month, JP Morgan analysts raised Snap’s price target to $8 after the Perplexity deal but kept an underweight rating on the shares, meaning they expect the stock to underperform.

The firm said Snap has “a sizable market opportunity, an engaged user base, and a solid track record of innovation” but it’s also looking for “more consistent execution, improved user & revenue trends, & greater profitability.”

Advertisement

Snap has made bold and expensive bets on the future of computing by releasing a drone and glasses to capture photos and videos — though those products flopped. Now Snap plans to release augmented reality glasses in 2026 that let people interact with digital images overlaid onto the physical world. Instead of taking out your phone, people will be able to review documents, stream movies, play chess and more through glasses.

For now, analysts say it’s too early to tell if Snap’s bets will pay off or the company will end up in the social media graveyard like Myspace or Vine.

“There’s nothing written down that says you just get to be around forever if you’re a social media platform,” Willens said. “Although almost all of those still kind of trudge along in some state or another.”

Advertisement

Business

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Published

on

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.

Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.

The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.

“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”

xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Its chatbot posted an apology.

“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”

The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.

Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.

“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.

Advertisement

Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.

In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.

In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.

Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.

The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.

Advertisement

xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.

Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.

The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.

xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.

However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

Published

on

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

John and Theresa Anderson meandered through the sprawling Ralph Lauren clothing store on Rodeo Drive, shopping for holiday gifts.

They emerged carrying boxy blue bags. John scored quarter-zip sweaters for himself and his father-in-law, and his wife splurged on a tweed jacket for Christmas Day.

“I’m going for quality over quantity this year,” said John, an apparel company executive and Palos Verdes Estates resident.

They strolled through the world-famous Beverly Hills shopping mecca, where there was little evidence of any big sales.

John Anderson holds his shopping bags from Ralph Lauren and Gucci at Rodeo Drive.

Advertisement

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

One mile away, shoppers at a Ralphs grocery store in West Hollywood were hunting for bargains. The chain’s website has been advertising discounts on a wide variety of products, including wine and wrapping paper.

Massi Gharibian was there looking for cream cheese and ways to save money.

“I’m buying less this year,” she said. “Everything is expensive.”

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

The tale of two Ralphs shows how Americans are experiencing radically different realities this holiday season. It represents the country’s K-shaped economy — the growing divide between those who are affluent and those trying to stretch their budgets.

Some Los Angeles residents are tightening their belts and prioritizing necessities such as groceries. Others are frequenting pricey stores such as Ralph Lauren, where doormen hand out hot chocolate and a cashmere-silk necktie sells for $250.

Advertisement
People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the K-shaped economy, high-income households sit on the upward arm of the “K,” benefiting from rising pay as well as the value of their stock and property holdings. At the same time, lower-income families occupy the downward stroke, squeezed by inflation and lackluster income gains.

The model captures the country’s contradictions. Growth looks healthy on paper, yet hiring has slowed and unemployment is edging higher. Investment is booming in artificial intelligence data centers, while factories cut jobs and home sales stall.

The divide is most visible in affordability. Inflation remains a far heavier burden for households lower on the income distribution, a frustration that has spilled into politics. Voters are angry about expensive rents, groceries and imported goods.

Advertisement

“People in lower incomes are becoming more and more conservative in their spending patterns, and people in the upper incomes are actually driving spending and spending more,” said Kevin Klowden, an executive director at the Milken Institute, an economic think tank.

“Inflationary pressures have been much higher on lower- and middle-income people, and that has been adding up,” he said.

According to a Bank of America report released this month, higher-income employees saw their after-tax wages grow 4% from last year, while lower-income groups saw a jump of just 1.4%. Higher-income households also increased their spending year over year by 2.6%, while lower-income groups increased spending by 0.6%.

The executives at the companies behind the two Ralphs say they are seeing the trend nationwide.

Ralph Lauren reported better-than-expected quarterly sales last month and raised its forecasts, while Kroger, the grocery giant that owns Ralphs and Food 4 Less, said it sometimes struggles to attract cash-strapped customers.

Advertisement

“We’re seeing a split across income groups,” interim Kroger Chief Executive Ron Sargent said on a company earnings call early this month. “Middle-income customers are feeling increased pressure. They’re making smaller, more frequent trips to manage budgets, and they’re cutting back on discretionary purchases.”

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Kroger lowered the top end of its full-year sales forecast after reporting mixed third-quarter earnings this month.

On a Ralph Lauren earnings call last month, CEO Patrice Louvet said its brand has benefited from targeting wealthy customers and avoiding discounts.

Advertisement

“Demand remains healthy, and our core consumer is resilient,” Louvet said, “especially as we continue … to shift our recruiting towards more full-price, less price-sensitive, higher-basket-size new customers.”

Investors have noticed the split as well.

The stock charts of the companies behind the two Ralphs also resemble a K. Shares of Ralph Lauren have jumped 37% in the last six months, while Kroger shares have fallen 13%.

To attract increasingly discerning consumers, Kroger has offered a precooked holiday meal for eight of turkey or ham, stuffing, green bean casserole, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, cranberry and gravy for about $11 a person.

“Stretch your holiday dollars!” said the company’s weekly newspaper advertisement.

Advertisement
Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the Ralph Lauren on Rodeo Drive, sunglasses and polo shirts were displayed without discounts. Twinkling lights adorned trees in the store’s entryway and employees offered shoppers free cookies for the holidays.

Ralph Lauren and other luxury stores are taking the opposite approach to retailers selling basics to the middle class.

They are boosting profits from sales of full-priced items. Stores that cater to high-end customers don’t offer promotions as frequently, Klowden of the Milken Institute said.

Advertisement

“When the luxury stores are having sales, that’s usually a larger structural symptom of how they’re doing,” he said. “They don’t need to be having sales right now.”

Jerry Nickelsburg, faculty director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said upper-income earners are less affected by inflation that has driven up the price of everyday goods, and are less likely to hunt for bargains.

“The low end of the income distribution is being squeezed by inflation and is consuming less,” he said. “The upper end of the income distribution has increasing wealth and increasing income, and so they are less affected, if affected at all.”

The Andersons on Rodeo Drive also picked up presents at Gucci and Dior.

“We’re spending around the same as last year,” John Anderson said.

Advertisement

At Ralphs, Beverly Grove resident Mel, who didn’t want to share her last name, said the grocery store needs to go further for its consumers.

“I am 100% trying to spend less this year,” she said.

Continue Reading

Business

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Published

on

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Instacart will stop using artificial intelligence to experiment with product pricing after a report showed that customers on the platform were paying different prices for the same items.

The report, published this month by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, found that Instacart sometimes offered as many as five different prices for the same item at the same store and on the same day.

In a blog post Monday, Instacart said it was ending the practice effective immediately.

“We understand that the tests we ran with a small number of retail partners that resulted in different prices for the same item at the same store missed the mark for some customers,” the company said. “At a time when families are working exceptionally hard to stretch every grocery dollar, those tests raised concerns.”

Shoppers purchasing the same items from the same store on the same day will now see identical prices, the blog post said.

Advertisement

Instacart’s retail partners will still set product prices and may charge different prices across stores.

The report, which followed more than 400 shoppers in four cities, found that the average difference between the highest and lowest prices for the same item was 13%. Some participants in the study saw prices that were 23% higher than those offered to other shoppers.

At a Safeway supermarket in Washington, D.C., a dozen Lucerne eggs sold for $3.99, $4.28, $4.59, $4.69 and $4.79 on Instacart, depending on the shopper, the study showed.

At a Safeway in Seattle, a box of 10 Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars sold for $19.43, $19.99 and $21.99 on Instacart.

The study found that an individual shopper on Instacart could theoretically spend up to $1,200 more on groceries in one year if they had to deal with the price differences observed in the pricing experiments.

Advertisement

The price experimentation was part of a program that Instacart advertised to retailers as a way to maximize revenue.

Instacart probably began adjusting prices in 2022, when the platform acquired the artificial intelligence company Eversight, whose software powers the experiments.

Instacart claimed that the Eversight experimentation would be negligible to consumers but could increase store revenue by up to 3%.

“Advances in AI enable experiments to be automatically designed, deployed, and evaluated, making it possible to rapidly test and analyze millions of price permutations across your physical and digital store network,” Instacart marketing materials said online.

The company said the price chranges were not dynamic pricing, the practice used by airlines and ride-hailing services to charge more when demand surges.
The price changes also were not based on shoppers’ personal information such as income, the company said.

Advertisement

“American grocery shoppers aren’t guinea pigs, and they should be able to expect a fair price when they’re shopping,” Lindsey Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, said in an interview this month.

Shares of Instacart fell 2% on Monday, closing at $45.02.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending