←back to thread

WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

(www.nytimes.com)
713 points greenburger | 1 comments | 16 Jun 25 13:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.437s | source
Show context
d3vmax ◴[17 Jun 25 06:18 UTC] No.44296182[source]▶
Alice Newton-Rex, head of product at WhatsApp: “Alongside of private messaging, people were saying they wanted to hear more about topics, teams and organizations across WhatsApp.”

- I am pretty sure NO ONE asked to hear about more topics and organizations across whatsapp.

replies(18): >>44296234 #>>44296318 #>>44296357 #>>44296745 #>>44296815 #>>44296987 #>>44297065 #>>44297198 #>>44297231 #>>44297394 #>>44297429 #>>44297694 #>>44297901 #>>44298313 #>>44298320 #>>44298336 #>>44298717 #>>44317586 #
_Algernon_ ◴[17 Jun 25 06:32 UTC] No.44296234[source]▶
Translation: After going through a far too large number of focus groups that didn't want it we finally found one that phrased a reply in such a way, that after removing context and playing Chinese whispers up the management chain, can be interpreted as them wanting ads.
replies(2): >>44297379 #>>44297781 #
TeMPOraL ◴[17 Jun 25 09:58 UTC] No.44297379[source]▶
Nah, it's even simpler than that: after shoving enough surveys in users' faces (as they seem to semi-regularly do across all Meta products; I've had at least 2 in WhatsApp alone over the past few months), they've collected enough misclicks and drunk responses to be able to interpret them as lots of people wanting ads.
replies(3): >>44297719 #>>44297998 #>>44298324 #
imiric ◴[17 Jun 25 12:29 UTC] No.44298324[source]▶
You think this decision was based on user feedback at all?

The simplest explanation is that they want more revenue, and WhatsApp users were an obvious source they weren't exploiting enough.

replies(1): >>44298836 #
1. TeMPOraL ◴[17 Jun 25 13:17 UTC] No.44298836[source]▶
Obviously, but Data Is King, so you need some to wipe and cover your ass even internally.