Instragram Loses 25% Of All Users In Aftermath Of Rule Change Fiasco

Tyler Durden's picture

It seems between photos of the family Zuckerberg brunching Christmas Day and the revolt against the rules change, Instagram has been slapped with an exodus of users. As NY Post reports, Instagram, which peaked at 16.4mm users the week it rolled out the policy change, had fallen to 12.4mm users as of yesterday - a massive 25% plunge. The terms of service change which enabled the selling of user's photos 'without any compensation' seems to have perturbed more than a few tweens (including Justin Bieber and one of the Kardashians). How quickly the worm turns as these 'fad' sites come and go; from its busiest 24 hours over Thansgiving to a 25% plunge by Christmas - and all this as Twitter steps up its competition. We are sure that Facebook was priced for this decline though and will monetize the mobile exodus.


Via NY Post:

Instagram users outraged over new rules made good on their threat to dump the popular photo-sharing app.


The app, which Facebook acquired for $1 billion earlier this year, may have shed nearly a quarter of its daily active users in the wake of the debacle, according to figures from AppData.


“[We are] pretty sure the decline in Instagram users was due to the terms of service announcement” on Dec. 17, AppData told The Post.


Instagram, which peaked at 16.4 million active daily users the week it rolled out its policy change, had fallen to 12.4 million as of yesterday, according to the data.


Last week, Instagram changed its terms of service to pave the way for advertising.


The new language would have allowed the company to sell user photos for advertising and promotions “without any compensation to you.”


The move sparked threats of a mass exodus, with celebrities including Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber expressing outrage.


Just about the time the hashtag #boycottinstagram popped up on Twitter, Kevin Systrom, the CEO and co-founder, chalked it up to a big misunderstanding and insisted the company had no intention of selling users’ photos. Instagram has reverted to its old policy.


The damage, however, was done. While Instagram hasn’t said whether any of its 100 million subscribers deleted their accounts, the AppData figures show a steep drop in daily active usage.


It’s quite a comedown for the 2-year-old service, which bragged that it had its busiest 24 hours to date over Thanksgiving. That’s when users shared some 10 million photos — mostly of food.


There was no such announcement about Christmas, and yesterday Instagram declined to comment or provide any data for that day.


According to AppData, Instagram counted 14.5 million active users on Thanksgiving. By Christmas, that number had fallen to 12.5 million.


Instagram is still the second-most popular app and its monthly active users were rising, according to AppData.


(AppData isn’t able to measure every user of a particular app such as Instagram, but its numbers reflect trends in usage.)


Still, any hiccup in growth and daily activity could be detrimental as Instagram’s competition with services such as Twitter heats up.


Bieber withdrew his threat to leave, but as of yesterday Kardashian, the most followed user, hadn’t posted a picture of herself since the privacy flap.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dr Benway's picture

Trust is like a skyscraper: takes long to build, quickly to destroy

GetZeeGold's picture



And thus Instragram Classic was born. I'll have a Coke.....the old kind.

Winston Smith 2009's picture

"Randi and Mark using the sexting app called "Poke" with friends"

Awfully convenient that the "leaked" photo is of a new Faceplant sex app, no?  All kinds of free advertising because it was "leaked" against their will.  Right...

Silver Bully's picture

"And thus Instragram Classic was born. I'll have a Coke.....the old kind."

I remember it like it was yesterday . . . oh wait, it WAS yesterday. Is the next Big Thing (tm) happening in 15 minutes? It is? Crap, now I'll have to play Angry Birds 15 on my iPad-Mini 4S glasses, over and over!


RafterManFMJ's picture

Trust is like a skyscraper: takes long to build, quickly to destroy


Man you 9/11 nutjobs just work your way into every thread, don't you? :)))

NewAmericaNow's picture

Speaking of Skyskrapers, why didn't we ban box cutters and boxes that hold more than ten blades at a time with prompt legislative action? We must keep Americans safe.

zerozulu's picture

Trust is like building 7. Comes down when some where else is the problem.

Super Broccoli's picture

yeah i'll get myself out of FB as  well !

Dr Benway's picture

Not many here, apparently, since the name Instagram is misspelled in the very headline and noone here noticed. Good for ZH!

Sokhmate's picture

I scrolled up to confirm your observation. Instant +1

Edit: Instrant +1

CH1's picture

Who the fuck cares?

Well, at least someone is doing something is response to their privacy being shredded.

Better this - even if incremental and temporary - than the usual low bleating.

BlueCollaredOne's picture

You have way too much faith in society.  I don't think it has anything to do with "privacy," because if people were worried about privacy they wouldn't be posting their images in the first place.  

I would argue that the majority of instagram users are aged 12-24 and don't exactly read the news. Beiber and Kardashian tweeted negatively about it, so their flock responded accordingly.  Beiber has 32 million followers, while kardashian has 17 million so a small percentage of that 50 million stopped using instagram for a week. Let's not pretend society is having any kind of awakening to the tightening grip of the Media Information Complex.  

Dr. No's picture

And let be clear, the only reason Bieber and Kardashian were negative was due to the fact they were not compensated.  Privacy had no part in this.

Agent P's picture

Could also be as simple as the short attention span user has moved on.  The article speaks of 100 million subscribers, but focuses on current active users falling from 16.4 million to 12.4 million...what about the fall off from 100 to 16?  I sense a trend.

Drachma's picture

"While Instagram hasn’t said whether any of its 100 million subscribers deleted their accounts..."

Press delete button all you want. All your accounts belong to FaceRecognition.

gmrpeabody's picture

Social Networking Biatchez......

A Man without Qualities's picture

Facebook's loss is Twitter's gain.

CPL's picture

If you believe that, invest all of your money and take loans out on your home.  Sharespost is offering them...well dumping them is a better word.


FB, Twitter, Instagram, shithole California companies out of the same incubator mother.  Same assholes that brought


A Man without Qualities's picture

You misunderstand my point.  Instagram decided to stop allowing users to post directly on Twitter, and users dropped Instagram not Twitter.  My point is, people are switching from FB to Twitter because of the tactics FB are using to monetize the user base.  

It's the fatal flaw in the entire business model and why I wouldn't invest in either of them.

Element's picture

LOL Fickle lot, tough crowd ... no photos of buttheads ... man that's harsh

Lets_Eat_Ben's picture

"Kill yourself. This isn't a're satan's little helper. You're fucked and you're fucking us. Kill yourself." - Bill Hicks

CPL's picture

I love how this is being spun in MSM right now.  They are discussing app capabilities instead of the blindingly obvious big brother bullshit they and facebook have foisted on their clients...


Cloud computing is now dead again.  Make plans on it and hedge accordingly.  And shame on anyone falling for the too often repeated IT investment scam of investing in vapourware.

williambanzai7's picture

Thanks to our esteemed Congress and the NDAA, whatever privacy rights you thought you had in the cloud, are an illusion.

Moreover, why would you store your content with a free cloud service that can revoke your privileges without a hint of due process.

Element's picture

Cloud ... phft ... I was uploading files to email hosts and geocities like three centuries ago ...

CPL's picture

I miss Geocities.  If there ever was a larger container of crazy on the internet that would have been it.  


On a side note the archives are being slowly taken offline.

Element's picture

That's a pity to hear, there was some real good wacky in there, loved it in the day.

exi1ed0ne's picture

Cloud computing is great, until it goes down.  Just like outsourcing - looks good on paper, but cost savings get eaten quick when shit goes sideways.

Dr. No's picture

Cloud computing is great

huh?  Granted my level of paranoia is higher than the average member of SPECTRE, but I wouldnt store anything on cloud; especially free cloud.  All of the privacy stuff aside, once they have your stuff, its only a small step to "convert to a proprietary format, you know, for your protection.  And here is a lifetime membership card sucker..".

williambanzai7's picture

Flickr is offering 3 Months of Pro Account service for free as an enticement.

Unlike Instabullshit, Flickr respects the intellectual property rights of its users and has no designs on using their content for Social Ads.

BlueCollaredOne's picture

You represent the .0001% of people who actually use these types of services for what should be its intended purpose (actually sharing art).  

I will never understand what drives people to want to share everything about their lives whether it be through facebook, twitter, instagram, etc.  Sometime's I wonder if social media has made people vacuous, and given them this drive where they want to masturbate on stage for all to see, or if people have always naturally been this way but now are finally given an outlet.

Being 28, all my friends/girlfriend use these apps and they say I'm weird for not.  I just can't wrap my head around the desire to show people what Im eating or how my dog looks when sleeping. 

Ralph Spoilsport's picture

A lot of pressure gets put on older people to use FaceBook because their kids and grandkids are addicted to it. If it's the only way to stay in touch with them because they won't bother to make a phone call, many give in to the extortion. I called BS on MySpace and FaceBook years ago and stuck to it. I actually got a few phone calls Christmas Eve from relatives. Shocked the hell out of me.

Dr. No's picture

My mom fell for that.  I will say paranoia does not fall far from the tree.  About 3 days after she opened an account, she canceled it since she was tired "of all that spam crap from people I dont even know".

Dr. No's picture

I have a unique alias (my original one give to me by my parents).  There is a FB user out there who has the same name.  I get a giggle thinking people are sending that guy FB requests thinking it is me.  The flip side of course when TPTB knock on my door, it will be for things this guy is doing.

Karlus's picture

Well, the first obvious thing is you dont get it because you are not a teenage girl or young woman. Their whole business model is built around "social proof."

Sharing photos and talking about themselves and where other fit in their hierarchy is what tey are all about.

Look at retailers that exploit that social proof (Yes, ANF I'm looking at you) and you will see what I mean.

Dr Benway's picture

But aren't the ZH comment threads also a form of social media?

blunderdog's picture're just being paranoid...


williambanzai7's picture

I don't mind that so many others use these services for seemingly inane purposes. Photo sharing is actually more engaging than sitting around watching TV when you get right down to it. It is two way communication.

What concerns me is the way these giant social media players are displacing other traditional channels of content sharing and distribution, yet they obviously consider themselves exempt from well worn principles of free speech, privacy and fair use.

They cannot just say if you don't like it go somewhere else.

That's not good enough.

You can't deny access to so called "fringe groups" and allow mainstream political groups to remain ensconced. That is not the level playing field of ideas envisioned by the First Amendment.

At some point, Facebook becomes a quasi-public space like Zucotti Park and they cannot just arbitrarily deny access to users without some form of due process.

blunderdog's picture

     At some point, Facebook becomes a quasi-public space like Zucotti Park and they cannot just arbitrarily deny access to users without some form of due process.

Nope, it's a private business, they can do whatever they like with their hardware and their policies, that's what help makes the USA a FASCIST country rather than a SOCIALIST country. 

Nothing someone owns need ever be public.  Property rights uber alles.

forexskin's picture

a free press as a principle is no one's property

censorship in complicity with government power is not 'business freedom'

maybe you like that most MSM in this country is owned by six media conglomerates. just how is that, in principle, better than the politbureau?

mixing your metaphors again blundermutt

blunderdog's picture

Weak attempt, dickhead.

Facebook *is* the free press in the sense that the government doesn't pass laws that control its policy.

I don't *like* the fact that the media is owned by 6 companies, but it's a natural result of our interpretation of "capitalism" in the USA.  Big businesses swallow up smaller ones. 

Do you have any kind of coherent idea you'd like to express?  Or are you a Marxist, and you think the oligarchy of government is fundamentally indistinguishable from the oligarchy of private industrialists?

forexskin's picture

Or are you a Marxist,

your answer to any challenge to your weak thin skinned thinking...

and you think the oligarchy of government is fundamentally indistinguishable from the oligarchy of private industrialists?


there used to be well tested rules against media concentration, that have been tossed aside by the govt / corp oligarchy. when first principles, such as freedom to do as one pleases so long as no one else's equivalent freedom is infringed, are lost in what appears to be an ancillary argument (1st amendment vs. media monopolization), the foundations that enact those principles crumble. defense of the principles of liberty is one of the few rightful tasks of a just govt, and a private property argument against that particular task is secondary, and a fail.

I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.
-Thomas Jefferson

learn some history, blundermutt.

blunderdog's picture

Yep, you are a Marxist.  Nice to see you around here.

Indeed, we must ALL be vigilant against illegitimate authority structures of all kinds, which certainly includes the corporate organizations which draft most modern legislation, but I'm curious why you're calling me names in THIS discussion.

I think we're largely in agreement here.


forexskin's picture

so we can agree to agree that you substitute platitudes and name calling for nuanced discussion.

and to your earlier point, private property does not trump all when it results in a permanant tilt of the playing field toward totalitarianism - which is part of the nuance reflected in the Constitution that your black and white blatherings seem to miss.

i've made my point at least twice now, and you've decided to miss it and resort to names.

try easing off the hair trigger, you're just hurting youself, blundermutt.

blunderdog's picture

MY namecalling?  I only started calling you dickhead 'cause you called me blundermutt.  It's just a play on your acct-name.  Penis humor's always good for a laugh.

(Anyone out there who might try to translate this guy for me?  I'm kinda curious what he's talking about, but he obviously can't express himself in English.)


forexskin's picture

there you go again - its called ad hominem for the english challenged.

Penis humor's always good for a laugh.

i checked with my six year old boy, and yup, you're right. glad you like it anyway.

i really don't know what to say about your substance challenged-ness.

aw f**k it - happy new year. wish i could join you for the party in your mom's basement... otherwise known as 'your place' ;)

blunderdog's picture

You're not a nmewn sock-puppet, are you?

Seriously, though, I'd be happy to hear you explain what you're talking about, as I really don't understand your point AT ALL.

Try to decide what I wrote that you disagree with in the FIRST POST, and then try to present simple declarative sentences about what's "wrong."

I pointed out that "Facebook" is not a "public" space--it's a privately owned corporation, and thus they can do what they like with their policies and their servers.

You then started calling me names and made some obscure reference to a free press.

Can you clear this up?  Or would you rather stick with the namecalling because you just can't put a simple thought into written text?

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"capitalism"? Is this /sarc ?

Every merger is controlled, approved or disapproved, by government. That’s anti-capitalist. The good ones are rejected to enforce the fascist regime of propaganda.

Also, Facebook like any company must obey laws about information dissemination for  trade-secrets, for copyrights, threats, etc.

Try again?

However, I will take issue against copyright, so I’m not sure if that sits well with you and/or williambanzai (probably not). I think it's anti-freemarket terrorism issued by the government-gun for special interests and we're better off with none.