Kenngaroo
2021-03-17
need like n comments
Do Amazon ads bring in more cash than AWS?<blockquote>亚马逊广告带来的现金比AWS多吗？</blockquote>
免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP，发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
1
2
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":324348848,"tweetId":"324348848","gmtCreate":1615968956384,"gmtModify":1703495654129,"author":{"id":3575005933062903,"idStr":"3575005933062903","authorId":3575005933062903,"authorIdStr":"3575005933062903","name":"Kenngaroo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64f060389d919cadcc673831998e0fa2","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":1,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p> need like n comments</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p> need like n comments</p></body></html>","text":"need like n comments","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/324348848","repostId":1124634608,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1124634608","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615967232,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1124634608?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-17 15:47","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Do Amazon ads bring in more cash than AWS?<blockquote>亚马逊广告带来的现金比AWS多吗？</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1124634608","media":"Benedict Evans","summary":"There’s an old and common narrative around Amazon that it doesn’t make money, it sells below cost, i","content":"<p>There’s an old and common narrative around Amazon that it doesn’t make money, it sells below cost, it’s subsidised by investors and in particular it’s subsidised by AWS. People tend to repeat these to each other as though they’re unquestionable true, but they’re either debatable or objectively false - for example, Amazon hasn’t raised money directly from investors since the IPO in 1997, though it does pay people a lot of stock (Lina Khan made this mistake in her otherwise excellent paper on the challenges Amazon poses to competition theory).</p><p><blockquote>围绕亚马逊有一个古老而常见的说法，即它不赚钱，它以低于成本的价格出售，它得到投资者的补贴，尤其是AWS的补贴。人们倾向于互相重复这些，好像它们是毫无疑问的真实，但它们要么是有争议的，要么客观上是错误的——例如，亚马逊自1997年首次公开募股以来就没有直接从投资者那里筹集过资金，尽管它确实向人们支付了很多股票（莉娜·汗在她关于亚马逊对竞争理论构成的挑战的优秀论文中犯了这个错误）。</blockquote></p><p> AWS is particularly interesting, though, because it <i>is</i> true that AWS is highly profitable and generates a lot of cash that Amazon can use for other things, and that naturally leads to the policy argument that we should split it apart from the rest of Amazon, so that the retail business would have to run off its own cashflow.</p><p><blockquote>不过，AWS特别有趣，因为它<i>是</i>诚然，AWS利润丰厚，并产生大量现金，亚马逊可以将其用于其他事情，这自然会导致政策争论，即我们应该将其与亚马逊的其他部分分开，这样零售业务就必须运行它自己的现金流。</blockquote></p><p> You could certainly do that (though given that Amazon has less than 10% share of US retail, it might be hard to win the case), but you also need to understand that AWS is not the only highly profitable part of Amazon - it’s just the only part that the SEC makes Amazon break out. As I wrote here (back in 2014), Amazon is a bundle of lots of different businesses with different margins, and the net income line only shows you the aggregate. AWS operating income is broken out, but there are other things that aren’t.</p><p><blockquote>你当然可以这样做（尽管考虑到亚马逊在美国零售业的份额不到10%，可能很难胜诉），但你也需要明白，AWS并不是亚马逊唯一高利润的部分——这只是SEC让亚马逊爆发的唯一部分。正如我在这里写的（早在2014年），亚马逊是许多不同业务的集合体，利润率不同，净利润线只显示了总数。AWS营业收入是细分的，但还有其他事情没有。</blockquote></p><p> Amazon started disclosing AWS numbers five years ago, but in the last couple of years another big and highly profitable business has quietly emerged in the footnotes at the back of the 10k. Amazon’s ‘Other’ revenue line, which is ‘primarily’ advertising, was over $20bn in 2020.</p><p><blockquote>亚马逊五年前开始披露AWS的数据，但在过去几年里，另一项大型且高利润的业务悄然出现在10 k后面的脚注中。亚马逊的“其他”收入线（主要是广告）在2020年超过200亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/36b1ca305a41ec503202662c363a289c\" tg-width=\"1920\" tg-height=\"1080\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> How profitable is this? Amazon doesn’t tell us directly. Rather, it gives a divisional breakdown on two different bases:</p><p><blockquote>这有多赚钱？亚马逊没有直接告诉我们。相反，它在两个不同的基础上给出了部门细分：</blockquote></p><p> <ul> <li>Revenue and operating income for North America, International and AWS</p><p><blockquote><ul><li>北美、国际和AWS的收入和营业收入</li></ul></blockquote></p><p></li> <li>Revenue for online stores, physical stores, marketplace services, subscriptions (Prime), AWS and ‘other’, which is, again, ‘primarily’ the ad business.</p><p><blockquote><li>在线商店、实体店、市场服务、订阅(Prime)、AWS和“其他”的收入，这也是“主要”广告业务。</li></blockquote></p><p></li> </ul> So we know the profitability of AWS, but not advertising, and the ad business, along with everything else except AWS, is inside ‘North America’ and ‘International’.</p><p><blockquote>因此，我们知道AWS的盈利能力，但不知道广告，广告业务以及除AWS之外的所有业务都在“北美”和“国际”内部。</blockquote></p><p> However, we can make an informed guess. Google’s core business had 2020 operating margins before R&D and TAC (neither apply here) of 68%, and that’s for the whole company, including the data centres and Youtube. How much incremental cost on top of Amazon’s existing systems does Amazon need to sell and deliver advertising? And how much of that ‘other’ line is ads anyway?</p><p><blockquote>然而，我们可以做出明智的猜测。谷歌的核心业务在研发和TAC（此处均不适用）之前的2020年营业利润率为68%，这是针对整个公司的，包括数据中心和Youtube。在亚马逊现有系统的基础上，亚马逊销售和投放广告需要多少增量成本？“另一条”线到底有多少是广告？</blockquote></p><p> At the top end, if we assume that $20bn of Amazon’s $21.5bn ‘Ads and other’ was actually ads, and it matched Google’s operating margin, that would be $13.6bn of operating income, the same as AWS. It could also be, say, $5bn lower - which would be in line with all of Amazon North America. Either way, it’s big, and growing,</p><p><blockquote>在最高端，如果我们假设亚马逊215亿美元的“广告和其他”中有200亿美元实际上是广告，并且它与谷歌的营业利润率相匹配，那么营业收入将为136亿美元，与AWS相同。比如说，它也可能减少50亿美元——这将与整个亚马逊北美地区一致。不管怎样，它很大，而且还在增长，</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/23cd87fb38508f5ec748cf2d14ac0b61\" tg-width=\"1920\" tg-height=\"1080\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> To repeat - this is just an informed guess, and ads will of course change other things, such as directing purchasing to different products that might have higher or lower margins for Amazon. Meanwhile, operating income does not include capex, so it’s not a great way to compare an ad business with a datacenter business. Most of that AWS operating income goes straight out of the door on building more AWS, so a free cash-flow comparison would made ads look better than AWS. But whatever the real number, this is a big business.</p><p><blockquote>重复一遍——这只是一个有根据的猜测，广告当然会改变其他事情，比如将购买导向亚马逊利润率可能更高或更低的不同产品。同时，营业收入不包括资本支出，因此这不是将广告业务与数据中心业务进行比较的好方法。AWS的大部分营业收入直接用于构建更多AWS，因此自由现金流比较会让广告看起来比AWS更好。但无论真实数字是多少，这都是一笔大生意。</blockquote></p><p> There are a few interesting things to think about here. Amazon’s own ecommerce, which is, again, only 40% of actual sales on the site, increasingly looks like a low-margin anchor to support the marketplace, and now ads. This week the FT reported the EU is having trouble building a competition case against Amazon: its theory is that Amazon unfairly steers customers away from marketplace vendors towards its own products, but one of Amazon’s arguments is apparently that marketplace is more profitable, so its incentive is the opposite! Everything at Amazon has an angle - the biggest subsidy, going right back the beginning, is the negative working capital, whereby it can charge customer before paying suppliers. Its use of stock to pay people has some of the same character.</p><p><blockquote>这里有一些有趣的事情需要思考。亚马逊自己的电子商务也只占网站实际销售额的40%，越来越像是支撑市场的低利润支柱，现在是广告。英国《金融时报》本周报道称，欧盟在建立针对亚马逊的竞争案例方面遇到了困难：其理论是亚马逊不公平地将客户从市场供应商转向自己的产品，但亚马逊的论点之一显然是市场更有利可图，因此其动机是相反的！亚马逊的一切都有一个角度——最大的补贴，追溯到一开始，是负营运资本，它可以在向供应商付款之前向客户收费。它使用股票来支付人们也有一些相同的特征。</blockquote></p><p> A general point, though - Amazon is not the only retailer to have realised that the time we spend on its site makes it a media owner by accident. ASOS has hundreds of content producers, and a lot of big retailers are now thinking about online media and ad strategies. The more privacy and data rules we have, and the faster that cookies disappear, the more that content silos, large audiences and first party data matter in ads and ecommerce.</p><p><blockquote>不过，有一点是，亚马逊并不是唯一一家意识到我们在其网站上花费的时间意外地使其成为媒体所有者的零售商。ASOS拥有数百家内容制作者，许多大型零售商现在都在考虑在线媒体和广告策略。我们拥有的隐私和数据规则越多，cookies消失得越快，内容孤岛、大量受众和第一方数据在广告和电子商务中就越重要。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1615967223191","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Do Amazon ads bring in more cash than AWS?<blockquote>亚马逊广告带来的现金比AWS多吗？</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nDo Amazon ads bring in more cash than AWS?<blockquote>亚马逊广告带来的现金比AWS多吗？</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Benedict Evans</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-03-17 15:47</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>There’s an old and common narrative around Amazon that it doesn’t make money, it sells below cost, it’s subsidised by investors and in particular it’s subsidised by AWS. People tend to repeat these to each other as though they’re unquestionable true, but they’re either debatable or objectively false - for example, Amazon hasn’t raised money directly from investors since the IPO in 1997, though it does pay people a lot of stock (Lina Khan made this mistake in her otherwise excellent paper on the challenges Amazon poses to competition theory).</p><p><blockquote>围绕亚马逊有一个古老而常见的说法，即它不赚钱，它以低于成本的价格出售，它得到投资者的补贴，尤其是AWS的补贴。人们倾向于互相重复这些，好像它们是毫无疑问的真实，但它们要么是有争议的，要么客观上是错误的——例如，亚马逊自1997年首次公开募股以来就没有直接从投资者那里筹集过资金，尽管它确实向人们支付了很多股票（莉娜·汗在她关于亚马逊对竞争理论构成的挑战的优秀论文中犯了这个错误）。</blockquote></p><p> AWS is particularly interesting, though, because it <i>is</i> true that AWS is highly profitable and generates a lot of cash that Amazon can use for other things, and that naturally leads to the policy argument that we should split it apart from the rest of Amazon, so that the retail business would have to run off its own cashflow.</p><p><blockquote>不过，AWS特别有趣，因为它<i>是</i>诚然，AWS利润丰厚，并产生大量现金，亚马逊可以将其用于其他事情，这自然会导致政策争论，即我们应该将其与亚马逊的其他部分分开，这样零售业务就必须运行它自己的现金流。</blockquote></p><p> You could certainly do that (though given that Amazon has less than 10% share of US retail, it might be hard to win the case), but you also need to understand that AWS is not the only highly profitable part of Amazon - it’s just the only part that the SEC makes Amazon break out. As I wrote here (back in 2014), Amazon is a bundle of lots of different businesses with different margins, and the net income line only shows you the aggregate. AWS operating income is broken out, but there are other things that aren’t.</p><p><blockquote>你当然可以这样做（尽管考虑到亚马逊在美国零售业的份额不到10%，可能很难胜诉），但你也需要明白，AWS并不是亚马逊唯一高利润的部分——这只是SEC让亚马逊爆发的唯一部分。正如我在这里写的（早在2014年），亚马逊是许多不同业务的集合体，利润率不同，净利润线只显示了总数。AWS营业收入是细分的，但还有其他事情没有。</blockquote></p><p> Amazon started disclosing AWS numbers five years ago, but in the last couple of years another big and highly profitable business has quietly emerged in the footnotes at the back of the 10k. Amazon’s ‘Other’ revenue line, which is ‘primarily’ advertising, was over $20bn in 2020.</p><p><blockquote>亚马逊五年前开始披露AWS的数据，但在过去几年里，另一项大型且高利润的业务悄然出现在10 k后面的脚注中。亚马逊的“其他”收入线（主要是广告）在2020年超过200亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/36b1ca305a41ec503202662c363a289c\" tg-width=\"1920\" tg-height=\"1080\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> How profitable is this? Amazon doesn’t tell us directly. Rather, it gives a divisional breakdown on two different bases:</p><p><blockquote>这有多赚钱？亚马逊没有直接告诉我们。相反，它在两个不同的基础上给出了部门细分：</blockquote></p><p> <ul> <li>Revenue and operating income for North America, International and AWS</p><p><blockquote><ul><li>北美、国际和AWS的收入和营业收入</li></ul></blockquote></p><p></li> <li>Revenue for online stores, physical stores, marketplace services, subscriptions (Prime), AWS and ‘other’, which is, again, ‘primarily’ the ad business.</p><p><blockquote><li>在线商店、实体店、市场服务、订阅(Prime)、AWS和“其他”的收入，这也是“主要”广告业务。</li></blockquote></p><p></li> </ul> So we know the profitability of AWS, but not advertising, and the ad business, along with everything else except AWS, is inside ‘North America’ and ‘International’.</p><p><blockquote>因此，我们知道AWS的盈利能力，但不知道广告，广告业务以及除AWS之外的所有业务都在“北美”和“国际”内部。</blockquote></p><p> However, we can make an informed guess. Google’s core business had 2020 operating margins before R&D and TAC (neither apply here) of 68%, and that’s for the whole company, including the data centres and Youtube. How much incremental cost on top of Amazon’s existing systems does Amazon need to sell and deliver advertising? And how much of that ‘other’ line is ads anyway?</p><p><blockquote>然而，我们可以做出明智的猜测。谷歌的核心业务在研发和TAC（此处均不适用）之前的2020年营业利润率为68%，这是针对整个公司的，包括数据中心和Youtube。在亚马逊现有系统的基础上，亚马逊销售和投放广告需要多少增量成本？“另一条”线到底有多少是广告？</blockquote></p><p> At the top end, if we assume that $20bn of Amazon’s $21.5bn ‘Ads and other’ was actually ads, and it matched Google’s operating margin, that would be $13.6bn of operating income, the same as AWS. It could also be, say, $5bn lower - which would be in line with all of Amazon North America. Either way, it’s big, and growing,</p><p><blockquote>在最高端，如果我们假设亚马逊215亿美元的“广告和其他”中有200亿美元实际上是广告，并且它与谷歌的营业利润率相匹配，那么营业收入将为136亿美元，与AWS相同。比如说，它也可能减少50亿美元——这将与整个亚马逊北美地区一致。不管怎样，它很大，而且还在增长，</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/23cd87fb38508f5ec748cf2d14ac0b61\" tg-width=\"1920\" tg-height=\"1080\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> To repeat - this is just an informed guess, and ads will of course change other things, such as directing purchasing to different products that might have higher or lower margins for Amazon. Meanwhile, operating income does not include capex, so it’s not a great way to compare an ad business with a datacenter business. Most of that AWS operating income goes straight out of the door on building more AWS, so a free cash-flow comparison would made ads look better than AWS. But whatever the real number, this is a big business.</p><p><blockquote>重复一遍——这只是一个有根据的猜测，广告当然会改变其他事情，比如将购买导向亚马逊利润率可能更高或更低的不同产品。同时，营业收入不包括资本支出，因此这不是将广告业务与数据中心业务进行比较的好方法。AWS的大部分营业收入直接用于构建更多AWS，因此自由现金流比较会让广告看起来比AWS更好。但无论真实数字是多少，这都是一笔大生意。</blockquote></p><p> There are a few interesting things to think about here. Amazon’s own ecommerce, which is, again, only 40% of actual sales on the site, increasingly looks like a low-margin anchor to support the marketplace, and now ads. This week the FT reported the EU is having trouble building a competition case against Amazon: its theory is that Amazon unfairly steers customers away from marketplace vendors towards its own products, but one of Amazon’s arguments is apparently that marketplace is more profitable, so its incentive is the opposite! Everything at Amazon has an angle - the biggest subsidy, going right back the beginning, is the negative working capital, whereby it can charge customer before paying suppliers. Its use of stock to pay people has some of the same character.</p><p><blockquote>这里有一些有趣的事情需要思考。亚马逊自己的电子商务也只占网站实际销售额的40%，越来越像是支撑市场的低利润支柱，现在是广告。英国《金融时报》本周报道称，欧盟在建立针对亚马逊的竞争案例方面遇到了困难：其理论是亚马逊不公平地将客户从市场供应商转向自己的产品，但亚马逊的论点之一显然是市场更有利可图，因此其动机是相反的！亚马逊的一切都有一个角度——最大的补贴，追溯到一开始，是负营运资本，它可以在向供应商付款之前向客户收费。它使用股票来支付人们也有一些相同的特征。</blockquote></p><p> A general point, though - Amazon is not the only retailer to have realised that the time we spend on its site makes it a media owner by accident. ASOS has hundreds of content producers, and a lot of big retailers are now thinking about online media and ad strategies. The more privacy and data rules we have, and the faster that cookies disappear, the more that content silos, large audiences and first party data matter in ads and ecommerce.</p><p><blockquote>不过，有一点是，亚马逊并不是唯一一家意识到我们在其网站上花费的时间意外地使其成为媒体所有者的零售商。ASOS拥有数百家内容制作者，许多大型零售商现在都在考虑在线媒体和广告策略。我们拥有的隐私和数据规则越多，cookies消失得越快，内容孤岛、大量受众和第一方数据在广告和电子商务中就越重要。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/3/14/do-amazon-ads-bring-in-more-cash-than-aws\">Benedict Evans</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMZN":"亚马逊"},"source_url":"https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/3/14/do-amazon-ads-bring-in-more-cash-than-aws","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1124634608","content_text":"There’s an old and common narrative around Amazon that it doesn’t make money, it sells below cost, it’s subsidised by investors and in particular it’s subsidised by AWS. People tend to repeat these to each other as though they’re unquestionable true, but they’re either debatable or objectively false - for example, Amazon hasn’t raised money directly from investors since the IPO in 1997, though it does pay people a lot of stock (Lina Khan made this mistake in her otherwise excellent paper on the challenges Amazon poses to competition theory).\nAWS is particularly interesting, though, because it is true that AWS is highly profitable and generates a lot of cash that Amazon can use for other things, and that naturally leads to the policy argument that we should split it apart from the rest of Amazon, so that the retail business would have to run off its own cashflow.\nYou could certainly do that (though given that Amazon has less than 10% share of US retail, it might be hard to win the case), but you also need to understand that AWS is not the only highly profitable part of Amazon - it’s just the only part that the SEC makes Amazon break out. As I wrote here (back in 2014), Amazon is a bundle of lots of different businesses with different margins, and the net income line only shows you the aggregate. AWS operating income is broken out, but there are other things that aren’t.\nAmazon started disclosing AWS numbers five years ago, but in the last couple of years another big and highly profitable business has quietly emerged in the footnotes at the back of the 10k. Amazon’s ‘Other’ revenue line, which is ‘primarily’ advertising, was over $20bn in 2020.\n\nHow profitable is this? Amazon doesn’t tell us directly. Rather, it gives a divisional breakdown on two different bases:\n\nRevenue and operating income for North America, International and AWS\nRevenue for online stores, physical stores, marketplace services, subscriptions (Prime), AWS and ‘other’, which is, again, ‘primarily’ the ad business.\n\nSo we know the profitability of AWS, but not advertising, and the ad business, along with everything else except AWS, is inside ‘North America’ and ‘International’.\nHowever, we can make an informed guess. Google’s core business had 2020 operating margins before R&D and TAC (neither apply here) of 68%, and that’s for the whole company, including the data centres and Youtube. How much incremental cost on top of Amazon’s existing systems does Amazon need to sell and deliver advertising? And how much of that ‘other’ line is ads anyway?\nAt the top end, if we assume that $20bn of Amazon’s $21.5bn ‘Ads and other’ was actually ads, and it matched Google’s operating margin, that would be $13.6bn of operating income, the same as AWS. It could also be, say, $5bn lower - which would be in line with all of Amazon North America. Either way, it’s big, and growing,\n\nTo repeat - this is just an informed guess, and ads will of course change other things, such as directing purchasing to different products that might have higher or lower margins for Amazon. Meanwhile, operating income does not include capex, so it’s not a great way to compare an ad business with a datacenter business. Most of that AWS operating income goes straight out of the door on building more AWS, so a free cash-flow comparison would made ads look better than AWS. But whatever the real number, this is a big business.\nThere are a few interesting things to think about here. Amazon’s own ecommerce, which is, again, only 40% of actual sales on the site, increasingly looks like a low-margin anchor to support the marketplace, and now ads. This week the FT reported the EU is having trouble building a competition case against Amazon: its theory is that Amazon unfairly steers customers away from marketplace vendors towards its own products, but one of Amazon’s arguments is apparently that marketplace is more profitable, so its incentive is the opposite! Everything at Amazon has an angle - the biggest subsidy, going right back the beginning, is the negative working capital, whereby it can charge customer before paying suppliers. Its use of stock to pay people has some of the same character.\nA general point, though - Amazon is not the only retailer to have realised that the time we spend on its site makes it a media owner by accident. ASOS has hundreds of content producers, and a lot of big retailers are now thinking about online media and ad strategies. The more privacy and data rules we have, and the faster that cookies disappear, the more that content silos, large audiences and first party data matter in ads and ecommerce.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMZN":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":539,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":17,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/324348848"}
精彩评论