Who makes money from Facebook instant / Google AMP?

In an effort to keep users in their content, the big guys like Google & Facebook pull Publisher content into their own servers for quick loading. For example, when a Facebook user clicks a Huffington Post article, chances are they’re staying within Facebook’s app & viewing the content cached on Facebook’s servers.

My question is, in the aformentioned example, who gets the credit? Facebook or Huffington Post? The answer would IDEALLY be HuffPo, as they’re the ones providing the content. Facebook has cached it as a way to speed up the load, improve the experience, and keep users in Facebook, but they shouldn’t be given the credit for the content they pull in from other sites.

1 Like

This gets murky, but here’s how it works with FB Instant and AMP pages:

For FB Instant, the publisher introduces their ad tags into the FB platform. The FB platform also imports content from the publisher as you mentioned.

FB gets to expand their walled garden, and Intel from the data within it. That is of high value to FB. FB also gets to keep users in their platform this way.

With AMP, it is similar in a lot of ways. The pub makes amp ad tags and an amp template for content.

Google caches and hosts amp pages on their servers, and gives search carousel placement advantages to pub content that uses amp.

Google leverages data Intel from the pages they cache, which is of value since it applies for content on non amp pages that Google serves ads to. This becomes extremely valuable for Google.

For publishers, it’s a short term benefit of extending their reach into these platforms, but longer term it hurts because the ads that run on FB Instant and AMP pay less than those that run direct to the publisher domain.

FB and Google ultimately benefit from having the content cached from the publisher on their servers, and can use the content within their platforms for new features, etc.

Ads pay to the publisher in both instances.

In the case of Brave Payments, it would apply differently since the publishers are feeding content from their domain to Facebook and Google domains. I am not totally sure if you were asking in regard to whether the Brave Payments would carry over into the FB/AMP platforms, but wanted to mention in case that was what you were curious about.

I hope this helps​ clarify. I used to do a lot of work with pubs and FB/AMP, so this isn’t the official word from either platform, but it is based on the work performed last year with both systems (both platforms have documentation if you want to check into the latest info).

1 Like

I’m specifically asking whether, in those cases, Brave payments go to FB/Google or the original publisher.

1 Like

@ggritmon thanks.

In FB Instant Articles, the content is served into the FB app, and wouldn’t fall under the verified Brave Payments.

AMP pages were originally mobile-only, but I recall Google indicating that eventually they would be in desktop as well. For mobile, they wouldn’t fall under Brave Payments, as the Payments panel is a desktop only feature at the moment.

I am going to run a test to see how AMP pages would be classified under desktop, and will follow up.

1 Like

I ran some tests, and am able to confirm the following:

  • AMP is only currently used for mobile browsing, so they wouldn’t qualify for Brave Payments.

  • As noted FB Instant Articles would not apply, as the content served to Facebook Instant Articles is served within the Facebook mobile app, which operates outside of the scope of the Brave browser.


1 Like