nope, thats their monetization strategy not their identity. a subtle difference.

Ok but the point is that it's not crazy to have a VP of product for the parts of the product that deliver the monetization strategy.

yes i would agree on that

Yeah? And Facebook isn't a social network either, it's an advertising brokerage? And Google isn't a search engine, it's an advertising brokerage? The Financial Times isn't a newspaper, it's an advertising brokerage? Spotify isn't music streaming, it's an advertising brokerage?

Didn't Facebook recently get called a "free content ad network"?

I think that term describes most of those companies well, as it incorporates their business model. They just vary in what kind of content or service they offer with their ads.

I dont think it's unfair to call a business what it is -- just like we do with farms or investment firms, though they greatly differ in how they go about that business model.

And they all have engineering teams dedicated to their ad technologies? With VP level leadership or higher?

Why are we making everything a question?

I'm keeping in theme with the parent comment? I'm glad you agree it's retarded?

And users aren't important, just their eye balls.

Financial Times and Spotify make money on subscriptions.

Actually Spotify lost $194m last year on subscriptions.