I mentioned that crowd as an example because there's a large market that failed to attract the large market, for eight years, not four. Still happening today. That content struggles to get views and the creators do nothing to bring viewers, to this day, and it'll be the same tomorrow.
News and information attracts a lot of attention. So does entertainment, like music. 8 years of attracting content creators combined with 0 interest in onboarding consumers is why Vibes is sitting there with a metric shit-ton of content but very little consumption happening locally. Same video goes up on X and look, thousands of views. Why? Because people.
It doesn't cost $10000 worth of research to figure this out and find the problem. I know he's having problems onboarding talent. Consumers outnumber instances of content by a huge margin every time so yes it'll be difficult to onboard tens of thousands of consumers and even more confusing for them if they want to become paying supporters.
Eight years of the same, obvious problem. And here we are still trying to figure this out? Still doing brainstorming sessions that sound like the same ones from years ago?
Pardon me, dude. This is frustrating for me. Partially frustrating because I spent years making getting views and engagement look easy here, so I know what can be accomplished. And if I had the advantage of having a larger market outside I could have done a lot more, quite easily, even under these "difficult" and "confusing" circumstances beyond my control. I'm sure of it.
They're still being censored here today. You neglected to recall that part, that they were driven away and their users too, by being flagged incessantly.
The point I'm trying to make is there's no interest in attracting consumers. Very simple and straightforward. I used that crowd as example because it was by far the biggest and most obvious flop.
I will agree with your above stated premise. I am simply adding that it isn't because most of us don't want growth, but that there are those that deliberately prevent it.
And I will point out failing to attract and maintain outside interest is an act of deliberate prevention as well. Right now there's a lot of news and information on the site with low views all around, everywhere I look, and no DVs in sight. That should be seen as an opportunity.
I know there have been struggles, all around. From my perspective I'd like to tip the scales in a more favorable position and that would require outside interest and money in the form of support, since that's currently not available but still a requirement. Applies to damn near everything here.
Your perspective from my view sounds like that of a defeatist, or it's a lost cause. I say don't give up. Stop chasing away that potential. You're scaring people... lol I joke.
If my issues here turned into productive solutions and realized potential, even that crowd could be back on track. Didn't use them as example to knock them down. In essence it's a system where we don't have to pay any attention to the things we don't like, yet they still can benefit us all indirectly. Plus utilizing content combined with this fancy support system we have with votes; consumers outnumbering content would only contribute to decentralizing this chain even further. All this is something I can't do myself and I have known that for far too long.
I completely agree. There are reasons we don't, and it's not incompetence or stupidity. That increase in value of Hive threatens the oligarchy, because Hive is a pure plutocracy, and there are stakeholders that could buy all of Hive with change between the cushions in their couch. Oligarchs are centralization. Decentralization is not a feature for them. It's the enemy of their personal stakes.
Boils down to basic math. If you attract 50 new content creators to the news and information scene but do not attract any new voters from the outside to support that work, they all struggle. And the 50 before them must share the available support with the 50 that came after. Now you got 100 earning less, and blaming everyone else but themselves.
It's not up to the people that don't enjoy that stuff to support it. It's up to the people creating it to get their own damn support. Simple. That's no different than any other platform. There's no conspiracy preventing anyone from doing that.
Damn. Like I said, it's frustrating. Why market Hive when you have thousands of content creators for example offering thousands of unique opportunities to attract interest in the platform through their offerings. Communities also offer unique opportunities and there are several. Games. Products and services. An endless and growing list of unique opportunities to attract interest, without even mentioning Hive. All that potential ignored because paying an influencer to smile and say Hive is supposed to somehow help? Or maybe spend some money on ads for people to skip and ignore? I don't get it. That's like trying to sell a house by pointing at it's foundation and explaining it.
We shed more than 1M accounts after 2017, not because there wasn't incentive to be here, but because there were larger incentives to not be here, in the form of flags. Markets are not infinite. Folks that came here and got driven away learned their lesson, and they found other places to be, and dragged their supporters with them. Some of them have pretty big audiences that will follow them where they go.
The original problem remains, even if you don't see it. RT is flagged mercilessly here. por500bolos is too (not an outside influencer, though), and I see it all the time. We could do everything right to onboard ppl, spend all sorts of money on it, but if they get flagged off, they're pissed off and not coming back.
That's the primary problem onboarding faces: user retention, and that's the reason Hive has the worst user retention in the industry: opinion flags.
Having tried numerous ways to bring 'consumers' to Hive/Steem from web 2 platforms, it is clear to me that a combination of factors make that way harder than it needs to be. One of them is the unnecessarily complicated onboarding systems that have been used through most of the timeline. Another is that people can easily view content on Hive without creating an account and if they want to comment then they can do that on the web 2 platforms that they already frequent with their peers.
This is why onboarding content creators is key, however, yes - they need to be invested themselves into growing Hive so as to drive new users here, rather than just using it as a secondary content repository. Again, this is why treating the bigger accounts with some respect is key and why nuking their accounts because their supporters didn't come along for the ride is not a good look.
One solution to this problem that has been popular along the way is to completely shift from onboarding content creators towards trying to get people to create businesses on the chain. However what seems more practical to me is to empower content creators to expand their 'brand' and presence in web 3 by supporting their growth instead of stunting it. An obvious way to do this is to create a crypto version of patreon/subscribestar, but to date I haven't seen that done yet
I may be out of place saying this, but I came here from Twitch as a smaller content creator that was extremely disillusioned with the whole ecosystem after becoming an Affiliate. Gaining subscribers and some of the benefits from the program were nice (like some of the Beta collaboration features added not long before I left and some of the third party tooling made possible through the Channel Points system) but, by locking myself into the agreement for that program, I found myself almost restricted by it. When I made the decision to leave both Twitch and it, it was not a smooth transition with quite a bit of backlash from my own community (which have mostly moved on now).
The point I’m making: moving here would not be an easy decision for any serious content creator to make, so I don’t think you necessarily need to appeal to the ones with larger followings, especially when they have sponsorship agreements involved with businesses. One solution could be marketing to the communities of the smaller content creators directly instead. By doing such, you make it less risky to move here from other platforms. How that would be implemented, I’m not fully sure as someone who came here with the intention of mostly starting over. I’ve been enjoying the communities I’ve been actively writing for since around New Years and recently opened and am figuring out how to run my own now to help build appeal for a niche I’m a part of.
Hi. As I pointed out numerous times in this conversation, the following doesn't come along with the content creator. They never bring their audience. Paying them to simply show up would be wasted money and we even have proof of that claim showing up in our history here.
As I said, the only way to move the actual audience is to give them a better deal.
This platform pays the audience several different ways. Those perks alone are enough to attract interest in moving the audience this way.
Mass adoption only happens when consumers outnumber something like content creators.
Unfortunately I've been bringing up these points for several years now and they're ignored every single time, as I sit and watch this place spin their tires, trying to figure out how to get out of the hole they dug by spinning their tires.
It'll just go on like this. The most attractive selling points targeting the largest mass of people (consumers) will all be ignored. And the content will continue to be created as very few actually take an interest in it. And very few will be able to figure out what's missing (consumers).
Content is created 24/7 nonstop all year, but it's never "sold" to paying supporters like you'd see everywhere else. All that potential is ignored as people favor waiting for bull run cycles to attract interest in the token, thinking that's the only way. It's absurd.
But all that could easily change.
I think we’re on the same wavelength just different wordings.
I’m saying that the communities are important. The creators don’t matter that much. Get their communities demanding they come here, then the creator gets forced to at least look into the ecosystem here or become left to dry by those communities. The smaller content creators are the ones that are in mass abundance, aren’t getting the better deal anywhere and more affected by shifts in viewers in the short term than more established names. Playing a bit dirty while looking great to the masses is sadly a part of succeeding in that sphere. What’s the better incentive for getting their audiences to leave them high and dry?
Thanks for your comment and belated welcome to Hive!
The process of transitioning anyone to Hive, whether it be a creator or an audience member, can be hugely improved and streamlined. This is slowly taking place, but one of the goals of @strategizer is to accelerate this process. The audience won't always be vocal about specific reasons why they won't come here, so that's extra reason for us to cover all the bases.
Twitch has a variety of features built-in that are designed to trigger dopamine addiction and to effectively pray on people's competitive conditioning. To me, Hive feels like a more adult space, which is perhaps not so stimulating to gamers at this point. There was previously a fairly slick gaming community on Steem, prior to the fork towards Hive, it would be great to see that kind of project re-emerge here. I'm sure it will in time.
In what ways did you feel restricted by Twitch?
Thanks!
My values and Twitch’s collided. I built my community and channel around what I perceived was what was needed to be successful at the cost of what I wanted to show the world and cultivate in my community. Just weeks before New Year’s, Twitch passed their simulcasting guidelines that were vague at best and downright offensive at worst to me.
I value:
the freedom to connect with others and connect them together without locking them into a singular platform they may not agree with; Twitch allowed streaming to other platforms but the experience must be taylored to Twitch audiences exclusively
the freedom to create content without fear of a random policy change taking my account down; prior to this new policy, Twitch had changed their policies multiple times throughout the year prior and not been transparent enough about their changes and actively seemed to use their policies as a way to manipulate a narrative of doing it for the best of all users. Their sexually explicit content policy debacle was very much a joke
the freedom to enrich the lives of others through giving them myself. The Twitch Affiliate Agreement is a contract in which forces one to implicitly show support of their policies
I see, ok, thanks for sharing that. I have previously worked on a system that combined Hive with Twitch and it seems like the simulcasting policy might have killed that! I can see why that would be a problem for you. Ultimately, most/all of the web 2 corporations have already moved towards such control of the users - or likely will in future. There is a pyramid system of control in the corporate world that has powermongers taking over other corporations for power gains and so an inevitable clampdown on their 'customers' continues indefinitely.
Decentralisation is the only bulletproof solution to this, so even though it may require more adaptation and imagination than web 2, the long term results should be far more palatable!
I never suggested nuking accounts as a consequence. Quite the opposite. I'm pointing out (or attempting to point out) how attracting paying supporters yields a higher chance of success. I'm aware the content can be viewed without an account but it cannot be supported without an account. I'm suggesting making it easier so it's common for people to reach outside for support like they would on any other platform. So I agree making the onboarding process run smoothly would be wise.
Yes, one could make a clone of Patreon but that doesn't make sense. The content creator could simply use Patreon and the supporter loses out on the benefits of staking and supporting with votes, then watching their support levels grow rather than throwing their money away. This method makes it incredibly affordable whereas the well dries up fairly quickly if someone is attempting to support many content creators using something like patreon or sporadic tips.
This approach can compete with something like Patreon, Twitch Bits and so on giving those methods a run for its money. I've always thought of it as being quite innovative and future friendly especially now since more and more people are paying content creators directly.
And sure one could also scale it up where their community as a whole seeks outside support. Strength in numbers. Not all content creators would succeed at gathering outside support on their own but together they stand a better chance. Those communities could be run like a business, that's for sure. If they don't seek outside support, each new content creator contributing to the community must share existing support with everyone else, making money harder and harder to earn as the community "grows" (it's actually stagnating as it becomes more popular without added support).
We're sitting on a novel concept here. I've always felt that way. Firmly believe after this many years it's time to embrace it.
Scaled up even further, there's enough variety on the platform in general someone simply browsing would want to support without even being asked, especially if they knew becoming a supporter allows them to earn as well. I don't see why these concepts are kept silent.