1000 new sign ups. Not one reaches 200 views yet combined 1000 people generate 200000 views and this is being called "not enough effort, try harder" and "thank you for your ad revenue." Signed, Mr Stakeholder.
Tough sell.
One thing I've never seen before is a paying consumer earning ad revenue. With something like this system LEO is attempting it's almost as if the consumer is the one in charge of handling where the ad revenue goes. Their votes AND their eyes count and they earn. How interesting.
Have you ever read my ramblings about the neglected consumer role here on Hive and these second layer options? Can't even watch a stream now without seeing that money flying around. Platform takes a cut, content creator gets their cut, consumer is out x dollars. Staking tokens and providing consumer perks like curation reward (earning for tipping) and now even ad revenue. Consumers love supporting content creators. It's billions of dollars annually. We have the systems in place (or in development) to provide consumers what they want to spend their money on, yet we sit around scratching our heads wondering where to get "investors" for our tokens. Those investors are called "consumers".
Since the role is neglected consistently, we now have a platform paying out ad revenue, but 200 views is next to "impossible". These things drive me crazy.
I promised myself I'd stop talking about it and even wrote a post where I "retired" from even thinking about it. Yet once again I'm seeing potential in that angle. We have products, perks, but no consumers. Everywhere else consumers outnumber content by a huge margin. Blah blah blah not sure why I even talking about it...
If you're able to see what I'm seeing, and find a way to make others see it, all the power to you.
I'd align with this comment but honestly the whole basis is
Which imo is not impossible at all, it just requires leg work
And this is exactly a way to reward consumers, if you are not a content creator and you do not want to bring in views, fine, power up some $leo and benefit from the lurking.
But not for free, have skin in the game, I've yet to see someone come up with a way to reward consumers just for being there, providing clicks, without any other type of interaction (is it even possible?).
I've been watching consumers be rewarded in this fashion for over seven years.
Buy some tokens, then vote. That's a consumer being rewarded with clicks. Adding more perks doesn't hurt. All these methods are sustainable since it involves outside money coming in.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way. It's called "curation reward" instead of consumer reward. The market was encouraged to automate the process and not even look at the content. And very few have been interested in bringing new money in the door. Sitting around waiting for crypto investors to fall from the sky while creating products meant for consumers to spend money on. That trend should have been kicked to the curb several years ago. Consumers are spending billions on content nowadays. A consumer can sign on, stake some tokens, and do all the things they do with their money, except this time the money isn't spent and their behavior is rewarding.
I've been a big proponent (and I think we're gonna change this) of not calling them curation rewards and stop talking about curation, and use the keyword support, supporters and supporter rewards.
Support this author and get a bit in return. Not back.
The issue with how we framed things since stinc is that you vote with 1 dollar and from those rewards you receive half instead of framing it as:
The author gets $10 from their content, and from that content they share half with their supporters - as in, the creator shares the rewards to support back those who support them.
It's the same thing, just framed differently, more viewed as in a shared reward economy between the creator and the supporters, instead of a transaction where voters allocate rewards to get some of them back if they have stake.
Ofc this is a paraphrased comment that I'm writing while doing other things, but you get the idea.
It's not the concept, it's how you sell it and how many people are willing to buy it.
We could create a supporter economy going instead of a creator economy.
Things since stinc revolve around creators, not consumers, and thus all the terms revolve around content creation, not consumption.
Spin the narrative so that things stay the same but are perceived differently, and we might get those consumers we've been talking about since forever.
Sounds like you've been reading my posts and ramblings over the years because this sounds a lot like how I think. They were all about "allocating inflation" back in the day claiming people don't pay out of pocket for content and didn't once stop to think the money going out could easily be replaced with money coming in from people actually interested in supporting content creators. Content creators could have been selling those perks to their supporters for several years now. Biggest names to ever show up didn't even mention it. They were smothered in votes, very few views, and didn't even think to create a revenue stream for themselves by selling those perks.
Have a look at all those streamers. Have a look at all that money flowing in from supporters who are actually present in that moment. There would be far more if it was shared with supporters. On other platforms the money is spent. On this platform, using reward pools as tools, the money is not spent. Money flowing in constantly like that combined with a crypto means you don't have hundreds of millions sitting on an exchange doing nothing. And for the life of me I can't figure out why others don't see this, even when it's explained one hundred different ways that all make sense. Staking tokens and voting; tipping that way. That's a really good deal. Can't find a better one.
Can see those words in some of my old posts. "I absolutely love sharing half with those kind enough to support my work."
That's all it takes. It really is that simple.