Paying someone to come along for the ride because they have a market of 10000 followers doesn't bring 10000 to the platform, it brings one.
We have nearly eight years of experience watching that approach become a flop.
Using the alternative/independent news and information scene as a pristine example: Several had massive followings on the outside and their work here had trouble generating 10 views. People paid them with large votes just for showing up, as they did nothing to encourage their market to support their content here.
For some strange reason nobody told them they could make the equivalent of several "whales" out of tens of thousands of people with smaller votes, all on their own. They would have had eyes on their product combined with a decentralized revenue stream that rewards both the followed and the followers for as long as they wanted it, if they were encouraged to do so, rather than being paid not to.
The only reason anyone has a following is because they place their content in front of consumers. The platforms they use have millions of content consumers readily available. The only way to uproot and move that crowd is to offer them a better deal. A better deal that's been sitting on the table here, for a very long time. A better deal that somehow remains invisible any time we talk about marketing and mass adoption. This drives me nuts. Makes me feel like I'm living inside a simulation and I'm the only one that knows what a consumer is... lol I joke.
It's clear that there has always been a total lack of guidance, support, direction and tools on Steem/Hive that empower established creators to onboard other people and also to be motivated to do so. Typically, the web 2 'influencers' are busy and - regardless of their public image - are often highly motivated by money.
I think that the right combination of education, improved tools/UX and support can change the situation you described, but it has to be a process that includes the full suite of changes - on their own they are not enough. The barriers to entry are baked in to Hive and I see their effects on the majority of people I try to onboard, which was also repeated by Lord Butterfly's experiences with onboarding for his music community.
The independent news and information groups mostly disbanded after the fork due to them perceiving the new whales wanted them gone through persistent downvoting. If they had no alternative sites then they may have stuck around, but they had other options.
Ultimately, social media is about eyeballs and engagement and cultivating that requires a mixture of factors to be present - most of them have been missing on Hive for a long time.
Steemit outperformed Hive sites for traffic afaik, partially because it had a better SEO profile and was therefore more visible to the masses. None of this is likely to improve without structured marketing strategy and implementation. That, in turn, requires experimentation, investment and research.
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.
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.
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!
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.