I quite like the idea of the audience having a say in the specific content that's produced, so I think we ought to keep that for those ACTs that want to get a feel for their audience. Of course, ACTs and show runners / blog schedulers are also free to do their own thing too if they like.
The big thing that's been nagging me is that it might be unrealistic for most backers to expect any significant amount of revenue, if any at all, after the content creators have been compensated for their work. I'm actually worried that might kill the model when the first few gigs don't live up to that financial expectation and backers get disillusioned.
I don't have any experience with selling advertising or sponsorships, and much less in the crypto scene, so I might be completely wrong about this. However, my feeling is that sponsors will be lining up behind the top few outfits that give them the best return (which does not necessarily mean the most valuable or relevant content), leaving the rest with the scraps. That's pretty much what happens anyway and kind of defeats our scope of encouraging diverse content and perspectives.
Are we doing well in deviating from the original idea that backers just tip content they would like to see produced (in a by the people for the people fashion)? I still think there is scope for reward for backers, though that shouldn't be the general expectation and maybe the financial motive will backfire.
Thoughts?
EDIT: The most successful blogs/shows will by definition eventually outgrow their need for backing, which means the financial return backing model is probably more suited for providing the initial investment to jumpstart a blog or a show. I see it working in this case.
The LTB Network Forum
LTBcoin Content Bounties - Proposal
Jump to bottomComments
-
Posted on April 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM
Last Edited: April 7, 2014 at 7:31 PM0 likes -
Posted on April 7, 2014 at 9:19 PM
"ACTS actually aren't responsible for long term engagement, that's the responsibility of show runners and blog schedulers. ACTS are responsible for creating short term engaging content that is validated by the audience to be picked up and included in a larger vehicle. It is the responsibility of the larger vehicle to create a cohesive narrative that delivers value as expected."
-------------
I guess I misunderstood what an ACT is. I considered an ACT to be a team of show runners and/or blog schedulers with a longer term outlook for producing a continuous stream of content. For example, I would assume that the LTB main podcast to be ACT 1, Bitcoins and Gravy ACT 2, Sex and Science is ACT 3, etc. If these aren't ACTs, what are examples of ACTs in terms of the current LTB network setup?
Semantics aside, I think it is one thing to come up with a good idea, it is quite another to produce an idea in a quality format. Ideas are really only as good as the people implementing (publishing content about) the idea. An audience member could have a great idea that everyone agrees with, but if the content producer does a poor job of delivering content about the idea, it not only turns the good idea into a bad idea, but wastes everyone's time and investment as a result. So to me people are going to be more willing to bet on the jockey (content producer) than the horse (the idea).
I mean if the idea is to produce a podcast about Ethereum, and I know that Adam will be the producer, he will get my vote and my backing because I trust his ability to do a good job of investigating that topic, but if I think the producer of the idea will be someone I don't know, or someone whose publishing style I don't like, I won't "back" that idea - even though it is the same idea, my vote depends on who is the producer, not the idea. So at least in my case I would be resistant on voting/backing an idea if I don't know who the producer is, or at least, which team (ACT, blog runner, show runner, etc). will do the production. It's like do you want to see the new Indiana Jones with Harrison Ford or with some no name from acting school? I love the idea of Indiana Jones 4, but not if it is starring the wrong cast. I don't know if this helps define what we are trying to achieve, just throwing out my perspective as an audience member, potential backer, potential contributor/producer... The strength of the network is really about attracting the best producers of content, after that the rest (the ideas for new content, the audience, the sponsors) should follow.
Last Edited: April 7, 2014 at 10:02 PM0 likes -
Posted on April 7, 2014 at 11:07 PM
"However, my feeling is that sponsors will be lining up behind the top few outfits that give them the best return (which does not necessarily mean the most valuable or relevant content), leaving the rest with the scraps. That's pretty much what happens anyway and kind of defeats our scope of encouraging diverse content and perspectives."
-------------
I agree with this statement. Most sponsors want frequency and continuity over time - most sponsors would rather back a well known and successful contributor over a 3 month time frame than run a single ad on one production by an unproven contributor. So you are probably correct that this mechanism will leave the rest of the ideas/contributors with scraps (ie, little to no backing, little to no tips, little to no sponsorships) - but I think this is a desirable outcome, not undesirable.
I think audience members want the market (or editors working to please the market) to cut away the low quality productions and emphasize the good stuff. I don't think we want to socialize the network and try to spread rewards around to everyone just for the sake of it. I think the top contributors deserve the lion's share of the rewards, and we should try to implement market based metrics/proofs to enforce that (eg. proof of tip, proof of publishing, audience votes, investor backing).
To get back to the point of this post, I think content bounties will work best if the ideas are associated with a particular contributor, ACT, blog runner, show runner, or whatever we want to call the people that produce the actual content. Audience members can shout out ideas, but until a proposed idea has been picked up by a contributor, the idea probably doesn't need to have an asset created to identify it. I'd like to hear more about the distinction between ACTs and blog runners, show runners, etc.0 likes -
Posted on April 8, 2014 at 9:34 AM
Mike, I think this is what you're looking for regarding the difference between ACTs and blog runners/show runners:Adam said:
ACTS actually aren't responsible for long term engagement, that's the responsibility of show runners and blog schedulers. ACTS are responsible for creating short term engaging content that is validated by the audience to be picked up and included in a larger vehicle. It is the responsibility of the larger vehicle to create a cohesive narrative that delivers value as expected.
So one can imagine a Coindesk style blog that has the mandate to cover timely breaking news and analysis issues. Individual contributors just have to focus on delivering the type of narrative that fits with the style, analytical and somewhat neutral. AP Style basically, focused on the WHO, WHERE and WHAT rather than the WHY or HOW. It is the responsibility of the blog scheduler(s) to incentivize and acquire the content to deliver value via their vehicle. A vehicle lacking content has no value.So, say you and I got together to start a show/blog. We'd be the blog schedulers/show runners doing the editorial/production/finding sponsors work, and sourcing our content from third parties (ACTs). Of course, you can get teams that want to do both the production and (part of?) the content creation, in which case they'll be both a show runner and an ACT.
0 likes -
Posted on April 8, 2014 at 10:20 AM
mmanvil74 said:
To get back to the point of this post, I think content bounties will work best if the ideas are associated with a particular contributor, ACT, blog runner, show runner, or whatever we want to call the people that produce the actual content. Audience members can shout out ideas, but until a proposed idea has been picked up by a contributor, the idea probably doesn't need to have an asset created to identify it.I agree with this, which would bring us back to having a voting/tipping system (rather than backing) at first, to make the best ideas rise to the top, at which point they get picked up by producers/creators. I also agree with the point Adam had made that votes don't cost anything, though at the same time I'm still not sure that it's a good idea to only let people with LTB have a say because that would discourage newcomers/occasional visitors from getting more involved.
Before we started tending towards a pure backing model, I was toying with some ideas that might solve Adam's concern by making voting actually cost some time/effort, and it was interesting to see a simple implementation of that in the "kudos" system on the new blog ( see: http://ltbcoin.com/ltbcoin-for-new-users ). I think we can improve on that, actually.
One of the things I was thinking of was that in order to upvote an idea, you would have to click a number of times (say 5) and that in order to discourage "me-too" votes as upvotes accumulate, you would gradually need to wait longer between clicks (or click more often) with some feedback that tells you when you can click again.
Applying that to the "kudos" implementation on the blog, every time you click, the circle would grow and then there's a delay (starting at say 1 second) until it gets darker or changes color which means you can click again. We would experiment with the delay to find the sweet spot between making votes take enough effort and discouraging voters.0 likes -
Posted on April 9, 2014 at 1:54 AM
These are all good ideas. But we will need to make some decisions before we move ahead.
How do we move ahead? Should we continue discussing here?
I think a conference might be useful for brainstorming together. Would you like to get on a Google Hangout sometime and discuss?0 likes -
Posted on April 18, 2014 at 8:48 PM
After stepping away from this for a week or so, I think we need to pare this back to an MVP and start there.
If the community uses the basic platform and likes it and starts clamoring for more features, then we've validated the idea and we can look at adding more features one at a time.
Test a feature -> measure response -> get feedback -> and start again.
This is the lean startup way and lends itself to building good software.
If we start with too much, I'm afraid it will not launch on time (if ever), and it will probably be the wrong thing. In my experience, when I try to guess what the customer wants, I'm usually surprised at how wrong I am.
So, what do you say? Can we come up with a lean, mean just-enough-to-be-useful plan to start?0 likes -
Posted on April 18, 2014 at 9:26 PM
I just ran across an instance where a content creator has done a mini-fundraiser in order for his content to be released for free to all (instead of charging people to view it, or subsidizing with ads, he solicits a minimum amount of donations). He did this the usual way via PayPal but apparently it worked.
The idea being if I raise x LTBcoin I will release x content for free to everyone. In this case, the content might be an idea that has yet to be produced, or it has already been produced, but either way it is up to the audience to fund the publication of the content by donating sufficient payment.
Even better would be if the early donors now "own" a % of that content based on their donation and share in the eventual tips it earns, and/or any LTBcoin it might earn through Proof Of Publishing. Really popular content might deliver a profit to the initial donors.
I know this goes back to the question of crowd funding on a content by content basis or ACT by ACT basis and the costs and admin involved with creating an asset for every piece of content. I think there must be a way to achieve the same goal without necessarily creating an asset in Counterparty for every instance.
I agree with @deweller it would be good to get some version of this idea off the ground, test it, measure feedback, and start again. Maybe we start by @deweller soliciting donations for x amount of BTC from the community to build such a tool - and maybe LTB could match/augment that amount of donations as part of the future LTBcoin distribution.
I know we are close to launch so maybe Adam is thinking to launch the coin first and then start building tools. Anyway, I am excited to see how this all plays out.
The Expo in Toronto was great by the way, thanks to all who contributed.
Last Edited: April 18, 2014 at 9:28 PM0 likes
Post Reply
Please Login to post a reply to this thread.