206 sats \ 13 replies \ @k00b 27 Jun 2022 \ on: I'm Oscar Merry and I'm building Fountain Podcasts. AMA. bitcoin
I found this tweet kind of interesting: https://twitter.com/nealkhosla/status/1540780350627930114.
Do you think we might be short-circuiting product market fit with our earning features?
I think there's definitely potential that these type of earnings features can fool us into thinking we have product market fit when we don't. There has to be a sustainable model in the long term. You also have to have to get the earning amount right so that people aren't only using the product for the earnings, but instead would use the product anyway but the earnings make it a better experience.
reply
In the case of Fountain I think that the "fool you into thinking you have P/M Fit" risk is somewhat lower, since podcasting is already accepted as a thing that has good P/M fit :-)
I think Merry is right in saying that there needs to be some other reason that you would use the product, and the Value4Value component makes it a better experience.
Perhaps one area of low hanging fruit here is to search for other products with proven go to market models that could be enhanced with Value4Value? Thinking about it now, that's kind of what SN did - I come here for Bitcoin news, and the V4V enhances the experience.
Finding existing proven products that could be enhanced with V4V certainly seems simpler than figuring out entirely new products where value4value is a core part of the value prop.
reply
Im inclined to think that positioning it as "donate-as-you-earn " podcast platform is a much more attractive proposition to existing community on such as The Giving blockchain. You non.profit accepting crypto and donors already giving crypto. .So perhaps positioning as Podcasting 2.0 for non profit niche. where the intent is to "listen to give" more than to earn. That's what I see from where I'm sitting in Botswana.
reply
in value4value you acquire the content freely, you don't get charged. Therefore, if you don't have a way to contribute monetarily to the show, you could find other ways to contribute.
Time, talent, and treasure--the three pillars of value4value. I imagine many podcasts would find interest in the perspective of someone from Botswana. Especially where you can contribute unique and local information people don't otherwise see.
Consuming v4v podcasts requires no payment by any listener, therefore I don't quite understand a need or utility in a "non-profit niche".
reply
I agree that V4V enhances products, but that doesn't change the fact that traction is being gained through more than just the merit of the product absent earning.
reply
I don't know that value4value enhances products, but it changes the business model in ways that allows creators to push their projects in directions otherwise impossible when relying on advertiser funding.
Self-censorship, native advertising, etc.
"traction" depends on many factors, merit only one not necessarily a dominant factor.
reply
Indeed. I need to think about this more.
For example it has become quite a big deal for me to be able to "boost" content that I like with something more concrete than just a like button (i.e. sats).
reply
It's also important to distinguish between v4v features and earning/airdrops/paying users. They are related for sure, but differ in an important way: for their earning features, both SN and Fountain are taking money we would otherwise keep/make and giving it back to users (for good reason but still). v4v IMO is a more "decentralized" thing, ie there isn't SN or Fountain as an intermediary.
IMO it's hard to say if even v4v, broadly as a category (including both SN and Fountain), has product-market-fit yet. I'd wager it doesn't.
reply
Continuing my thought from the previous comment earlier in this thread, but perhaps below this in your notifications feed, I want to address the idea of SN as v4v.
While I'm willing to accept some argument like, "Adam may have popularized v4v, but everyone can figure out for themselves what that business model means to them," any such conclusion should give serious consideration to how Adam Curry actually defines value4value, which he applies to his podcasts, not to other kinds of services. Not to do it justice, but v4v podcast requires the podcast not take ads, that they ask their audience to contribute what they valued their experience, and the podcast THANKS them for their contribution at some point in the show. I may have missed something, but I focus on these three. I mean that a podcast MUST have these three to fit within the paradigm of v4v, and missing any one of these three misses the mark.
Attempting to fit this paradigm around the context of this website, as I write this post, and look around the page to find where I could contribute, I don't immediately see anything. Not to say that you don't have some place where people can donate sats to the website, or that you don't have some place where you thank those who have contributed significantly, but you should likely have those things in an obvious link on every page of the site.
Please pardon my ranting on the subject in this thread, but I feel a deep passion for the idea of the v4v business model, and find it a worthwhile endeavor to apply it to other services. Good luck!
reply
Agreed @ it likely doesn't have fit as a category yet. Adoption still seems very niche. The business models are still also a bit opaque to me.
It's good to remind ourselves what the definition of v4v is: content is free, but users can send some value back to the creator if they so choose.
Is the writing between the lines here
if enough users end up sending value back to creators, that should enable new business models that don't rely on advertising ? Or is it something else? How do we define success criteria for the P/M Fit of v4v?In the words of the inventor of the term P/M Fit (Andy R): "What do you uniquely solve that people desperately want?"
We therefore need to define three things to answer the question "does v4v as a category have p/m fit":
1a. What problem does v4v solve?
1b. What makes the v4v solution to this problem unique?
2. Why do people desperately want the solution offered by v4v?
reply
You don't have to read between the lines, the first sentence says more than you probably realized.
"The Value for Value model was conceived by Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak."
They did this on their show, "No Agenda" which has run almost 15 years only on contributions from the audience. They make good money. They also put on a good show. It goes hand-in-hand.
Some people have the luxury to produce a podcast as a hobby, but a high quality product requires significant investment of time, talent, and treasure. Regarding product/market-fit, Podcasting 2.0 enables within the context of value4value data regarding when people boost. Of course in general, they can also tell you in the notes they write. "XYZ happened and I had to send you money."
I find it inappropriate attempting to define a p/m-fit for v4v as a model. Each podcast has it's own market-fit. v4v simply represents the methodology by which the podcast, if a commercial product, earns revenue.
reply
Thanks, very informative reply! I think you're spot on with
I find it inappropriate attempting to define a p/m-fit for v4v as a model.. I think I agree, I'm typically good at coming with potential p/m-fit for ideas but I think you're right - each podcast has its own p/m-fit. V4V is just an alternative way of "keeping the lights on", so to speak.reply
You raise so many interesting points, and bring up in my mind te potential for Stacker.news to encourage some high quality, regular content based on the v4v model, but for the time being it seems mostly reddit-like with sats instead of votes, which I much prefer.
reply